USMC is sticking to their guns

[Infrequent Shooter]

308 grain vs 185 grain weight M7 cartridge vs M855a1 (556). 62 grain all copper with exposed steel nose penetrator vs 135 (approx) grain. I have no military experience, but guys I have talked to are big fans of higher amount of rounds vs lesser number of heavier rounds (within reason). I do believe the shorter barrels in military rifles have gone overboard.

Evolution of the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round

Perhaps no subject is closer to the hearts of Soldiers than their weapons and ammunition. For decades, this intense interest in

www.army.mil

 

[Thauglor]

I would like to know exactly who will profit from this change. There seems to be a hidden agenda for them to push this so hard. Some outside influence that is not to our benefit as a nation. It just does not seem right to spend so much money for so little gain. something is not right. Or I'm just paranoid.

Obviously Sig is the main one, they have extremely good connections with lobbyists and congressmen to get this much contracts so quickly. They are better at selling and getting contracts than actually producing products, not what sig was years ago. It's all about the last cent for them

 

[M-61]

You might not notice, but the fact is, and it has been proven in tests, that follow up shots are not only quicker but also more accurate in the lower recoiling round

You lost me.

 

[Infrequent Shooter]

Despite having no military experience I can still see why soldiers don't want to carry around large rounds. Heavy and bulky. I can also see why 556 might not be optimal.

Any replacement was always going to be a compromise. Given a size and mass of a potential target I'd have thought something like a 6mm 105gr bullet would have been adequate. So something like the 6 ARC. More mass, decent velocity, reasonable magazine capacity, flat shooting, low recoil. (Edit: looks like 6ARC could do with a bit more boiler room or maybe some of those new alloy cases?)

The trouble with anything based on .308 brass size you're going to have most of the same drawbacks, so you may as well just shoot.308.

You been reading my mail..... I agree a good 6mm bullet I think would get the job done. the carry load I think is a lot fewer rounds of the 6.8 rounds to carry for the soldier or marine. And I do think a little bit longer barrel is a better idea, that use and training can get the user accustomed to.

 

[dantiff2]

You are about as likely to know as anyone, but is this why I've never heard anyone kick around the idea of standardizing a 6x45? That cartridge seems to make a ton of sense without a new weapon platform. Bigger case heads equal more bolt thrust, the demise of the AR15 when trying to get more "punch" from the same platform. So, the Grendel based stuff had the pressures lowered, neutering pretty much anything on that case head in the ar platform.

Question is, did they ever consider just a 6x45? If so, what would be the problem with it? Thanks Dave!--Mike

6mm max would be even better!

 

[ELR LVR]

6mm max would be even better!

You weapon and AMMO
---
is made by the lowest bidder
---
Too many bean counters involved
---
Same reason they didn't use the correct powder off the start in Vietnam, got a good deal on a large amount of some other type of "inferior" powder

 

[Infrequent Shooter]

I assume the new 6.8 round is mated with a new rifle receiver, bigger than the ar15 platform. Mr. Tooley, it would be great to hear about Remington and the almost new sniper rifle development and history/failure.

I am still flummoxed about the Garand using a 30 cal round instead of the 284/7mm.

 

[Infrequent Shooter]

Butch
I didn't write the requirement. Work trickled down to me. Several people I know wish they had heeded my advice and just developed a new 7.62 round. A high pressure 7.62 and good bullet design would be a winner. You have people sitting around trying to reinvent the wheel. Change is now a way of life.

Dave, what approx bullet weight and profile do you think may have been good in improved 308?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

6mm max would be even better!

May be. I'm not familiar with it enough to say either way. But bigger case heads equal more bolt thrust, which have been the demise of cartridges like the Grendels. Not saying they are the same, they're not. Just pointing out that, within the AR15 platform, physics has limited much gain due to bolt thrust. That's all, really. Honestly, a re-design of the existing platform around bigger case heads would open it up to a whole new world of options....without getting crazy or expensive for the military. It could still be nearly as light, compact and all the things thaty make it great, but with a little more meat around the bolt/bbl extension, if nothing else.

 

[Xerothermic]

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.

Maybe the powers that be need one branch to cycle all the M16s to until they are totally worn out. It is what I'd do.

 

[Steve Donlon]

Maybe the powers that be need one branch to cycle all the M16s to until they are totally worn out. It is what I'd do.

It seemed that way then. I have no idea how things are now. It seemed different that the 155 self propelled artillery had V-12 allison gas engines from P-40 flying tiger airplanes and so did the tank retrievers, and the am-tracks. Only the Ontos had dodge 318's. And the self propelled 110's with 8" howitzers had Detroit 8v71 2 stroke diesels . Very nice compared to a V-12 air cooled gas engine from ww2. So yes, The Marines can phase out the old stuff. That's the way it was so maybe it will happen again.

 

[Knotwild]

It seemed that way then. I have no idea how things are now. It seemed different that the 155 self propelled artillery had V-12 allison gas engines from P-40 flying tiger airplanes and so did the tank retrievers, and the am-tracks. Only the Ontos had dodge 318's. And the self propelled 110's with 8" howitzers had Detroit 8v71 2 stroke diesels . Very nice compared to a V-12 air cooled gas engine from ww2. So yes, The Marines can phase out the old stuff. That's the way it was so maybe it will happen again.

The Detroits were indestructible. Just saw a video on the 8V 71 and they were designed so that you could still use them even if they dropped a valve by cutting the fuel off that cylinder.

When I came to the Allisons, they were tooled up to turn them out so they used them where they could. I read that they "de-regulated" them by adjusting the fuel and air to make less horsepower.

R.G. Letourneau used them to power diesel electric equipment after the war. When he needed to make his own tires because no one manufactured them, he built a plant in Texas. Since there was not enough power available for the plant, he used banks of de-regulated Allisons to run generators. Letourneau was one of the most interesting men I every read about.

Sorry - got carried away there.

 

[Knotwild]

After that post, I read through the whole thread. Then I thought about the Ukraine, and what is happening in Iran. The battlefield is changing. The rifle for the foot soldier just might be for when things go really wrong. I personally would prefer an accurate powerful laser for drone swarms, and camouflage so that drones couldn't find me.

Has anyone seen the videos of Israel's Iron Beam laser working on missles? That thing is awesome, but bad weather diffuses the laser beam, so it needs clear skies.

I think one day rifles will be the least efficient weapon on the battle field. With the advent of AI and robots, even men might be obsolete.

 

[charlie b]

Worked with high energy lasers for decades. Nice in clear weather and no dust. Otherwise, not so nice. Problem is cost per unit and the fragile nature of a large optic on a battlefield. Don't expect a lot of them to be deployed. They do make a good supplement to a missile or gun system.

 

[Thauglor]

You lost me.

Really?
Proven that more bang = harder to get back on target

 

[dantiff2]

May be. I'm not familiar with it enough to say either way. But bigger case heads equal more bolt thrust, which have been the demise of cartridges like the Grendels. Not saying they are the same, they're not. Just pointing out that, within the AR15 platform, physics has limited much gain due to bolt thrust. That's all, really. Honestly, a re-design of the existing platform around bigger case heads would open it up to a whole new world of options....without getting crazy or expensive for the military. It could still be nearly as light, compact and all the things thaty make it great, but with a little more meat around the bolt/bbl extension, if nothing else.

223 bolt face. just need barrel change. Probably on par with 6 arc and 6 grendel for power but no bolt thrust issues

 

[M-61]

Really?
Proven that more bang = harder to get back on target

Yeah really.

 

[distinguished]

Should have stayed with the M1 Garand. Just kidding, lol! Vietnam ended during my senior year in high school but, I had a few relatives that were there. My uncle told me about one firefight he was in after the 16's were first issued. His jammed and couldn't be cleared, so he wrapped it around a tree and picked up a Thompson that was close by. He carried the Thompson through the rest of that tour. He did 3 tours.
I'm afraid all the new stuff is coming out because someone high up watched a few too many movies. We have things like tanks, artillery and air power now. My money is on 98%+ of our troops not being able to hit the target, especially when it is moving, at anything much beyond 300 yards, if even that far, unless they are a country boy from back in the hills.

 

[M-61]

He did 3 tours.

That’s impressive! What rank?

 

[distinguished]

That’s impressive! What rank?

Unfortunately, he was one of those guys that wanted to stay with his men. Every time he was promoted to a rank that took him away from them, he would do something to get busted, so he could remain with them. When I was at Ft. Knox, he showed up one night while I was doing KP for a guy that always went awol. Never had to pull KP again after that! Everyone called him 'TOP", which would be a First Sgt., but he had SSG. stripes on. I'm not sure what his highest rank ever was. He passed years ago.