Spike Camp

Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.

Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2017, 10:56:21 AM »
I've used the M-14 (.308) and the M-16, I'd much rather carry the M-14 due to our lives depending on it. If it were up to me I'd replace the 5.56mm with the 260 Remington (.308 necked down to 6.5mm).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 10:57:57 AM by godscountry »
I love the smell of deer guts in the morning, it smells like...VICTORY!

Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2017, 01:15:03 PM »
I think that going with a 6.5 caliber, like the Grendel would be a step up; only barrel swaps would be necessary to convert the arsenal.  But in defense of the 5.56, my Son did six years in the service, one year in Iraq, and from his experience, he would take the M4 any day over an M14, or an AK.  He says, it does what it is designed to do.  He says if you want to shoot someone a thousand yards away, go with a weapon that can do that.  If you need to shoot through four foot thick walls, go with a weapon that will do that.  If you have to fight mud hut to mud hut, streets, never more than 400 yrds, light, handy, easy to train soldiers with, go with a weapon that will do that, the M-4.  If you look at years served by the various calibers, the .30-06, roughly fifty years, from '03 to '53.  The 7.62, ten years, from '53 to '63, and the 5.56 from '63 to now, forty-nine years, it must not be too bad.  People have disparaged it as a piece of shit round since it was adopted, yet it stays in service.  It had it's problems, without question in the early years, but I think that the current round and platform, are rather remarkable.  And the people that say it cannot kill a 140 lb. raghead, routinely kill 180 lb. deer with it, by the hundreds of thousands a year.  I used to have a slow twist 5.56, and shot several deer with the plain Jane military 55 gr. FMJ, and the exit wounds looked like I had shot them with my 6mm Remington with 100 gr. SP's.  I attribute that to the bullet "yaw and tumble" that the slow twist may have caused.  That debate has gone on since '63.  Almost all of the "professional" pig hunters around here, M-4's, or older variants.  400 lb. hogs, legs up.  During the 1800's, MILLIONS of soldiers were killed with calibers that we wouldn't trust to kill a coyote with hardly.  The Spencer, the .44 Henry, etc.; all rather anemic compared to the 5.56, yet they killed men too.  How many humans have been killed with the .45 Colt, the .45 ACP, the .38 Special, and the 9mm.  Yes, all at close range, but that was what THEY were designed to do.   MM

Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2017, 02:58:50 PM »
The 5.56mm works well, out in the open. Battles aren't always fought in the open, in fact they rarely are. When the battle takes place is in a jungle, weed field, grass and foliage, even a thin wall the 5.56mm is lacking. When my life and my buddies lives are at stake I don't want a weapon that is lacking or even close to lacking. It's great to say if you need to shoot through a wall go get a weapon that will do it. That does you no good when the time comes and your life is seconds from ending and the weapon in your hands won't do the job. Do you tell the enemy to wait until you go get something better? Not an option in my book unless you want to go home in a flag draped coffin.
I love the smell of deer guts in the morning, it smells like...VICTORY!

Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2017, 04:03:00 PM »
The 5.56mm works well, out in the open. Battles aren't always fought in the open, in fact they rarely are. When the battle takes place is in a jungle, weed field, grass and foliage, even a thin wall the 5.56mm is lacking. When my life and my buddies lives are at stake I don't want a weapon that is lacking or even close to lacking. It's great to say if you need to shoot through a wall go get a weapon that will do it. That does you no good when the time comes and your life is seconds from ending and the weapon in your hands won't do the job. Do you tell the enemy to wait until you go get something better? Not an option in my book unless you want to go home in a flag draped coffin.
  The difference between Viet Nam and the middle east! Amen!  :)

danno50

  • *****
  • 2224
    • View Profile
Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2017, 07:38:15 AM »
I found a couple of more articles, and I won't "add anymore articles" until the weapon change, if it ever happens, and these are excerpts from two different articles. Note how the military and politicians will evaluate the new weapon design. Hopefully some lobbyist with "boo-coo" influence won't grease the hand of one or the other, and short change our soldiers. Excerpts follow:

  The service’s present plan is to evaluate the submissions against a three main factors, which are, in order of importance, the features of the “bid sample” itself, the production capability of the vendor or vendors, and the price.

The Interim Combat Service Rifle should have either 16-inch or 20-inch barrels, a collapsible buttstock, an extended forward rail and weigh less than 12 pounds unloaded and without an optic.

There is definitely a need for this sort of weapon. For years, critics have complained that insurgents and terrorists with Soviet-era weapons had better range and terminal ballistics than their American counterparts armed mainly with 5.56mm weapons.

Multiple proposals may be submitted by the same organization; however, each proposal must consist of the weapons, proposal, and System Safety Assessment Report. All proposals are due by 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017.


Then, there’s this whole ‘interim’ concept. Too many times I’ve seen capabilities that were sold initially as an interim and ended up never being replaced with the proposed final capability. There’s always a chance our Soldiers could get stuck with a 7.62 rifle if the planned caliber study doesn’t pan out or worse yet, DoD faces another budget challenged situation similar to the sequester. As we’ve learned, we go to war with the Army we have, not the one we wish we had.

While the change to the intermediate cartridge could be accomplished with bolt and barrel swaps, which is less expensive than completely new rifles, the Army will still need to transition to a new ammunition. That would be two ammunition transitions in less than a decade and three within 15 years, if you consider M855A1.

To be sure, this is a very exciting opportunity for the US Army. It could well mean the first major upgrade to the Soldier’s individual weapon in half a century. My concern, as always, is that the Army doesn’t rush into something it will regret, and that it creates a realistic requirememt, having considered all factors, including ammunition and magazines, which continue to plague the M4. As the DoD budget grows over the next few years, there will be money enough to make rash as well as bad decisions.

On the other hand, there will be institutional momentum against this concept. The Army must not let those voices drown out the requirement to overmatch the reach of our enemies on the battlefield. If the requirement is valid, then it must be supported. The rifle is the most basic weapon in the Army’s inventory.

Instead, the Army must navigate the middle path, carefully considering its near and long-tern requirements. The M16/M4 with its 5.56mm caliber have been in service for over 50 years. The next rifle may well be in service just as long. Or, until Phased Plasma Rifles in the 40-watt range, are available.     
DosEquisShooter

Re: Making changes in military armament- More than a convincing argument.
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2017, 06:33:48 PM »
Part of the issue, a major part in my opinion, is money. And while we do spend a large amount of the federal "budget" on the military, you have to break down how it's actually spent. Payroll, operations cost of the installations themselves, and sustaining our operations/readiness are the biggest factors. The problem is, Congress hasn't actually passed a budget in quite a while. They've simply rolled forward the previous budget. Unfortunately, the demands for the money haven't stayed constant. We're fighting new enemies, in new places and having to deal with new problem sets. So without a proper budget, the folks in charge of spending all this money for the military don't know for sure how much money they have. Unfortunately one of the first things to get cut is R&D; this process typically takes around ten years. The military finds the absolute best product out there (at the cheapest price) and that simply takes time.

So while Soldiers have been complaining about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56 NATO round since they turned in their M-14s, it's not likely that anything will happen about it until Congress pulls their head out. We've got countless rounds stockpiled for the M4s. So it'd be a "waste" of money not to use them. I expect the same with 9mm and the Army's new service pistol. Even though the P320 could be multiple different calibers, if we stick with 9mm, it'll cost less. It's the same reason we're still using the M1 tank platform,which was designed in the 70's and fielded in the 80's while the Russians and Chinese have brand new tanks (T-14 and Type 99 respectively).

Even still, I will say that our men and women are extremely well trained and will get the job done with the tools at hand. We may have aging tech, but it's still very effective and we've trained, tested and proven ourselves with it.
"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence."