The Next US Assault Rifle

[TaiidanTomcat]

57 minutes ago, ChesshireCat said:

it's most obvious that you've never carried a heavy combat load thru the bush. Ain't fun! The FAL and the M14 are great rifles, but for most folks are a second and third shot pain. Ammo weighs a ton, and takes up a lot of space. Considering the well known fact that the vast majority of KIA's come in under 100 yards; there's little to be gained. Three hits from an M16 is equal to two hits from the 7.62 seven days a week. Never been a fan of 22 caliber combat, but have seen the results of 7.62 combat as well. The answer is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps 7mm or even 6.5mm. A .250 Savage with 100 grain bullets would be perfect. Legit 350 yard ballistics, and probably 50% harder hit at 300 yards. The other serious issue is the rapid second and third shot (one shot KIA's are not all that common). Pretty slow, and your getting four rounds down range with an M16. One hit, and he's toast. 

     Remember on the battlefield 85% of KIA's are from arty. 10% are from air strikes. Guess who gets the next four percent? Disease and accidents get about one percent. Maybe the Germans had the right idea with bolt action rifles or even semi autos! Makes you shot a lot better, as round one better count!

gary

 

 

 

When grunts call out other grunts for not being grunts

[11bee]

6 hours ago, ChesshireCat said:

it's most obvious that you've never carried a heavy combat load thru the bush.

gary

100% correct.  That stuff looks heavy.   I always threw most of my ammo, protective mask, bayonet, NVG's, etc in the shrubs before moving out.  Travel light Gary, that's the 11Bee way.

 

As far as your other comments on my post, please keep in mind that half of what I was posting was tongue in cheek.   I've gotten in trouble for T and C posts before, for some reason my awesome sense of humor doesn't seem to work well on the internet.  I need to reflect on this.  Please don't take it literally. 

 

The other half of my post was just referencing a news blurb about the Army mulling over going with a larger caliber round.  It wasn't my idea so don't shoot the messenger Gary!   For whatever it's worth, I think that was a passing fad anyway (until the Army changes their mind for the 50th time).    

 

I will say that the "one hit with the M16 and you're toast" may not be applicable quite as much these days.   For two reasons - many of the engagements in Afghanistan are longer range than in Iraq or previous conflicts and at those distances, the current round lacks stopping power.  The other issue is that some bad guys are now equipped with Russian / Chinese body armor that can stop the 5.56 round.   Maybe you're right, an intermediate round between the two current ones might be the way to go.  I'm sure the Army will quickly come up with a solution and get it out the grunts shortly thereafter. 

 

Oh, and TT wins the prize for the funniest pic posted on ARC in the last few months.  

Edited February 14, 2018 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

36 minutes ago, 11bee said:

 

Oh, and TT wins the prize for the funniest pic posted on ARC in the last few months.  

 

 

Thanks lol

 

In a perfect world they would start from scratch and look at everything, really hone what works and test it. If the optimal round is something different that 5.56 or 7.62 you go with that.

 

We all know the qualities we want in a battle rifle. The problem is anything different is expensive, requires new training, new logistic trains etc. 

 

[ChesshireCat]

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

100% correct.  That stuff looks heavy.   I always threw most of my ammo, protective mask, bayonet, NVG's, etc in the shrubs before moving out.  Travel light Gary, that's the 11Bee way.

 

As far as your other comments on my post, please keep in mind that half of what I was posting was tongue in cheek.   I've gotten in trouble for T and C posts before, for some reason my awesome sense of humor doesn't seem to work well on the internet.  I need to reflect on this.  Please don't take it literally. 

 

The other half of my post was just referencing a news blurb about the Army mulling over going with a larger caliber round.  It wasn't my idea so don't shoot the messenger Gary!   For whatever it's worth, I think that was a passing fad anyway (until the Army changes their mind for the 50th time).    

 

I will say that the "one hit with the M16 and you're toast" may not be applicable quite as much these days.   For two reasons - many of the engagements in Afghanistan are longer range than in Iraq or previous conflicts and at those distances, the current round lacks stopping power.  The other issue is that some bad guys are now equipped with Russian / Chinese body armor that can stop the 5.56 round.   Maybe you're right, an intermediate round between the two current ones might be the way to go.  I'm sure the Army will quickly come up with a solution and get it out the grunts shortly thereafter. 

 

Oh, and TT wins the prize for the funniest pic posted on ARC in the last few months.  

I could have worded the one hit phrase better. What I was referring to was one hit at the normal 75 to 100 yard range, and also a sucking chest wound or better.  Now if we're shooting 350 yards and further with the bad guys moving in one direction or another; your probably going to miss. Sure there are some folks that can, but the vast majority can't (first round hit). I could put three out of six rounds in the torso at 300 yards with an M16, and could do the same with a sixty. But four out of five times it wasn't a kill. Now you go on the First Sargent's latest hike thru the bush for about three or four kilometers. Moving about a half klick an hour, and going up and down the hills. Your tired, and your seventy five pounds is getting old. You smell a rat, and your first thought is I'm tired. Thirty seconds later your shooting to stay alive. Forty five seconds later your on your fourth mag. or changing belts on the machine gun. You carry an M14 in the same ambush, and half the rounds you lugged are shooting at the clouds. Three controlled rounds are better than twenty uncontrolled rounds everyday.

gary

[11bee]

Time to dust off this really fun thread.  Not because the Army has gotten a new assault rifle, (as they have been doing for the last decade or two, they are still "studying" various options for weapons and the caliber of the round.   Meanwhile, the Marines have opted to pull their M4's and issue most of their grunts the impressive looking HK M27.    Regardless, I stumbled upon this really interesting US Army study on the history of it's primary infantry weapons and how to increase the longer range lethality of it's grunts based on recent experience in Afghanistan.  

 

Never saw this before, it makes for good reading for those interested in the subject.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

 

Enjoy and discuss!

Edited June 14, 2021 by 11bee

[Sarathi S.]

Key phrase "impressive-LOOKING."

[fulcrum1]

On 6/14/2021 at 6:31 AM, 11bee said:

Time to dust off this really fun thread.  Not because the Army has gotten a new assault rifle, (as they have been doing for the last decade or two, they are still "studying" various options for weapons and the caliber of the round.   Meanwhile, the Marines have opted to pull their M4's and issue most of their grunts the impressive looking HK M27.    Regardless, I stumbled upon this really interesting US Army study on the history of it's primary infantry weapons and how to increase the longer range lethality of it's grunts based on recent experience in Afghanistan.  

 

Never saw this before, it makes for good reading for those interested in the subject.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

 

Enjoy and discuss!

On 6/14/2021 at 6:31 AM, 11bee said:

Time to dust off this really fun thread.  Not because the Army has gotten a new assault rifle, (as they have been doing for the last decade or two, they are still "studying" various options for weapons and the caliber of the round.   Meanwhile, the Marines have opted to pull their M4's and issue most of their grunts the impressive looking HK M27.    Regardless, I stumbled upon this really interesting US Army study on the history of it's primary infantry weapons and how to increase the longer range lethality of it's grunts based on recent experience in Afghanistan.  

 

Never saw this before, it makes for good reading for those interested in the subject.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA512331.pdf

 

Enjoy and discuss!

The NGWS that is supposed to replace both the M249 and M4 should be chosen this year and fielding shortly after. The new caliber is 6.8. Ammo took a budget hit and legacy small arm systems will be around for awhile. 

[ChesshireCat]

for me a complete redesign is a must. Bullet would be 6.5mm or 7mm weighing roughly 115 grains with a velocity in the 2500 fps range.  A magazine big enough to hold 25 rounds (staggered) but only use 22 rounds in it. Ejection would be to the right. Barrel length would be 21" give or take an inch and a half. Adjustable stock with a flash suppressor that actually works. All outside moving parts would be made of Delrin for the noise issue alone. A dove tail on top and on the right side of the fore arm. The M16 was a little too noisy, but still much quieter than an AK47. The sights would be Tritium coated because all modern combat is on the night shift. Bring it all in at less than 8.3 pounds loaded. 

 

Geneva Convention says the bullets must be hard ball (I know some folks violate this rule). So give them a thin skinned hard ball bullet in a slower twist barrel. The bullet will break down during entry and do twice the damage. The slower twist rate will cut into down range accuracy, but taking into fact that 90% of combat deaths from gun fire are well under 125 yards. By then your call in the local 155 battery to get your butt out of a jam, and the rest is easy

gary