USMC is sticking to their guns

[GetReal]

Corps is staying with 5.56 not yet moving to 6.8

Whatra ya think? You agree? Or too much " we've always done it this way?

Stick to your guns: Why the Marine Corps is opting for the M27 over the Army’s M7

The M27 IAR is chambered for 5.56mm NATO legacy cartridge, while the M7 rifle is chambered for the larger and more modern 6.8mm round.

www.armytimes.com

 

[338 Mollett]

That's why nobody can keep crayons on the shelves !!

 

[jackieschmidt]

The 5.56

 

[JEFFPPC]

I get nervous when large amounts of money is spent by any government entity. Much of it just waiting to be funneled into dark pockets. Does not seem a good idea to require two streams of support for ammo and support.

 

[M-61]

The 5.56

Nope
Should never have left the 7.62x51
I have personal experience during the actual transition period, which was rather short by military standards.
When I was forced to switch the M-16 was issued without a cleaning kit. We were told it didn’t need to be cleaned. (Barrel) At that point I knew this weapon change was being done by politicians. In VietNam I never ran into a single politician.

 

[bluealtered]

When you are the one in charge of the piggy bank, there is and always will be those who will have to try this or that. I won't go into why because we have been down that road many times already.

When the first 6.8 (SPC) came out it would have done the job correctly if Remington had bothered to do their part, which they didn't even try to do.

I still have and use a 6.8SPC for hunting, great knock down power and fast follow-up shots if needed. But what the hell, ... sure let's go down that road again, it's only money!!

 

[NF1E]

Nope
Should never have left the 7.62x51
I have personal experience during the actual transition period, which was rather short by military standards.
When I was forced to switch the M-16 was issued without a cleaning kit. We were told it didn’t need to be cleaned. (Barrel) At that point I knew this weapon change was being done by politicians. In VietNam I never ran into a single

Got involved in the same stupid situation in 1967 RVN. Took our M14 away and gave us an M16 with no cleaning gear. Told us to take it in the shower with us. Right, like the USMC had a chance to shower often enough to keep the junk rifle from malfunctioning. We had a shower available, but getting there when there was any water in the buffalo was near impossible. Whatta Hobby!

 

[Eagle1899]

The new 6.8(270-08) and the rifles that use it are a waste of taxpayer money. They(ammo and rifle) are heavier and bigger, forcing more compromise. The current rifles and ammo are very capable. The AR and its variants currently in service are proven and effective.

 

[TheOtherZilla]

Personally, I carried the M14 in Basic. Gimme an M16 any day. I hate the M14. Carried a CAR-16 in the Nam.

 

[Steve Donlon]

I think it's about money, not what's best for the Corps. The U.S.M.C. only gets so much money, the least amount. I too had a M14 in boot camp then was issued a M1 in Iceland and my MOS was Track Vehicle Repair now in a Marine Barracks. Every thing we had was from WW2. I was only one of a few Marines that had not just come from Viet Nam to Iceland in 1967 and some of you can imagine their state of mind having to come to Iceland from Viet Nam. I don't think it mattered what rifle they had when every thing else was not the best. There is only so much money and they have to choose what will work within their budget. IMO. They can't waste the money.

 

[Tommie]

Having never served, my opinion is based purely on external and terminal ballistics. Firstly the line of BS about the little .224 bullets magically bouncing all over an enemy’s body (that our troops were spoon fed) has been debunked. As time went on and reports of failure from the field resulted in faster twists with longer bullets in an attempt to make the M16 a viable man killer. The 6.8SPC appears to be a Goldilocks cartridge between the 5.56 and 7.62X39. Long overdue. I’m sure the Marine Corps has it’s reason for clinging to the 5.56 and I’ll be interested to hear their rationale.

 

[Retired shooter]

Got involved in the same stupid situation in 1967 RVN. Took our M14 away and gave us an M16 with no cleaning gear. Told us to take it in the shower with us. Right, like the USMC had a chance to shower often enough to keep the junk rifle from malfunctioning. We had a shower available, but getting there when there was any water in the buffalo was near impossible. Whatta Hobby!

View attachment 1747825

Grandsons time in marine corp just about over, laughed when I told him we carried the m 16 in the shower to clean it. He will get to shoot the army's new stuff now as he has decided to go to the army for while.

To all a good day.

 

[Eagle1899]

Having never served, my opinion is based purely on external and terminal ballistics. Firstly the line of BS about the little .224 bullets magically bouncing all over an enemy’s body (that our troops were spoon fed) has been debunked. As time went on and reports of failure from the field resulted in faster twists with longer bullets in an attempt to make the M16 a viable man killer. The 6.8SPC appears to be a Goldilocks cartridge between the 5.56 and 7.62X39. Long overdue. I’m sure the Marine Corps has it’s reason for clinging to the 5.56 and I’ll be interested to hear their rationale.

The 6.8SPC is NOT being adopted. The 270-308/6.8x51 is.

 

[DaveTooley]

The M7, 6.8 cartridge was needed to defeat level 4 armor at 600 yds. The 5.56 wasn't getting the job done. Also it's just for front line units. Rear area units will still carry a 5.56.
Requirements are written hoping for a pie in the sky solutions. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "We want to make industry work for new solutions" Sometimes those solutions are a bit of a stretch. The V-22 comes to mind.

 

[Tommie]

The 6.8SPC is NOT being adopted. The 270-308/6.8x51 is.

Whoah. I thought the SPC was but obviously I was wrong. Hmmm a 270-.308 sounds like too much of a good thing. That’s a lot of recoil in a battle rifle. Thank you for setting me straight.

 

[M-61]

That’s a lot of recoil in a battle rifle

Funny thing. In a fire fight I never noticed the recoil no matter what I was shooting.
Today on a bench with my coffee and donut and no one returning fire (No green tracers) I’m fully aware of recoil in everything I shoot.

 

[Bob R]

A simple solution to most lethality issues with the M16 platform could be cured by keeping the standard barrel length at 20 Inches and 16 inches being the shortest carried. We have pretty much worked out all issues with the M16 platform other than the short barrels being a huge mistake in a battle rifle. Short barrels look to be the main problem to me. We do not needing a new Hi-Pressure cartridge. Bringing the velocity numbers on the 5.56 back up will cure a lot of the problem.

Bob R

 

[Eagle1899]

The M7 fully kitted and loaded is 15.4 lbs. The M27 is an average of 11.0 lbs equally equipped.

The M855A1 has certainly closed the gap but does fail to defeat level IV armor at 600 meters and beyond as Dave Tooley pointed out.

Past 600meters is considered an "area target" not a "point target". This is the realm of a medium duty machine gun aka M240 and call for fire(artillery and fast movers).

I don't feel the M7 has a place outside of specific unit requirements. JMHO.

 

[Tommie]

The 6.8SPC is NOT being adopted. The 270-308/6.8x51 is.

Now that I've Googlefooed the cartridge it appears it's the 277 Sig Fury. Oh Lord what have they done?!

 

[butchlambert]

The M7, 6.8 cartridge was needed to defeat level 4 armor at 600 yds. The 5.56 wasn't getting the job done. Also it's just for front line units. Rear area units will still carry a 5.56.
Requirements are written hoping for a pie in the sky solutions. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "We want to make industry work for new solutions" Sometimes those solutions are a bit of a stretch. The V-22 comes to mind.

In a war zone you are able to shoot the enemy at 600yds with an AR type rifle?