I recently returned from Afghanistan. In addition to my own experiences with the 62 gr FN 5.56mm rounds fired from the short barreled M-4 carbine, I have been reading a lot of after action reports (AARs) from the Army and Marine Corps units about the deficiency of this weapon/bullet combination.

First, let me say this. My M-4 was a very handy weapon considering that we were in and out of vehicles (mostly commercial pick-ups or SUVs) and military aircraft most every day. Also, my M-4 was very accurate. I managed to qualify expert with it using the issue Red-dot style sight. Typically, using the standard peep sights on the M-16, I struggle to achieve expert (36 or greater out of 40) due to difficulty in seeing the 250 and 300 meter targets through the peep. I also managed to hit 29 out of 30 at the night qual range using the IR PAC-4 pointer and NVGs. I experienced no problems with the weapon jamming in the desert using dry graphite lube.

Still the weapon has serious deficiencies. The 62gr FMJBT bullet fired from the 14.5" barrel only achieves between 2400 and 2600 fps. Generally, the velocity at which a 5.56 ball round will fragment is between 3100 and 2700 fps. The full length M-16 and original 55gr bullet produced over 3175 fps at the muzzle and 2700 fps at 200 meters. So it is plenty lethal on a chest cavity or abdomen shot out to that range. The M-4 can't even reach reliable fragmentation velocity at the muzzle. One of the most disappointing reviews I read prior to deploying was from the 101st AB Division. They actually ended up putting an emergency request in for M-14s because they found their M-4s to be close to useless for the cross canyon and desert type fire fights they were in during 2002 and 2003. The rounds would simply not put targets down consistently. I read a similar AAR from a Marine Battalion in Iraq. They went back to full length M-16s.

Since there is a lot of expertise on this forum, I would like to hear opinions on what the next military carbine round should be. Some basic criteria:

1. A soldier's ammo carrying capacity (i.e. weight) and recoil are considerations. (I would be happy to carry a .30-06 like my grandfather did, but it ain't gonna happen).
2. Most engagements take place at well under 200 meters, but the need for 300 to 400 meter shots cannot be dismissed.
3. We are required by law to use FMJ bullets.
4. One shot center of mass (chest/abdomen) incapacitation or death must be the norm rather than the exception.
5. Please state the reasons your suggestion fits the bill.
6. As an ordnance officer, I am aware of the XM8 concept and tests. It will be a super weapon. But with an even shorter 12.5 inch barrel, the 5.56mm shouldn't even be an option here. I hope we do not go that route.

Mikhaïl Kalachnikov argued with the party officials that going to the small 5.45 caliber round was a bad idea because it was not reliable. The only way they could get somewhat more relaible wounding results was to make the bullets with a hollow cavity under the jacket at the nose, this allows for the nose to deform (bend) and cause to the bullet to yaw which causes more damage. Despite this bullet modification, Kalachnikov still denounced the performance of the small bullet as "good for nothing more than mice" and repeatedly begged the party leaders to stay with the 7.62 diameter. According to Kalachnikov, the only reason the Russians went to the 5.45 is because the USA went to the 5.56

Personally, I am of the opinion you cannot have a "one size fits all" rifle or cartridge for military use. You sight getting in and out of vehicles every day while the 101st is looking to fight battles at 300+ meters. Another consideration is when you use a round tailored for a long barrel and use it in a short barrel, not only are you loosing velocity, you are getting a huge muzzle flash which quickly gives away your position. That big flash makes you a big target and if someone is looking to poke you fulll of holes, that's not just bad, it's real bad.

Everything has it's limits and just because you can put holes in paper at XXX meters it does not mean that the round will be effective in stopping the bad guys. War is life and death not a target shooting match where everyone breaks for lunch at 11:45 It boils down to having the best round and rifle to kill the ***'s that are trying to kill you first and at a longer range than they can. Back in the 1970's the alleged "experts" selling the 5.56 did so under the guise that the round was "designed to wound rather than kill because if you wound one man, it'll take two more out of the fight to try and save the one". I don't know who dreamed that line of crap up but it worked to sell a cartridge that is less than desirable for a battle round as it was intended. Remember, wounded dudes can still shoot back, dead ones can't do anything. Funny how politics can be the hindering factor in both a democracy and communism.... Kalachnikov may have been a commie but he ain't no dummy on guns.

Some where in the Pentagon there's a FM-12359078jksdg for general officers and civilian Defence Dept. leaders, titled "Stupid Mistakes the Army has made that need frequent repeating".
I believe it's original copyright date was June 14th 2,783 B.C. it's been updated and reprinted in various translations and technology advances over the milliniums.
It's only recently that the US Army edition has dropped the chapters on lances, short swords, sling shots and chariots.
Keeping the relatively short ranges you mentioned, 300 to 400 yards, in mind, a truncated cone with a cupped point would solve the knock down ability while maintaining accuracy out to those distances.
The Air Force discovered this with their 9mm bullets back in the 70s. It seems that that the Air Force discovered that round nose bullets had very little stopping power and 9mm bullets were pretty useless.
A flat point on the 60 something 5.56 bullet would send a shock wave through the tissue and destabilize the bullet as it passed through tissue. Being a full metal jacket makes the bullet legal and the flat point makes the bullet leathal.
Jim

Good posts both. Incidentally Markkw, the results I saw from AK-47s were less than special as well. I have fired several and they are not very accurate. And on three different occassions we saw the AK-47 fail to kill. One on a self inflicted wound to a Afghan National Army (ANA) troop we were training, one on a insurgent the ANA shot, one victim of a roadside robbery. All three were shot in what I am sure would have been instantly fatal wounds with a .30-06 or similar high velocity caliber. Our troops performed first aide and all three were living the last I heard. At 2300 fps, the AK suffers form the same lack of hydrstatic shock power than the M-4 does. I have always heard that this is by design. The Soviets felt (correctly I might add) that a wounded US soldier put a mcuh bigger strain on out logistic system than a dead one.

Now the PKM (7.62x54R) round used in the Afghan Russian made machine guns and sniper rifles is a different story. The ballistic twin of the 30-06, it is very accurate and devastating on targets. The PKM is so supperior to the M-249 SAWs we had - it is sad and embarassing.

The round we need must be adaptable to carbine size platforms and still provide some degree of shock power at decent ranges with moderate recoil. I am not a big fan of the .243 for hunting, but I often wonder if it would not have fit the bill pretty well. The shorter .250 Savage or a 6.5 mm round based on its case might even be better.

All things considered, belive the military will change calibers..but that it won't be a drastic change for the average issue rifle. Will see more specialized weapons, proably using differnt ammo, but these be limited issue for specialized troops.

Believe they will fit a round into the existing platforms rahter than redesign the weapon system completly...which is going to put in at certain length and diameter limitations.

New round will also be a small case...will also be light enough for ease of carry...will not produce recoil levels more than 50-70% above .223 level....and will still make hard target penetration a trait held above tissue damage.

Sounds like the ol' .308 Win would fill the bill on all issues.

Lugged the M1 around in my brown boot army days and never really liked it - too much weight. Was issued a M2 carbine and thought I'd died and gone to Heaven! Wasn't practical for anything, but sure carried easy. Later, was issued the M3 grease gun .45 ACP submachinegun. Smaller yet, but weighed a ton fully loaded.

Can't understand why the military can't develop a suitable weapon to fire the .308 with accuracy and portability. Heard the M14 was a beast to control with automatic fire - surely this could be remedied.

There was a short article in Outdoor Life back in April about a possible replacement cartridge. The 6.8 Rem SPC.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/humor/article/0,19912,607915,00.html
Just remembered reading that article. Don't know much about it though.

I've read several articles on the 6.8 SPC recently. Looks like it was developed based on recommendations from actual troops, not the brass. From everything I have read it would be an excellent replacement for the 5.56, and work in existing platforms. Unfortunately that probably also means it is doomed to failure :rolleyes:

On the other hand, it looks like just the ticket for my collection in the future. As soon as CZ (or Ruger, or Browning) makes one, I'll buy one. Hopefully with the heavy barrel, but I'd take a sporter too :)

The problem with the 6.8SPC in the future 12.5" XM8 carbine or in reworked M-4s is still low initial muzzle velocity for FMJ type bullets. It will fire aprx 2500 FPS in the XM8 and 2600 in the M-4s 14.5" barrel. Small diameter ball rounds driven below 2700 FPS simply do not perform very well. I am sure it would be an improvement over the 5.56 due to the larger diameter and heavier bullet. Still, if we are changing service rounds for the first time in 40 years I think we could do better. .277 is not exactly a popular caliber in Europe and I imagine NATO will want to standardize ammo. Since 6.5 MM is a popular European caliber, the .260 Rem would seem to be a good option.

Bird Dog,

I'm given to understand the 7.62x39 round was toned down from what it was supposed to be loaded to. I don't recall all the specs off hand but it was supposed to have a hollow base spitzer weighing about 15 grains lighter than bullets used. Also it was supposed to use a faster burning powder, I think an extruded type. (sorry, memory on this is mushy) Anyway, what it boils down to is the hollow based bullets would have required complete re-tooling and the equipment necessary to produce the powder was not readily available and or it required relying on raw materials from non-communist nations. Once again the political officials screwed things up yet again.

As originally loaded, the 7.62x39 is a snappy little round and quite capable of being very effective within 200 meters. This was the maximum design range used as most WWII battels were fought at this range or less with the most common being under 150 meters. Quite reasonable provided the Russians never planned on fighting a war anywhere else besides the homeland and northern europe where terrain mostly prevents long range battles. None the less, they still had the 91/30's for sniping and the machine guns also chambered in 7.62x54R to handle the longer distance work.

From what I understand, the 7.62x39 is really one of the first "short magnums" but thanks to the political officers, the Mikhaïl Kalachnikov had to back off on the loading and make the gun match. This is why you sometimes find very different loads listed for the 7.62x39 for use ONLY in bolt action or single shot firearms than you will find for use in the AK's ans SKS's The round istelf is capable of more but the military rifles are not.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the 6mm (.243") rounds. Many of these have proven immensely effective on game and long range accuracy yet the determining factors have become nearly extinct...the heavy weight round nose bullet and fast twist rifling. Not much bigger than the 223 casing used now. Accuracy can be as good if not better and it'll have a lot more punch and reach. Just my opinion but I ain't fond of trying to fight a war with a woodchuck gun.

Think (and Hope) the days of trying to make one round do everything is coming to a close for US military.

.308 Win. Change the uppers on all the AR type weapons, issue the long barrels to the those that are going to be more likely to use the range. Part of volunteering and becoming a service member is training yourself to MAKE DO. That means you carry the ammo you need to accomplish the job, if you can't, don't volunteer.

And about the recoil question, who in their right mind would give up power to possibly leave an enemy combant alive enough to throw rounds back at you?

I had the M-16A1, the A2 and have held various other iterations, and I love the platform. It's "modular", easy to maintain, there are better parts manufactures out there than there ever was, and personally, I was a rifle expert many times in a row. A .308 is not going to be any more difficult to lob out to 500 yards plus than the .223, and will have the TERMINAL balistics to do a more thorough job on the intended target.

Question - if you HAD to subsist on what you brought home, and were in pretty open contry, where shots on deer sized game where rarely less than 125 yards, would you rather have a .308 Win or .223 Rem?

Stupid question here but for short range combat why not use a handgun round? why not use the 10mm or the .45 ACP?

Tales of the gun was just on the history channel the other evening discussing the history of the M16 and it's variants.
It discussed the initial design of the bullet as one of carrying more ammo due to the weight/size ratio;
a soldier could carry more 5.56 than 7.62....
I'm the first one to say they should have NEVER phased out the M14. It is my all-time favorite rifle and I have probably sent more copper downrange in my M1A than ANY rifle I own. The 308/7.62 is a great round.

On the other hand, I alway tinkered with the notion of the military going somewhere in between...say 257bob, or 243....
AR15.com and the following over there preach [to anyone that will listen:rolleyes:] the virtues of the 6.5 rem SPC...

If I had the decision to make, id give y'all a 308 based reliable rifle, and issue only soft point ammo. That way when y'all hit em they'd STAY down.:cool:

The original Ar-15/m-16 had a 1in 14 or 16( I can not remember which) twist. The complaint was that the bullets out to 300 yards caused catastrphicc injury to the erson shot. The 55 gr. bullet tumbled uponnn im pact and tore up flesh liike a buzz saw. So they went to faster twist heavier bullets and caused less injury( at least that was the claim) It was during the dem lib Congress. Was supposed to be more humane too.
Anyway it may be time to bring the 1/14 twist back first and see or not.
Jay

From my military experience...a lot of good posts here and I wish you guys were making the decisions on this intead of the idiots who did. I won't rehash what others have said regarding the 5.56 and to injure not kill and all that political crap. The only thing I want to add as some other mentioned is whey the heck did they leave the 7.62 (.308)????? They had everything they needed in that round and in a short action. Screw "you can carry more 5.56 rounds". Combat load for that is 210 rounds. I'd take a combat load of 140 in an M-16 type weapon in a 7.62 over it any day. You'll only have to shoot them once, not several times. The 6.8 SPC is at least a step in the right direction but one question, why not just go back to the 7.62?? Maybe I'm missing something here.....

.308 Win. Change the uppers on all the AR type weapons, issue the long barrels to the those that are going to be more likely to use the range. Part of volunteering and becoming a service member is training yourself to MAKE DO. That means you carry the ammo you need to accomplish the job, if you can't, don't volunteer.

And about the recoil question, who in their right mind would give up power to possibly leave an enemy combant alive enough to throw rounds back at you?

I had the M-16A1, the A2 and have held various other iterations, and I love the platform. It's "modular", easy to maintain, there are better parts manufactures out there than there ever was, and personally, I was a rifle expert many times in a row. A .308 is not going to be any more difficult to lob out to 500 yards plus than the .223, and will have the TERMINAL balistics to do a more thorough job on the intended target.


Question - if you HAD to subsist on what you brought home, and were in pretty open contry, where shots on deer sized game where rarely less than 125 yards, would you rather have a .308 Win or .223 Rem?

Your preaching to the choir on recoil. I would just assume carry a full blown .30-06 loaded to its magnum potential, much less a .308. But that (the 7.62 coming back) ain't going to happen I am afraid. Even if recoil doesn't bother you or I, it does affect a lot of others. I think anyone could handle a .243 Win/250 Savage class round though. The .260 Rem makes the most sense to me. The 6.8 SPC just doesn't have the horsepower down range I want.

I the more I think about it I have to keep asking myself "how did we end up with a .22 cal round for making war?"

As the person doing the shooting, we care a WHOLE BIG LOT about the effect of the bullets on target.

As the people buying the rifles, we'd seem to care about (1) ease of training (2) ease of ammo supply.

Guess it boils dwen to the two competing philosophies...the rifleman who wants to tag his target once and have it fall down and the "planners" who seem to want firle fire to pin the target doen, then call in 155's or an air strike.

Think (and Hope) the days of trying to make one round do everything is coming to a close for US military.

Probably not Ray. I have been on both sides of making it happen (combat arms and logistics). Having the best possible common high velocity round does make sense. And I agree with the LTC, carrying capacity of a soldier with 5.56s vs one with 7.62s is crap. Bottom line - our 5.56s just aren't getting it done. The 7.62 would certainly fit the bill.

To me having the 7.62 as the standard would be great as we could get rid of the SAW which is nearly as heavy as the M-60 and offers no advantages in my opinion. A 7.62 based carbine/rifle for the squad members, teamed with Ultralight M240 MGs and bolt action snipers for the weapons squad rifles would give a platoon plenty of firepower and commonality of ammo. This would be the best case scenario and makes great sense - which is why it will never be adopted:-)

Now, the valid argument can be made that are able to develop more good marksman with something with less recoil. Ideally, any round we adopt should maintain a velocity of 2600 FPS out to the range that are most likely to engage at. The 5.56 from an M-4 starts at that speed from the muzzle and drops off very fast. Initial energy is imediatley under 1000 ft lbs. It just doesn't cut it.

A .243 firing a FMJBT 75 gr bullet would have a muzzle velocity of just under 3000 FPS from a 14.5" barrel. It would maintain the 2600 fps threshold out to about 150 meters and over 1000 ft lbs of energy at 200. The sectional density of this bullet is higher than the 62 gr 5.56 we are now using, so with more mass and velocity, penetration on hard targets would also improve. These are not "great" measurables, but certainly a significant step up from what we are now fighting with. The recoil would be tolerable for anyone. This "is" a factor to consider, for after all, ultimatley it is accuracy and not just "measurables" that kill.

The 6.8 SPC is at least a step in the right direction but one question, why not just go back to the 7.62?? Maybe I'm missing something here.....

Same reason the FBI had to 'invent' a new 10mm load (and I say invent because they just rolled it back to .38-40 ballistics), because .... no one in the government can EVER admit they screwed up and just go back to the way they did things before.

I understand the M14 is a handful in full-auto, but so what... if you need it, probably close enough it doesn't matter. Or maybe a 2 or 3 shot burst like the Marines eventually set up their M16s would have been OK, guess we'll never know.

Well, the 6.8 moves us forward from the .222/.223 of the 1950s to the late 1970s, when Ken Waters came up with the 7-30 Waters, and I wouldn't be surprised if the silhouette boys hadn't beaten him to the punch even earlier, with some of their creations. Yes I know the 6.8 is a .277 not a .284.... so what, shades of the .270/.280 debate.

I think, honestly, a 6mm PPC isn't all that bad of a choice, when you get right down to it.... but wouldn't that make heads hurt at the Pentagon to be using something derived from a 7.62x39 case.... it never ends!!! .250 Savage, anyone? But let's make it a new bullet diameter, so as to pretend to have something original. How about .264-250, hmmm.....

Don't expect the .243 to ever make it. Way to hard on barrels, in bolt guns. Tough to imagine how short service life would be with full-auto.

Maybe about the year 2050, we'll get up to a cartridge that would be considered effective, right about today.....

Bird Dog - you started an excellent thread here - and I know most of what I have to say is preaching to the choir, I always seem to get my dander up when discussing military personnel weapons. To me, you and a host of others, it is SO simple, which, as you said, is why it will never be adopted.

Seems to me that in the past, the volunteered and a volunteers all qualled with the .30-06, so what is SO different about making the current requirement .308? I know, choir again, and it makes too much sense. Gotta love the political and financial dictations handed down from those that haven't got a clue.

Military doctrine is mostly blue smoke with mirrors for senior officers to primp in front of and hide behind. The 5.56 was cobbled up as a means to reduce training time, reduce ammo expense, act as an intro for women in the combat arms and to serve as a final sop to the old dinosauers who thought soldiers should actually shoot rifles. (Notice I did not say shoot people with)
Back in the 50s and 60s the hotshots from think tanks, McNamara's boys, found no profit for corporations in rifles that lasted generations and ammo that continually did the job asked of it. Rockets, missles, new whizbang artillry, new super tanks and other armoured vehicles, new aircraft that need constant updating, hince more profit for the military industrial complex. What's odd is the old 1954 B-52 seems to keep plugging along, how many generations of attack aircraft have come and gone? WWII was won with a rifle squad of eleven men of two fire teams of riflemen. There was one maybe two BARs, a rocket team and everybody else had M-1s, M-1 carbines, the odd M-3 grease gun.
The difference between then and now, is each rifleman recieved good training on those M-1s and could hit what they aimed at, there was no wall of fire concept.
We are seeing the results of two or three generations of military thinking corrupted by the idea that the troops are expendable assets, to be trained as quickly as possible with the least amount of training expense, throwing thousands of rounds down range, it's no longer important that each soldier is a marksman.
I'd bet that if a battalion of Marine were issued mod. 70 Winchesters / Remington 700 converted to use M-14 mags throwing the NATO ball in 7.62, with M-60 GPMG, M-40s grenade launchers, that battalion would be just as effective, or more likely more effective, as the current units. The troops would be aiming rather then spraying.
The Germans and Japs did rather well with their bolt guns!
It aggrevates me that a weapon system, the M-16, was proven to be inadiquate 30 years ago, yet our military keeps painting the elephant different colors and telling the troops it's new and improved.
OK, my rant is over.
Jim

The biggest problem with the M14 was uncontrolability in full
auto mode. A rifle like the FN-FAL with a more straight-back
recoil is better, but still not really controlable. I don't know if
full auto fire is really desirable, from a barrel heating and ammunition consumption standpoint, but it also applys to
rapid repeat shots on semi auto. You simply can't shoot the
heavier caliber as fast with any accuracy. For a compromise
round, take a look at the 6.5 Grendel. It shows a lot of promise, especially at the longer ranges.

Lack of controlability and wasting ammo is one of the reasons the M-16 was adapted to fire either single or 3-round bursts.

The same could be done with the M-14 with little effort.

As far as ballistics, the 6.5mm has a lot going for it in sectional density and ballistic coefficient. Something in the nature of a 6.5x55 or a 6.5-08 would be just about perfect, IMHO.

The trouble with a three round burst is, in the M14, only the
first round is going to go where you were aiming. At 50 yards
you might do some good with the next one, but beyond that
it doesn't take much muzzle movement to miss. I think we
need to find a smaller case than the 308/6.5x55, etc or we
are right back to the problem of too much bulk/weight in the
ammo that we went to the 5.56mm to get away from. we've
got to get performance near the 7.62 out of a smaller pack-
age. Either that or start training riflemen again instead of
spray-and-pray. They said that when new replacements came
into a squad in jungle warfare they were told to forget every-
thing they had been taught about waiting until they had a
target in sight to shoot, "You'll never see the enemy, and if
you did, you'd be dead before you could pull the trigger."
Of course, the fighting in Iraq and Afganistan is different,
but who knows where the next one will be?

A 6.5 mm grendel or a 6.5 of some kind would be almost perfect, from sniping to across the room distances. The figures (and real live firing) are amazing. Less wind drift and drop. Lots of knock down power and would make a good machine gun caliber. I love my .308" but the averageperson is not into guns.

I feel the hype over full auto is just that, "hype". Machine guns have their place in laying down cover fire and when you have to deal with a large scale infantry attack but full auto on a grunt rifle has very little value unless it's your last resort in which case it's handy and may even save your life and for the small amount of additional cost, there is no reason not to have it.

Point is, the primary use of a grunt rifle should be "one shot, one kill". Many have made the point of training "riflemen" and this is not to be disputed as all the technology and firepower in the world is useless if one cannot engage targets properly thus, this is the first and primary order of business for everyone from the motor pool to the galley to those in the rear with the gear, not just those on the front line.

All the griping about loosing control of the M14 on full auto is well placed as anyone who has tried this knows that it's just not possible unless you are 9 feet tall and weigh in around 550 pounds, then maybe... However, the addition of a $10 muzzle break readily cures this problem with the M14 just as it makes shooting a 50 BMG round in a light bolt action possible. Point is, no modification to the weapon is necessary, the break can be made to go on just like the bayonet, easy on, easy off. Thus, if bayonet is needed, you simply swap the break for the blade. Nothing fancy but highly functional and very low cost.

I hear the touting on the M16 as being easy...I don't think so. You have to lower the weapon completely to clear a jam or manually crank out a dud round unlike the M1 & M14 which can be maintained on the shoulder while manually operating the bolt. Then you have the M16 charge handle on the rear while the forward assist is on the side... geeze, on the M14 it's all the same handle so there is no delay required for repositioning if the round does not feed completely or jams. Sure, the M16 can be cleared fast with practice but bullets coming at you are still just a little faster than you can move your hand from rear to side to rear to side again.

As you can tell, I'm no fan of the M16 nor the round it uses however, the logistical problems and training requirements needed to do a full scale implimentation of both a new round and rifle would be prohibitive from many aspects. With this in mind, I would propose the following:

1- Re-issue and train the most active combat groups with the M14 as-is equipped with a muzzle break to counter the range and lethality problems in the here and now.

2- Maintain current M16 training and ammo for less active troops, we already got 'em, so may as well use 'em.

3- Pending the adoption of a more suitable primary infantry rifle & round, as in #2 above use what we already have with a little change. Using the existing dimensions of the 5.56 (.223) case, simply neck it up to accept a larger diameter bullet. Bigger round or semi-flat nose bullet & hotter load would mean utilizing the same platform only with a re-bored barrel from stock supplies. This way all the same parts except for the barrel could be used.

4- Keeping with the proven design, why not adopt something similar to the Ruger mini14 (small size M14) but chambered in a more potent round that is effective at 300 - 500 meters yet on a smaller platform and not too excessive for use in urban conditions.

I don't think there's any easy answer here. As others have said, "there is no one size fits all round" yet I stongly feel that the .223 is inadequate for a primary combat rifle. I also feel that the lack of application of shotgun technology is a major problem. I never understood the reasoning behind the acceptance of using such weapons as the Uzi and MP5 yet shotguns are looked down on. Either of the sub-guns are quite capable of putting 20+ rounds of 115gr bullets on target in 1 second yet somehow putting eigth .32 cal pellets on a target in one shot is not acceptable....... Kind comes down to arguing the difference between regular and baby swiss cheeze, lots of big holes or lots of smaller holes, not matter how you stack it, you still got multiple holes.

Personally, I'd like to see a the 20 gauge turned into a rimless all metal case. A good load would be buck & ball, even if you gotta go with steel. Big round ball leading the way at the top of the case and some #4B or 0B under it. Chambered in a compact bullpup style magazine fed weapon this would be quite well suited for urban house clearing use. Swapping a smooth a screw-in choke tube for the buck & ball load for a rifled one would allow the same weapon to be highly effective with sabot slugs to 100 meters.

I know i said it once but im going to bring it up again, why not a handgun round? 10mm? .45 ACP? plenty of people already make handgun round carbines and leave it semi auto or at most 3 shot burst to stop ammo waste.

I know i said it once but im going to bring it up again, why not a handgun round? 10mm? .45 ACP? plenty of people already make handgun round carbines and leave it semi auto or at most 3 shot burst to stop ammo waste.

You mean like a .45 Thompson for clsoe door to door and a 30 Garand for open desert/fields. Seems like we had that 60 to 70 years ago and just had to improve/replace them!?

even though the worked better than what we use today?

Actually i ment something in modern carbin, like the Beretta.

The FAL wasn't controllable on full auto either. The Canadian Army tested a full-auto prototype and almost had a disaster when a big sergeant insisted he could control it. He couldn't and almost hit some observers.

Bye
Jack

FAL? sorry im daft tonight.

I personally was thinking about something in a caliber like 10mm and in 3 shot burst.

Sorry, I should have said I was referring to Gasbag's early post about the M-14 and FAL in full auto. Both fire .308 - 7.62x51.

Bye
Jack

oh ok. I just thought something along the lines of a 10mm would be nice with some semi wadcutters. nice wide nose and all.

Those handgun cartridges would be fine for less than 50 yd combat. Semi-wadcutters wouldn't do much good for the body armor worn by combatants these days.

For ranges beyond 50 yds, a bullet with good sectional density and ballistic coeficient would be desired. Maybe the germans had it right the first time with the 7.92 Kurtz.

The German and Russian armies amassed more combat
experience in the 2nd World War than any of us will ever
comprehend, and you've got to assume they learned a lot
from it. They both decided that an assault carbine firing a
medium power round was the way to go. The German 8mm
round was not continued, due to their being occupied, but it
was similar to the Soviet 7.62x39. There are of course
many places where some other choice would be better, but
the logistics get to be a nightmare if you try to equip troops
for every eventuallity. I think the Russians got it pretty
close to right. If you take the 7.62x39 and modernize it
with less body taper for a bit more capacity, a slightly smaller
bullet for better ballistic coefficient, and you end up with
something like the 6.5 Grendel, the 7MM bench rest, or the
6.8 SPC

Wow, this thread really took off. I have been in a Texas/Louisiana swamp white bass fishing for the last several days.

Anyway, at least we all agree with the fact that the 5.56 is totally inadequate at carbine velocities.

As far as handgun rounds being used, I did see several SEALS in Afghanistan with what I think were H&K MP-45s. They could have been the 9mm version, but I am pretty sure they were 45s. Based on the inaccuracy of the AKs in Afghanistan and the spray and pray mentality that goes along with it in those parts, I am sure those SEAL boys could more than hold their own against any insurgents at 100 or 150 yds. Still, I don't think that is the answer. You can't just assume that the enemy is going to have a 30 year old AK that shoots a 10" 100 meter group. Plus if someone is lighting you up with a PKM or RPG at 250M, a MP-45 is going to be **** inadequate.

A M-14 or other 7.62 caliber rifle with an effective recoil suppressor would be one option. Can you knock down the recoil without porting the barrel though? The muzzle blast of ported weapons can be dangerous. Especially if high volumes of fire are experienced. Typically I shoot my M-70 .30-06 BOSS one time on opening morning of deer season and my freaking ears ring for two weeks. No way you could shoot a automatic .30 cal weapon with that type of system - you'd go deaf. I think there are other ways to reduce recoil, but I am not an expert.

As for controllability. Just make the weapon semi-auto capable. It's more effective that way 99% of the time (except in the movies of course). That is the difference between our service weapons and the AK. The AKs are "automatic weapons". They are designed to produce large volumes of fire at close to medium range to make up for sub-average accuracy and marksmanship. Our weapons are "rifles". Precise aimed fire. These are not my words - this is what a senior Afghan commander told me. They really like to spray and believe Allah will sort out the hits and misses as he pleases. Having shot on several Afghan army ranges with their troops, I can tell you that about 2 in 10 could consistently hit a human chest cavity with aimed fire at 50 meters. But **** the rest can sure spray high volumes of fire in an enemies general area. Part of the problem is that in that part of the world, eye glasses are seen as a weakness and therefore not used. So a good % of their fighters just can't see well enough to aim precisely.

I think we should stick with semi-automatic fire and work on marksmanship.

Not all of the "enemies" our troops have to respond to will behave the same as any other. I would far prefer to have our first line of defense to have a rifle that can absolutely kill (not "incapacitate", but KILL) the enemy (whatever it might be) in any circumstance, up to 500 meters. Incidentally, I don't think that a human sized target can be properly identified with open sights (targeted yes, identified no, there is a difference) at ranges over 400 meters, so that accounts for my range limitation. The 7.62x51 is a great cartidge, and will do the job better than anything yet to be developed (yes I did say "Yet to be developed", EVER!). The fact is, the beaurocrats have to change things, and the 6.8 is the best "new" thing on the table.

I think we should stick with semi-automatic fire and work on marksmanship.


I totally agree with you, but for some situations 3 round burst would a better choice.

I totally agree with you, but for some situations 3 round burst would a better choice.

Yes the 3 round burst does give you the ability to empty a magazine in a few seconds when supressive fire is needed. As long as we teach that the 2nd and 3rd shots are useless on aimed fire.