BREAKING: US Army Considering Going Back to 1954 with Interim 7.62mm Infantry Rifle

According to a recent article on Soldier Systems, the US Army is considering an “interim” switch back to the 7.62mm caliber in standard infantry rifles. Eric Graves of the site lays out a reasonable overview of the situation on the ground, and what sort of weapons might be considered as the 7.62mm “interim” weapon. Follow the link to read his article over at soldiersystems.net.

I don’t usually editorialize on news articles like this, but I’d like to take a moment to list all the reasons switching back to an all-7.62mm fleet would be a very, very poor thing for the Army to do:

  • Unit endurance would be cut in half. The infantry platoon would go from carrying 16,700 rounds of ammunition to carrying 9,400 rounds, a decrease of almost 44%. This means units would run out of ammunition in a little over half the time that they would with the current ammunition configuration.
  • Soldier training would take much longer to reach similar proficiency levels, and more regular training would be necessary to maintain it. 7.62x51mm produces substantially more recoil than 5.56mm, even in heavier weapons, and it takes more skill to master weapons in this caliber. While this may not be a problem for the civilian deer hunter or recreational shooter, is a problem for a fighting force which must train thousands of recruits of different backgrounds and natural skill levels to proficiency, especially when the whole point of moving to 7.62mm would be to give more lethality at long range, where shots are even harder.
  • Battlefield communication would suffer. One of the most significant observations that came from TFB’s recent live fire exercise with WWII-era weaponry, conducted by Miles V, was that .30 caliber weapons produce a much larger volume of noise per shot, which greatly increases the difficulty of hearing commands given by officers and squad leaders.
  • US Army units would lose their fire superiority at short range. One of the major infantry combat lessons of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam was that he who shoots the most tends to win, or at least makes it very, very hard on the other guy. The larger 7.62mm caliber brings with it a serious disadvantage in this area, which is why it and other similar calibers have been virtually universally dropped as standard rifle rounds in military forces all over the world.

In short, a switch to the 7.62mm NATO amounts to trading one relatively minor problem – that of confronting medium machine guns with small units like the fireteam or squad – for a major one. The reality of achieving fire superiority at short range with lightweight ammunition from rapid fire guns is one that is so important that it shaped the landscape of 20th Century small arms design ever since the end of World War II.

The problem with this even as an “interim” solution is that so many “interim” systems went on to become permanent ones. Before .30 cal fans object to this point, they might consider that the US Army’s longest serving rifle, the M16/M4 family, was originally adopted as an “interim” design before the ambitious SPIW program bore fruit… Which it never did.

It’s a simple reality that the range disadvantage that current 5.56mm shoulder arms have versus tripod-mounted 7.62mm machine guns is not one that will lose the US Army any battles – let alone wars – anytime soon. A change in armaments can certainly wait until something better comes along.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • DW

    >checks article date
    >4/5
    >Wait wat
    I guess those that forgot April fools was 4 days ago can also use a reminder of why m14 was phased out

  • Arie Heath

    God I hope this is just a late April Fools joke. You would think that the people in charge would know better than to do something like this.

    • AC97

      Implying that the higher ups are actually smart about this sort of thing.

      • noob

        The one merit this plan has is that if they adopt the AR-10 then we can solve the world energy crisis by hooking up a dynamo to Eugene Stoner while he spins in his grave.

    • Form Factor

      Some people have just no idea about actual Math, and rather use the much simpler … fairy tale stomache-facts.

    • thedarkknightreturns

      I was thinking the same thing. Didn’t the M-14 teach them anything? It served one of the shortest durations of any rifle fielded in our military for a reason. The thing is heavy and useless in full auto. Not that they would go back to the M-14…hopefully.

      • Rap Scallion

        I was there before the M14 and during the M16,personally I would rather have the M14. I can hit something and put it down, at longer ranges, and feel secure the damnned thing will keep working. Weight of ammo???? Just issue every one a Ruger 10-/22…..how did they do it in every war since the Revolution, slower heavier ammo, It is a pure miracle with all that heavy ammo…..Imagine a ammo belt of 30-06, or 30-40 Krag, wearing a heavy wool uniform in the Phillipines, or going uo My Sirabachi with a belt and several bandoliers of 30-06????? Just think how much Ma Duece ammo you could replace with a HEAVY 5.56 MG…….ahhhhhh the old carry less ammo theory!

        I humped a fully loaded BAR in 1959, and it was very heavy, but I was the one selected to do it and I did without whinning…..WHAT……. you got a bunch of Libtard whiners in my USMC NOW????????

        • valorius

          The M1 is more reliable than the m14. The 5.56mm M193 was far more devastating in tissue than the M80 of your era.

          So i’m wondering what the heck you’re talking about.

          • ostiariusalpha

            The M1 isn’t actually more reliable. They had to wrap it in plastic for any beach landing, as water will malf the gun. Both the M1 and M14 rifles have receivers that basically act as tubs that retain water and filth. The M1 reputation is derived from comparison to its contemporary autoloaders, which were even worse. The FAL and G3 are much better guns than the Garand.

          • valorius

            The M16, sorry, typo.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Ah, I should have guessed.

          • valorius

            No worries.

          • Concerned Third Party

            The G3 is better than any other 7.62 NATO offering of its contemporary competitors. Delayed-roller-blowback pulverized any potential obstructions, even clones perform extremely well in mud tests, especially compared to jamomatic m14s and FALs. The only gun that did better than the G3 on InRange TV’s mud test was an AR-15, go figure if you use it properly and treat it well it’s the most reliable offering out there.

          • Tarjei T. Jensen

            The G3 is jumpy. Its shoulder stock and sights should have been redesigned before it was issued to troops.

            The 7.62x51mm problem is not the recoil, but that the rifle is jumpy (rises abruptly when fired). A properly designed rifle will not have that problem .e.g. the FG-42.

          • “The FAL and G3 are much better guns than the Garand.”

            That is true.

        • John

          Hell, why not just go back to .63 cal musket balls? Get rid of those pansy-ass copper jackets as well! You want the lead to deform inside them anyway. All firearms advances of the last 70 years are useless “scientific” mumbo-jumbo. I trust my gut instinct over controlled scientific studies any day of the week!

          • VieteranGunsmith

            …” He said, staring into the yawning sarcasm below…”

        • thedarkknightreturns

          I know quite a few veterans like yourself who prefer the M14. My dad was a Vietnam vet. He was brownwater Navy and spent most of his time on a river boat in and around the Mekong delta inserting and extracting Marines. I personally very much dislike any of the M1 derivative weapons, including the M14 which is just a Garand adapted for mags and .308 I could give you many reasons why, but I am not going to write an exhaustive critique here. i.e. the Garand can’t take advantage of the .30-06 fully because it will quickly destroy the gun if anything but downloaded military ammo is used. A waste really. Anyway if one just has to have a battle rifle, there are better ones in my opinion. I would rather have an FAL if I had to choose from guns available at the same time as the M14. The M16 derived family of weapons is my favorite and it has some of the greatest versatility and adaptability of any platform ever. I do think the highly refined short stroke piston systems by LWRC and HK offer some advantageous improvements over the DI guns, but that is a whole other can of worms. The truth is, for the military the DI guns meet the standards they require. As for the 5.56, it is my favorite rifle cartridge, and I would argue it’s advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. The most vital issue for it to be terminally effective is impact velocity. I believe the best compromise for barrel length is the ubiquitous 16″ barrel. It offers a good balance of handiness and imparts good performance potential for the 5.56 There are many excellent 5.56 loads available that really make the cartridge shine. The Mk318 SOST and Mk262 come to mind. Also the M88A1 is quite an improvement over the standard M855 ball. I believe pure fleeting battle rifles again is not a good idea.

          • Mikial

            First, I applaud you intelligent and well thought out comment on a forum where far too many comments would be better suited to MAD Magazine than a serious gun forum.

            Second, not disrespect to your dad, but if he was Brown Water navy, I would imagine he didn’t so as much humping through the bush with his M14 as the grunts did which may have affected his outlook.

            Personally, I like the M16 platform. As a DoD contractor, I carried everything from AKs through FNs and M4s in Iraq, and always liked the M4 the best.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Thanks for your response. I only more or less brought up my father to relate that I respect veterans. I doubt my father even fired an M14 in training. The rare occasions he carried a rifle I’m sure it was an M16A1, maybe a CAR15. He was a radio operator on one of those river boats, and most of the time he just had a 1911 in a flap holster. I really do love the M16 family of rifles, and I do believe they will here to stay in some form for quite a while.

          • LilWolfy

            My experience as well. After everything I heard and read about AKs, FALs, M14s, G3s, and the Mattel death trap, I found the Mattel death trap to be more reliable, more accurate, easier to maintain, easier to train soldiers on, easier to hit things with, easier to recover from shot to shot, easier to carry, with much better performance when you run the guns in high volume in Close Quarters Marksmanship training packages.

            The other designs suffer greatly when you try to shoot them in volume, and you better have very competent armorer support from guys with a background akin to a senior 18B or gun guy 45B if you are going to shoot the legacy systems in high volume, with a ton of spare parts.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The “Mattel Death Trap” as you call it, was never made by Mattel, and there was nothing wrong with the original design. The bad reputation was a result of two separate very bad ideas from the US Army Ordnance Board.
            First, the bean counters decided no cleaning kits were necessary for M16 rifles. WRONG , This was a sales pitch that came from the people selling the rifle and not the recommendation of Mr. Stoner.
            Second, the rifle started jamming when the stupids at the Ordnance Board and the bean counters at the Pentagon decided the powder specified by Mr. Stoner was too expensive and they had a surplus of old style powder and they should use that up first instead of using the new type. This older powder didn’t burn clean and left more residue behind after firing, which compounded the problem of dirty rifles and no cleaning kits.
            Only after dozens of cases of soldiers and Marines were found dead on the battlefield did they attempt to fix their ill conceived plans. These incidents lead to a rush to put cleaning kits in the hands of all our military personnel issued the m16, and the powder was changed back to the new powder immediately. This also led to the hard chrome plating of the bore and chamber of the barrels and the ubiquitous forward assist mechanism.
            (Nevermind the problems that can arise from forcing a cartridge into a dirty chamber…)

          • thedarkknightreturns

            You are pretty close with your history lesson. The biggest problem arguably was two things. First was with the ball powder, it caused the rifles to fire at a much higher cyclic rate than what they were designed for. This caused all sorts of reliability problems and also accelerated wear. i.e. Colt had to hurry up and compensate for these issues by swapping the standard spring guide out in the receiver extensions for an actual weighted buffer. The weighted buffer helped slow the rate of fire and increased dwell time. The second major issue was the failure to chrome plate the chamber to proper specifications, there is a whole epic tale that can be read by looking at different barrels (and proof marks) found on early M16s. After those two issues were sorted out, there really were not too many other problems.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Haha, I hear that. I haven’t found anything that I use better anyway.

          • LilWolfy

            I’ve trained, deployed with, and trained others with both for decades now (7.62 NATO rifles and MGs as well as 5.56 NATO). 7.62 NATO being issued to riflemen is a terrible idea, proven as such time and time again. The M14 is a joke in terms of reliability compared to the AR15 family, especially when you get debris in the action-the opposite of what I read in all the gun magazines and heard from “veterans” before I got hands-on with it myself in several different Sniper sections and training with foreign armies.

            I still like the rifle a lot, but it is nothing like what it is portrayed as from people that might have had a single enlistment experience with it, and forgotten about all the issues, or pretenders claiming false characteristics to the rifle.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Thanks very much for sharing your experiences. The M14 (and the M1 Garand) seem to have a bit of legend and mystique about them. Many people love them, however, I don’t like them at all. The AR platform rifles will always be my favorite.

          • Pew

            Holding these long front heavy things steady is a pain already, besides the whole reliability and cartridge stuff.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            You are absolutely right. I was trained to maintain all the US military small arms after returning to the US, and I know both the M14 and M16 (and it’s sub variants) as well as the M3 submachine gun, the Thompson and other weapons in the inventory. I can tell you with some degree of authority that there is no perfect rifle. There are lots of people who think there is, but the concept is a fictional construct no matter how many people believe it. As long as you are within the cartridge’s terminal ballistics capabilities ANY cartridge can be deadly if the rifleman is able to put it in a vital area. The real facts are 5.56 NATO has outlived many past US military calibers, and that it is part of a family of small arms cartridges meant to compliment each other depending on the application. The 7.62 NATO is an excellent medium to long range round for snipers, machine gunners and in some cases designated marksmen, but it isn’t a close in weapons system cartridge – any action that can accommodate this round is by nature large and not good for urban combat, where the 5.56 shines.
            The M14 is a modified Garand, and the weak spots of that mechanism are the operating rod and the fact the hammer can fall before the bolt is fully in battery. Not so for the M16. If you are firing an M14 fully automatic, it is possible to detonate a cartridge before the round is fully chambered because of the way the Garand trigger/firing mechanism is built, and the same is true for the M1 Carbine and the Ruger Mini 14. To test this, dry fire the rifle on an empty chamber, then pull the charging handle to the rear, and hold it there. Put your finger on the trigger and slowly let it go forward but don’t let it go – you will hear the hammer hit the firing pin before the bolt is in battery.
            The M16 does not have this “feature”.
            The length of the operating rod on the Garand and M14 is another problem area – it is so long that the op rod flexes a great deal during the firing sequence, and this causes the op rod to become weak enough to fail. Another problem that you will never see with any M16/AR15 variant because gas is the op rod. The problem with the piston system guns of AR design is eventually the pushrod will wear out from the heat and impact of firing. Most of the ARs have not been around long enough to exhibit this problem, but it is not uncommon to see it in FN/FAL pattern rifles.
            SO, there are many fine weapons systems out there to choose from but no perfect or unbreakable design. There is no one solution to the problem. But too many times we had commanders at HQ battalion not facing the enemy who did not allow for enough support for their troops in the way of artillery or air support, and for that no rifle is going to make the grade. If you are outgunned and fired upon from beyond your weapon’s effective range, you might as well be out there with a pike or a poleaxe.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            Thanks for your insight, I have yet to find a better platform than the AR for myself, and I believe it is easily the most versatile and user configurable of just about anything. Also, 5.56 gets it done for me, someone else may need more horsepower but I’m fine with what I have, for what I use it for.

        • No one

          In 1959 you didn’t have a gear loadout of 90-120 lbs, come back to me when you do in a desert your entire day.

          Also, not only was M80 one of the worst bullet designs for wounding ever made (It basically keyholes in any target yawing maybe once), but the M14 has actually proven to be significantly LESS accurate and reliable then the AR-10/15 based on, you know, actual tests, data, and evidence over age old pop myths and anecdotes.

          • Darrell Elmore

            Yeah we fought wars with cotton twill shirts for armor – but don’t fool yourself, people in HQ ignore reality and overload the troops in every conflict. I have fought with and without armor – in the jungle, in the desert and in cities – we all did it in a lot of places.

          • Darrell Elmore

            BS, I engaged with effect at 800 meters on one occasion and trained troops on all small arms we had from 1956 till 1993. Last guy I saw shot with an M-16 took a hit in the center torso and he just turned and looked at me. Don’t tell me what you did not personally do and can compare

          • thedarkknightreturns

            I can’t help but be curious about the circumstances surrounding that situation. It reminds me of the problems that were allegedly experienced in Somalia with “skinnies” the M16A2 paired with M855 ball.

          • Tom Currie

            I have to agree with you Darrell. I just love all the fine people who can cite all sorts of “tests” and “studies” to prove that the soldiers who actually used the equipment know absolutely nothing about how that equipment performed in the real world.

          • No one

            There’s P-47 pilots who claimed to bounce .50 BMG rounds on the dirt and ricochet them through the floor armor of Tiger tanks in WW2, nevermind that’s by every single account impossible, I guess a pilot who said it claimed so therefore everything is wrong!

            It turns out your memory turns really bad about events that happened 60-70 years prior done under stressful situations, there’s a very good reason eye witness accounts are taken so lightly these days in court. but I guess those should be the top priority over things like actual forensic evidence and things like video and audio records or other pieces of information as proof of a crime, who needs actual hard data?

          • Those claims were actually found to be substantiated with one correction. The tanks turned out to the Panthers, not Tigers (which had armor underneath).

          • Concerned Third Party

            They aren’t substantiated all and your reasoning is specious at best. Panther tanks not having armor underneath doesn’t mean pilots are ricocheting .50 BMG off the ground and into the bottoms of the tanks. Do some cursory thinking about how much utter bullshit that is. Just more ‘war stories’ like the idiots claiming their Garand didn’t stop a charging Banzai but their piece of crap 1911 did. It’s bull and a whole lot of people were too spineless to call it out because they feared impugning an infallible veteran of a major war.

          • Hmmm…believe multiple accounts by multiple WWII vets along with a number of historians or the guy online who hides behind the moniker “Concerned Third Party”. Hard choice!

          • M van dongen

            Nope.
            Thinnest armor plates on the Mk V were 15mm.
            Doubtful provenance for any .50 from WW2. Especially high highly oblique shots liked strafing.
            And by doubtful I mean forget about it.

          • jcitizen

            German tanks were leaky pieces of junk. One round in the track pads may disable the tank, and catch the fuel and oil leaking out on fire. Not exactly an explosion, but to a pilot, that would be what he’d swear.

          • Chris

            Dito for the fuel trailers going off right behind the Panthers ! Those were real explosions that a pilot would have seen as he shagged ass out of the area !

          • VieteranGunsmith

            That isn’t the account of the allied tank crews whose Shermans with the 70mm main gun couldn’t stop the German panzers with 88mm guns that shot holes through the Shermans at longer ranges than the 70mm could deliver a projectile to.
            Don’t shortchange the German tank corps, they used their armor to great effect and we couldn’t put the hurt on them unless we were directly to their rear until that miserable underpowered 70mm cannon was replaced. We missed the boat on the original M4 Sherman by arming it with an inferior weapon, and it nearly cost us the ground war in Europe. Airpower and numbers were the only way our armor was able to hold on until the new gun was installed.

          • Secundius

            If you think the M4 Sherman was bad with it 75mm gun, the T-34/76 was even worse. The Sherman could knock out a Panther at ~730-meters, but the T-34/76 had to get within 600-meters to make that same kill shot…

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The original gun on the Sherman was a 70mm – which was upgraded after they found out they couldn’t penetrate German armor with it. That is when the 75mm was added.
            The Soviets didn’t care much about the effectiveness of the gun, one of their main tactics was to collide with the Germans and then shoot it out point blank. As long as they could immobilize the Germans they could kill them, and even at 600 to 730 meters they at least had a fighting chance. In France, the ranges were much less than that and they reported the shots bounced off the German armor. The next shot from the German 88 would pretty much destroy a Sherman.

          • Secundius

            When did the US Army “Ever” use a 70mm Gun?/!

          • jcitizen

            You got me there Secundius, I always understood it was a 75 mm cannon that was judged inferior and so they went through two iterations of the 76mm before the US found a gun that was “good enough”. I was shocked to learn when I researched from such discussion lately, that the 88mm was only issued in the Russian front in WW2, and only to German heavy tanks, and they barely got in there toward the end. Every since I was a kid, I’d heard of the fear of the Tiger with 88mm cannon; but it turned out most of those were post war retrofits, done for the Turkish army after the war, and other foreign clients. Go figure!! I have to take all of this with a grain of salt, because it is the Internet, and you can’t believe half of it.

          • Tarjei T. Jensen

            Nope.
            They started with the 75mm with the relatively short barrel and then went with the 76mm which was really a beefed up 75mm. And later it was the 90mm.

            The collide bit by Soviet tanks is mostly myth. It was propaganda after the battle of Prokhorovka. If may have happened a few times. At Prokhorovka the Germans lost between 3 and 6 tanks permanently. Someone claimed that the Germans counted the number of hits from Soviet tanks (not penetrations) and that number is 36.

          • Tarjei T. Jensen

            None of them had much hope of killing a Panther from the front.
            Both had to settle for side or rear shots.

          • jcitizen

            The usual German tank had tracks that had way too many parts in them and broke down often. I read one account that said US GIs found that if they could just hit them in the tracks, with a rifle grenade, it was as good as a knockout. The crews usually just called for retrieval, or fixed the tracks at night after action. This is why you see armored skirts on newly restored German tanks, as only the latest survived long enough to last into modern times.

            I’ve wielded many a tankers bar to fix US modern armor, so I at least have a sense of how frustrating that could be. Fortunately our tracks are pretty robust and easy to fix, if you are strong and know how to wield a tankers bar!

          • Tarjei T. Jensen

            The Sherman used a 75mm gun. Apart from those that used a “76” and eventually a 90mm gun.
            You are correct in assuming that the 75mm gun had problems with most late model German tanks.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6

          • Chris

            Also some of those Panthers were towing fuel trailers ,which made a memorable memory indeed !

          • LilWolfy

            Things change, and one soldier’s anecdotal experiences mean next to nothing when compared with volumes of other real world data. For example, my personal experiences with 5.56 M855 within close ranges all had brutal terminal effects, and that data coincides with the vast amount of data out there, but if I relied on that data alone and not longer distance effects, it might paint the wrong picture.

            Also, since then, M855 has been phased out of the system in the Army years ago, and replaced with M855A1, which has better barrier defeat and terminal effects than M80 7.62 NATO FMJBT any day of the week, with voluminous test data to prove it.

          • roguetechie

            Well, history being a very good indicator says that you guys really don’t have any idea what you’re talking about as pretty much every single one of the myths you have perpetuated as a group since around 1860 have been proven false later.

          • No one

            Yes, please tell me again how your un recorded, under stress anecdotes counteract ages of testing, docmentation and actual evidence because “YOU WERE THERE!” (supposedly) is totally worth more then all that.

            Actual data that proves you wrong? who needs that?

            Also, I did kill 2 men in a defensive shooting before, I guess that means I can flaunt my expertise on shootings and ignore all evidence because I’ve been in a firefight before!

            Also, you hit someone at 800m on all of one occassion? even if that is true, that’s clearly the accuracy standards our Military should be looking for to base that every rifle should be an 800m weapon!

            What was the point of your post again? aside from “not proving me wrong in anything I said at all” of course.

          • Kalroy

            “No one” is correct. Who are you going to believe? Him or your lying eyes?

          • roguetechie

            Yup, I’ve had the misfortune of getting into a firefight myself also sending two fellow humans on their journey to ambient temperature…

            Funny thing is I did it with a gun and ammunition all the so-called experts would flat out tell you are crap choices that will get you killed in a “real gunfight”

            One of those choices probably saved my life too…

            That night I was carrying an astra A100 which was the best pistol I could afford and my ready mag +2 spares were full of 115 grain bog standard fmj likely from some foreign country or another.

            That fmj likely saved my life because I engaged multiple assailants at brutally close range through the body panels and windshield of a vehicle my assailants were in!

            Does any of this qualify me for the I was there I’ve seen the elephant merit badge?

            F*** NO IT DOESN’T!

            Straight up, I am more confused now about any of this stuff than I was before!

            Personally, other than people who have voluntarily engaged in combat as their vocation over an extended period I don’t believe that the rest of us learn much if the ultimate test comes and we survive.

            Apparently even among the professionals there are people who didn’t learn S*** either though…

          • thedarkknightreturns

            So how was it working with the folks on the future weapons show Darrel? I liked your comments on the episode that showcased the 6.8 SPC cartridge, on that program you talked about that guy who looked at you after being shot also.

          • LilWolfy

            Was that with M855A1 by any chance, because none of the cartridges you shot back then are in inventory anymore. There is video of Travis Haley stacking bodies with 5.56 Mk.262 out to distances beyond 800m, and Mk.262 has nowhere near the terminal effects of M855A1.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            First, can you verify that hit? At what range did you find the target when you took that shot? Anyone who has been around what bullets do in the real world knows that bullets can do some wild things – do you know if the projectile actually penetrated the chest cavity?
            Another thing is the reaction of individuals to being hit with a bullet can vary from person to person. Some are not as affected as others would be in the same circumstances. What happened after he turned and looked at you? Did you hit him facing you or with his back to you? Center torso is not the same as center mass – the torso runs from the waist to the shoulders, center mass is usually a center of the chest in the rib cage. If there was no bone impacted by your bullet, and it missed the major blood vessels you could literally hit your target several times without bringing them down.
            People do not automatically die when shot.
            As I stated previously, I never saw anyone I shot with the M16 get up – but I shoot for the center of the sternum, and never missed my mark. Not trying to brag, just telling you my personal experience.

          • Tom Currie

            Actually from 1941 through the late 1950’s the standard infantry loadout was always in that range or heavier.

            But you both do have a point. Our “soldiers” in the mid- to late-1960s simply decided that “all that junk” was too heavy to tote around so they dumped most of it.

            The unwillingness to carry a realistic battle load what also a major part of the reason that it took five infantrymen to operate one M60 machine gun in Vietnam. One to carry the gun and MAYBE 50 rounds of ammo, one to carry the tripod (if he hadn’t left it behind), two ammo bearers carrying 400 rounds each, and one NCO to carry a pair of binoculars (if he hadn’t left those behind too) and tell the other guys what to do. And even then the M60 got an undeserved bad reputation because it wouldn’t feed dirty ammo with leaves and twigs tangled in the belt of ammo.

            The author’s premise about units running out of ammo due to the difference in weight between 7.62 vs 5.56 makes the false assumption that the rounds are equally effective and will be wasted equally (that second part might be true if we continue encouraging everyone to spray&pray). Before the M16, soldiers were trained as riflemen — including being trained to aim and shoot. When we handed them a plastic toy with a Rock&Roll switch on it, they didn’t take long to discover that spraying a magazine in the general direction of the enemy was a lot easier than trying to spot someone to shoot at (especially since the few who did know how to aim quickly discovered that the light fast bullet deflected off every branch, twig, leaf and blade of high grass)

          • “Before the M16, soldiers were trained as riflemen — including being trained to aim and shoot. ”

            Exactly right.

            I have long been skeptical of the military decision to go down to the 5.56 round. It is just too damned light a cartridge. Its effective range is just too damned short, as troops in mountainous Afghanistan discovered to their dismay.

            If the military considers 7.62 too recoil heavy and too bulky, it might consider adopting something like the superb 7mm-08 round.

            As one expert noted:

            “Anything a 7mm can do, a .30 caliber of comparable sectional density and ballistic coefficient can also do. The catch is, in order to send a .30-caliber slug over a trajectory as flat as that 7mm bullet, about 20 percent more recoil is going to be generated. . . . [A bullet in] 7mm produces clearly superior downrange performance in terms of delivered energy and trajectory at any given recoil level [compared to a bullet in .30 caliber].”[10]

            As an added bonus, civilian shooters can even recycle 7.62×51 NATO brass. Just neck it down and trim the case.

            Going all the way down to 5.56 was too extreme a reaction to the heavier recoil and ammo weight issue.

          • Gort

            Which is why I turn up my nose at any 5.56 rifle.
            I’d rather have the SCAR 17

          • LilWolfy

            If I equipped a unit of equal training and experience with the SCAR-H, then equipped another with 5.56 rifles, the unit with 5.56 would smoke the SCAR-laden unit’s bags in a matter of minutes.

            These types of studies have already been done decades ago, and the assault rifle equipped units out-lasted the battle rifle equipped units over and over. It’s the argument of an ignoramus who knows nothing about dismounted infantry combat and force structure who asks for everyone to carry 7.62 NATO.

            If you doubt me, load up your favorite chest rig with your SCAR mags, fully loaded. Think about how fast you would blow through them on chance contact with a near or far ambush, and imagine how short your life will be, staring down at empty mags and an empty rifle, while your enemy still has the amount of ammo or more than you started with.

            That’s why 7.62 NATO is only adequate for a SASS rifle and belt-feds, and there are much better cartridge for that job in those positions that don’t suffer from all the negatives that 7.62 NATO brings to the table.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Well then I can tell you are not in the military – they pick what you get issued to you, and you have to work with what they give you.

          • LilWolfy

            Assuming the article is legitimate, how would someone explain all the 7.62 NATo systems we already have in inventory? Someone with absolutely no knowledge of the current MTOE would write something as ignorant as what is in the Soldier Systems article. We’ve had plenty of 7.62 NATO systems in the inventory an actively trained on, with teams that are tasked out to the line Companies and Platoons even before the GWOT.

            Since the GWOT, more systems chambered in 7.62 NATO have been fielded. Somehow, the amateur that wrote the BS article has never heard or seen what an Infantry Battalion, Company, or Platoon deploys with, so their perspective has zero merit and should be called out for public shaming for opening their trap.

          • d s

            Wow,you guys are throwing out all those abbreviated terms.

          • jcitizen

            No worse than kids thumb texting on Facebook! =)

          • d s

            Yeah they do have fast thumbs

          • I confess I had to Google some of them.
            But they are legitimate abbreviations it turns out, so it’s not so bad.
            Also, it’s a learning experience.

          • roguetechie

            Yup it’s a crap sandwich wrapped in a nothing burger topped with IDGAF STFU brand hot sauce.

          • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

            M24, mk17, mk14, m39

          • No one

            You mean those troops who were outranged by belt fed machine guns on high ground and not from infantry rifles? the caliber of the rifles of the Agghanis had nothing to do with it.

            Sorry to tell you this, but a belt fed machine gun is always going to counter even multiple rifleman regardless of what caliber their standard issue rifle is. trying to design a rifle to beat someone in an MG nest is literally trying to design a mouse to beat a cat.

          • Chris

            Ever heard of an m203 …40mm HE or HEDP trumps any belt fed…and the old maximum 400 meters maximum effective range of 40 x 46mm low velocity is now being doubled by the newer 40×46 mm medium velocity grenades (up to 800 meters ) ! Obviously they kick twice as much as well , but shoot flatter ,so they will be easier to put through a window (HEDP will defeat 2 inches of armour plate at 100 meters ,something a 5.56 or 7.62 can’t do ! )

          • LilWolfy

            If only they would let us carry belt-fed 7.62 NATO systems, attach Snipers to the line (this is normal most of the time), and assign DM rifles to the Squads. Maybe even let the snipers carry the Mk.13 .300 Winchester Magnum sniper system in AI chassis….

            …oh wait, those have been in the system for years, most of which were there even before Afghanistan. Author needs flogging with concertina wire coated in MRE hot sauce while butt nekkid.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The Mark II also applies, but only mounted on a vehicle – too big a load for carry in the field and the ammo to feed it is even more of a load.

          • jcitizen

            I’m of the Colonel Hatcher camp, who always said the 6.5mm was the optimum caliber for combat. However – using the same shell for launch it makes it marginally lighter than 7.62x51mm. It would take one huge calamity to nudge NATO into adopting anything new now.

          • I agree. Going down to 5.56 was going too far.
            They should have gone to 7mm or 6.5.
            Somewhere in that region.

          • Secundius

            The 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm) showed promise, but for some reason the US Military just Lost Interest…

          • LilWolfy

            Because it was a colossal abortion with inherent design flaws and false advertising, with no effective range increase over 5.56 intentionally built into to it by the handful of dudes that conceived it. I think alcohol was involved.

          • Miguel Raton

            Because they screwed the pooch by making it too fat: the original cartridge design it was based upon was for a .25cal or 6.5mm pill: when they went to .284 [“to increase lethality”] they gave up too much range for an altogether insignificant increase in wounding ability. At the marginal powder capacity of a medium cartridge, otherwise minor changes to SD, BC & bullet weight will have magnified f/x, vs. the same changes in a full-power cartridge. Go to Anthony Williams’ Rapid Fire pages for more detail on GPC [General Purpose Cartridge] specifics. But some enterprising individuals are necking the 6.8SPC [nee’ .30 Remington] case down to take the 6.5mm 115gr bullets originally intended for it, some 20 years after it was first described on the Usenet rec.guns newsgroup [~ 5 years before news of the SPC hit the gun rags.]

          • E Wolfe

            6.5 tends to erode a chamber much faster than 5.56 NATO or 7.62X51 NATO. Not a good thing to reduce your barrel life by nearly 40%.

          • Form Factor

            Utterly dumb post …. 6.5 is a freaking diameter not a cartridge.

            For 6.5 it depends on Projectile weight, velocity (=energy), barrel lenght, powder charge, kind of powder, chamber volume , twist rate, bearing surface…

          • Miguel Raton

            That & the fact that the cost of replacing barrels at 10k rounds instead of 15k isn’t a significant concern for Uncle Sugar…

          • E Wolfe

            Let me be more explicit: The 6.5 Creedmore cartridge is known to prematurely erode barrel throats. 10K-15K rounds per barrel, nah, probably closer to 3-5K YMMV. The article never specified which 6.5 cartridge was under consideration. As for utterly dumb, I believe that quantifies your reading comprehension and ability to extrapolate context. This is supposed to be an adult conversation, not a forum for snarky legend-in-their-own-mind types. 6.5 is a nice cartridge for a specific use, not a general use, IMHO.

          • roguetechie

            Considering that the ACTUAL effective range of 5.56 is better than the same guy firing 7.62 NATO your “point” is nonsense as is the rest of your throw S*** against the wall and see what sticks shotgun approach after…

            You guys did that stuff because you were very much NOT professional soldiers!

            Congratulations, you’ve identified the difference between a conscription based force and a professional fighting organization!

            Do you want a cookie or something?

            After all it only took you what 60+ years to figure it out?

          • A word to the wise.
            Hysteria is no substitute for reasoned argument.

          • roguetechie

            A word to the wise take your own advice, I’ve engaged man sized targets at well beyond 600 meters with a 20 inch bbl rack grade ass end only carbine and a BSA sweet 16 scope on a kinda dodgy carry handle mount with once fired brass M855 reloads a local ammo company sells!

            And you know what?

            I’m a POSITIVELY CRAP rifleman compared to my younger brother the ex marine WIREMAN…

            You cats are selling wolf tickets at a chihuahua convention

          • Wow. Talk about missing the point.
            The issue is the ballistic properties of medium vs. small caliber rounds.
            But if some people feel compelled to use the forum to boast about their prowess, real or imagined, go ahead.
            Whatever floats your boat.

          • roguetechie

            You don’t know what the ballistic properties are if you believe that is the issue.

            Nor do you understand minimum frag threshold or adiabatic shear threshold if you think that is the issue.

          • roguetechie

            PS:

            That wasn’t me tooting my own horn, it was me flat out pointing out that I’m one of the worse shooters out of the people know and or talk to (for example Nathaniel the article writer is good to 800+ meters with a 5.56 AR)

            Additionally It was me pointing out that even as a not super talented rifleman with a decent but not great bargain optic in a sub par mount firing a rack grade AR with not so great ammo still gets results pretty comparable to what you can expect from an AMU prepped M21 with GREAT optic GREAT mount and GREAT ammo…

            The M14/M21 and very good 7.62 ammo with a sage chassis that cost more than my entire setup and with high quality optic and mount whose price alone would let me build a premium match grade gun end to end with enough cash left to acquire a very decent stash of match ammo…

            Yeah that wunderwaffe version of a normal M14 only just keeps up with a not overly talented rifleman like me with a rack grade gun, cheapass ammo, and an optic solution that most people would call TRASH…

            but I’m the person who missed your point? Bwahaha !!!!

            That’s rich

          • VieteranGunsmith

            The real reason for the 5.56 round was a request by the US Air Force as a caliber for their AR pattern rifles – which were not fully automatic. They wanted to replace the .30 carbine for their troops doing guard duty of flight lines at bases all over the world, and they wanted this caliber instead of the 7.62 round because it was not for use by riflemen – it produced too much recoil in the AR10 which was what they had demoed to them by Armalite. – in short, the AR15 was a sub caliber version of the production rifle, and the military had not adopted or even seen an M16 at the time because that weapon did not exist when the USAF ordered their rifles.
            When Armalite got the contract for the USAF, they simply submitted it for the new service rifle trials that came along after they delivered the USAF weapons. That is how the rest of the armed forces ended up with the original M16 rifle.
            It had more to do with the contract sale than anything else. Armalite had been able to sell it to one branch and they went back to Eugene Stoner and had him redesign the AR10 and make it proportional to the new Air Force caliber requirement. And who may you ask in the Air Force had the swat to make this happen?
            General Curtis Lemay – originally to issue to guards at SAC bases.

          • LilWolfy

            That’s not a false premise. You return fire in the direction of the enemy upon enemy contact, rarely ever seeing him. Ammo is time, and time is life. Once you make initial contact with 7.62 NATO and its limited basic load, your death clock starts ticking with the minute hand much closer to the midnight than if you have a basic load of 5.56.

          • cwolf

            slideshareDOTnet/James8981/knapik-hx-load

            slideshareDOTnet/James8981/history-soldiers-load

            slideshareDOTnet/James8981/load-carriagepdf

            slideshareDOTnet/James8981/call-modern-warriors-combat-load-rpt-62115238

          • VieteranGunsmith

            My M16 saved my life many times. I never thought it was a toy, and the people on the receiving end didn’t either. The M16 is the same basic weapon fielded today, with many improvements. I was one of the guys who aimed and hit what I fired at, and unless we were in an ambush I didn’t use fully automatic fire because you could run through ammo too fast. I much preferred to have ammo left over and keep the bayonet sheathed. Anyone who sprayed never hit anything, and if you don’t hit, as soon as you run dry they will show you the meaning of the term beaten zone.

          • Tarjei T. Jensen

            People have commented on the fact that they were trained as marksmen when being recruits.

            The marksman bit didn’t survive contact with the enemy.
            Since the Americans in WW2 didn’t have proper squad machine guns, they all had to fire in the general direction of the enemy to generate weight of fire. And they kept doing it after they got the squad machine gun. Hence the need for lots of ammunition.

            The Germans with the Mauser 98K carried 70 rounds. They let their machine gun do the talking. Their main problem was lack of firepower when the machine gun was relocated. Hence the StG 44. That allowed them to keep the weight of fire while moving the machine gun.

          • Tom Currie

            The notion that “weight of fire” is all that counts is nonsense. I also note that apparently you didn’t realize that althouth the M1919 was a bit heavy for a light machine gun, the M1918 BAR was still regularly issued as a squad machine gun in WWII and Korea.

            Massed fire sent vaguely in the general direction of the enemy ceased to be the deciding factor of infantry warfare in the late 18th Century and the concept of Every Soldier A Machinegunner didn’t really arise until the late 1960s.

            Aimed fire reigned supreme for nearly two hundred years.

            The switch back to massive unaimed fire is not due to any advance in weaponry but simply a decline in training among the large military powers. The truth is demonstrated by the fact that much smaller forces who aim regularly hold their own against the much greater “weight of fire” from forces that have been trained that flipping the selector switch to full auto is a valid substitute for aimed fire.

          • Secundius

            In November 1944 at Iwo Jima, two enterprising Marines Corporal Tony Stein and Sergeant Mel Grevich of the 5th Marines(?) modified two T33’s (Aerial M1919A6 in Aluminum, Not Steel) with a M1918 BAR Bipod and an M1 Garand Rifle Stock. To the “Acquired” (Under New Management) T33’s that weighed ~25-pounds with a Cyclic Rate of Fire of 1,200rpm. Tony Stein was “Killed” and was Posthumously received the “MoH” for his efforts…

          • Rap Scallion

            What makes you think I had a feather pillow and marshmellows for Smoores in my pack????? We had old WWll field gear, most of it was ragged out, poor design and poorly thought out….my premice was we did what we had to get er done! I personally would take the M14 before the M16, my choice, regardless of real and authentic scientific testing results! I had used both on the range and Vietnam!

          • John Swinkels

            I just loved the m14 a mans rifle I think it was the precursor to the slr John browning design.

          • roguetechie

            You obviously don’t know what the actual definition of precursor is because it’s definitely not what you think it is.

          • Jimbo

            I didn’t serve in a war, but it seems to me American troops did very well in North Africa (desert) under General Patton, and the general praised the .30-06 Garand. Couldn’t carry a lot of amo for it, either.

          • Concerned Third Party

            8 rounds in an en bloc clip fed semi-auto against an opponent with 5 rounds in a bolt action rifle with a stripper clip. The Garand was superior in fire power and capacity when compared to the standard rifle of the enemy, which *was* a bolt action in WW2. Had they been going up against Wehrmacht troops all armed with Sturmgewehrs the Garand would show its ineffectiveness rather quickly. What was good in WW2 doesn’t really mean anything to doctrine of modern war.

          • CaptainGroovy

            Warfare has changed a lot in 75 plus years. The M1 Garand was way ahead of its bolt action counterpart in WWII and for the most part in Korea but cannot hot a match to an AK or an AR. Combat today is much more intensive and suppressive fire key to modern battle in urban areas in WWII squads carried a mix of different caliber weapons remember it was not uncommon for a squad to have M1’s, BAR, Tommy guns, or Grease guns, M1 Carbine, plus ACP’s and shotguns and Machine guns. The ammo logistics were a nightmare and Patton’s troops on more than one occasion ran out of ammo and was reduced to hand to hand fighting. Just because something once worked does not mean it will work again.

          • roguetechie

            What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

            Seriously you just won the pig ignorant moron award for the ENTIRE INTERNET for the day for that stupid comment.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            That was a bit harsh… do you by chance support the death penalty for parking violations too?

          • roguetechie

            Only on Tuesdays and every third Thursday but only on the left side of the street.

          • Jimbo

            You’re a real asswipe. I’ve viewed many of your posts, and you insult anyone you disagree with. I’ve got just as much right to participate in this discussion as you do. Here’s a piece of advice my Dad gave me years ago. It would serve you well, if you’re smart. If you don’t have anything nice to say about someone, keep your mouth shut, or someday, one of the guys you badmouth will shut your trap for you.

          • roguetechie

            You’re more than welcome to try buddy…

            I have just as much right to tell you that you have no idea what you’re talking about, which you flat out don’t know your elbow from your ass on the subject by the way…

            I don’t get down with the participation medal everyone’s opinion is equally valuable BS.

            There is so much FUD and outright blatant falsehoods being touted as fact by a bunch of rude ass boomers who think they can still go 12 rounds of throwdown with us young guys, you can’t!

            There is real hard data out there free for the taking a thousand places online that proves how wrong the geriatric hoverround scooter gang shouting down anyone who chooses to believe the COPIOUS AND FREELY AVAILABLE DATA available online rather than their legend only in their own minds 7.62 NATO and the M-14 cargo cult bullshit!

            And you know what’s truly funny?

            5.56, as badly designed as it is right now is still better than 7.62 NATO in a bunch of key areas.

            Redesign a new 5.56 round the RIGHT WAY and it blows 7.62 NATO clear the hell out of the water!

            All while being able to jump the basic ammo load from 210 all the way to 255-260 rounds versus what was it 108 rounds of m80a1?

            Oh, and extending the max fragmentation threshold out well past 500 meters and being able to stay above adiabatic shear threshold velocity sufficient to penetrate level 3 NIJ armor a full 250+ meters beyond what M80a1 can muster….

            Hey guess how many meters out the M80a1 maintains enough velocity to even have a CHANCE to penetrate lvl 3 NIJ?

            ZERO!

            That’s right sunshine, your precious 7.62×51 can’t penetrate the rapidly becoming standard worldwide NIJ LEVEL 3 plate AT THE MUZZLE!!

            so yeah, there went the big sticks all y’all THOUGHT 7.62 NATO had to beat on 5.56 with!

            It doesn’t penetrate armor at all much less better than 5.56!

            It also doesn’t tumble and fragment to anywhere close to the range a truly optimum 5.56 would or the kinda mediocre 5.56 we have now for that matter!

            And if you say knockdown power or superior wounding capacity I’m just going to beat you with that stick too!

            7.62 NATO’s mythical godlike attributes are just that!

            MYTHS

            The M14… Yeah, it’s a joke of a gun.. Literally the bottom of the pile of 7.62 NATO combat rifles.

            The only thing it’s worse at than being an individual weapon is being a lovingly brought to peak performance and efficiency DMR!

            A bad AR10 is better than a GOOD M21 any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

            Feel free to call me rude and etc all you want, frankly IDGAF

            What I DO care about is people deliberately spreading misinformation and outright BS all while trying to act like the big dogs everyone else should bow down to!

            You and your ilk have a lot of nerve to level accusations of disrespect, rudeness, and most especially ignorance / lack of knowledge considering the way you all are acting in this comment section…

            LOTS OF NERVE…not a teaspoon of BRAINS to share between any three of you picked at random, but lots of nerve….

            And yes that’s an insult, get over it

          • Jimbo

            Just as I thought. You can dish out insults, but you can’t take one. This is an adult forum. If you don’t want to act like one, I suggest you go elsewhere.

            Incidentally, all I said in my original post was that the .30 caliber Garand served us well in WWII, and General Patton praised the weapon. If you think that is a moronic statement, then you have real mental issues.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            ROTFL, wow bro, I agree with a lot of what you say, but damn we are going to have to give you the golden douche trophy at the next Frat awards night. Keep trollin lol.

          • roguetechie

            Yeah, idk I seem to have ate my bowl of bitch flakes every day for breakfast this week!

          • mrpoohead

            Excuse me!!!!!!!!!!! Pot, kettle – what are you schizophrenic or just a dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Joseph L. Frechette

            The sost bullet design for the 7.62 will completely change your mind about the accuracy of the cartridge.
            They fly like darts from my Sig Patrol and make tiny groups at 300 meters.

          • Form Factor

            …. what are you even talking of. He says the M14 is less accurate than the AR10. Both in 7.62×51. Your comment is senceless

        • Darrell Elmore

          When I deployed to Beirut in 58 I carried a BAR, 529 rds if ball, 40 rds of tracer, and six MKII fragmentation grenades along with all the other crap an infantryman carried. I patrolled with 13 magazines and my grenades and a few boxes of .30 call in pockets. I had a rifle man carrying some extra too as we had an assistant BAR man then. Airborne!

          • demophilus

            I’m curious — what was your load out on your other deployments?

          • Stuki Moi

            40 lbs of ammo, but no mule……

        • int19h

          It doesn’t matter how Rambo you are personally, you still have a limit on how much you can carry. And using lighter rounds means that you can carry more ammo while remaining in that limit.

          What does more ammo allow you to do? Lay down suppressive fire for longer, for example.

        • Nodough

          Big difference between the Corp then and now. Semper Fi Rap. There are girlies in uniform. I mean real girls!

        • RMP52

          There were many time I wish I had an M-14 instead of that plastic POS M-16. Saw a h*ll of a lot of jams in the field. Our CO carried an M-14 and never had a problem.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            You can thank McNamara’s boys for the M16’s failings in the field early on – they changed the powder from ball to old stick type which is too dirty for a DI gun. That is what led to the jamming, and the fact they were never originally issued with cleaning gear. Some jax salesman told the DoD that the M16 didn’t need cleaning and those pencil pushers bought it. Unfortunately too many of our brothers paid the ultimate price for that. Your CO must have had some swat, it was almost impossible to get an M14 issued through the quartermaster back then, but COs aren’t supposed to be doing as much fighting as the people they lead.

        • TheGreens

          Never thought I’d see the day when dipshit fudds used pol memes to justify awful opinions but here we are

        • roguetechie

          Actually no, you really can’t hit things at longer ranges especially with the POS M-14 in comparison to the SUPERB M-16/M-4… Especially with the insanely good ammunition choices available.

          You also didn’t have to wear a full ballistic protection ensemble or carry any number of other things current guys have to carry.

          Oh and by the way shame on you for denigrating those currently serving…

          You’re proof that age sure as hell doesn’t automatically grant wisdom, humility, or make you any smarter since your comments are ignorant, arrogant, factually inaccurate, and pretty much the reason why the rest of us will dance a jig on your collective graves the day the last baby boomers FINALLY DIE!

          Your collective ignorance, stupidity, and UNBELIEVABLE SELFISHNESS is a millstone around this country’s neck even more inexplicable because you were all spawned by the greatest generation… Aka people who didn’t make this country a nonstop comedy of SUCK and FAIL!

          Go crawl off somewhere and die already

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Have you ever worn a flak vest in 105 degrees 90 percent humidity, kid? It isn’t a picnic. A tour was a year, and you were lucky if you made it past the first couple of months. There was no open ground – every place you went was an ambush waiting to happen. On top of that, you had no close air support or armor to bail you out – you had to shoot your way out. Some of these men you want to disrespect are already dead, so get to dancing. They died holding a jammed rifle that was cause by accountants making decisions based on unit cost instead of combat needs.
            We served at a time when in basic and AIT you ran in combat boots and fatigues and did PT every day outside on gravel. I have seen the training you and your contemporaries have gotten, and running in shorts and t shirts in Nikes isn’t the same, but then 8 weeks of BCT also included abuse from NCOs who would strike you even if it was against the rules. This kind of thing didn’t happen after Vietnam, and that’s the facts. Because people went public about it after the war, much of that was no longer tolerated. It was in my day officially frowned upon, but you knew better than to complain about it.
            You need an attitude adjustment. Please report to your elders and get that done as soon as possible. Your remarks show that our defense of this country may have been a waste. You don’t appreciate or know anything about what happened before your ungrateful posterior first saw the light of day, and you really need to figure out that it is your parents and grandparents that made you even possible. Had it not been for them you would not be here to make a supreme and total ass of yourself on the internet.
            I don’t know if Rap Scallion denigrated anyone or not, but your response shows you have no respect for anyone who was born before you, and you think you are the only person who ever did anything tough in your life: I am here to tell you that you are wrong and your ‘tude makes it apparent that what I am saying is the absolute truth.
            But thank you for your service, even if your character shows little honor.

        • Jimmie Davis

          A Men Brother ! ………. M-14’s Forever ! … I carried the B A R & was glad to have had that 30 /06 Wile in the Marine Corps. What we have here is a bunch of Panty Wastes Whiners !
          7.62X51, 30/06 Hard pair to beat !

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Actually, if you really want to lay waste ahead of you, it is hard to beat an ONTOS loaded with beehive up close or HE for the harder longer range targets.

            I got to see one of these in action courtesy the USMC, and that can really deliver some impressive firepower against a dug in enemy.

        • VieteranGunsmith

          Did you forget this story is about the United States Army? “According to a recent article on Soldier Systems, the US Army is considering an “interim” switch back to the 7.62mm caliber in standard infantry rifles.”
          Good for you, but in 1959 they were still using WWII issue weapons. I was in Vietnam, and most of our field gear was still that WWII stuff. I had plenty of first hand experience with the M16 and I never saw anyone get up after I hit them with 5.56 NATO. Of course, my encounters with the enemy were well within 175 yards a majority of the time.
          In your time, 1959, what theater of war did you serve in? As far as I know there were no major combat operations in 1959.

        • JYuma

          Yes. On Top of that.
          They can’t hit the side of a Barn, even when standing IN IT.
          That is why they have to have Auto.

        • Actually the Ruger 10/22 is a better weapon than the M-16. One thing that I enjoyed with the M-14 is that I could kill the enemy before I came within the effective range of his weapon.

      • Jako

        What makes you think they would jump to a M-14 when they have the AR-10 platform to explore in trials?

        • thedarkknightreturns

          Nothing, it’s just the system a lot of the .30 cal fans espouse as being the greatest thing ever. Also I brought it up as a reminder of the historically very brief flirtation we had with it in service. In my opinion making any .308 battle rifle general issue is a bad idea. As many have opined, I too believe a setup in .308 would be better applied in a more limited support role, if such a thing is really required.

          • Jako

            I’ve had the pleasure of trying out both a Springfield M1A and several of the better Norinco M305/M14 clones, and all were nice rifles, but the platform is no longer suitable for the general needs of the average infantryman.

            The fighting doctrine and environment that is currently evolving however, does require something with a little more oomph and effective range than 5,56×45.

            With any luck a solution can be had before it becomes an absolute necessity. In light of yesterdays missile strike though, I have a feeling things are going to be kicking up a notch a little quicker.

          • thedarkknightreturns

            I’m reminded of that old Chinese curse; “may you live in interesting times.” I am unsure of what will happen going forward, but I guess we can take solace in the idea that 5.45×39 is arguably the weakest of any of the military fielded rounds currently.

          • LilWolfy

            We’ve been doing that for decades, even before OEF and OIF. We always had some type of 7.62 Sniper, Sniper Support, or DM rifle in all of the infantry units I was in prior to 9/11, and more were issued immediately after for the units in both OEF and OIF, to augment then existing weapons in every Battalion’s Scout Platoon.

          • jcitizen

            That’s what my buds told me.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            You know, this is not uncommon. My dad was in Korea and he was issued an M2 carbine as a radio net chief. After the first time in combat, seeing the .30s making dust fly out of the quilted jackets of oncoming NKs, he traded it for an M3 Grease Gun and after that every enemy he shot went down right afterward.
            Every soldier wants a class II Plasma Rifle, but there are so few death rays available. Pity.

        • tiger

          Actually A Kel Tec BFR would make more sense.

          • Jako

            Not for the theater of operations. G36 barrel shift on a greater scale.

          • Concerned Third Party

            Actually a SCAR 17 would make sense since it already has proven itself. Proven itself to be better than any M14 at that. Garand’s novelty came and went, 1950s made it’s novel design show its age. We don’t need to look back for inspiration.

          • tiger

            The Scar is cool too. Folk seem to forget tech has changed over 50 years.

        • LilWolfy

          We already have M110s widely issued and part of the MTOE for many years now, with specific personnel trained on them to engage targets out to 800m or more with M118LR. M14s are gone from the system, and are a maintenance nightmare, with reduced reliability in harsh conditions, with poor accuracy. That ship sailed long ago.

      • JYuma

        A Redesign of the stock would take care of the Auto problem.
        They now have 14’s built on the 16, M4 type frame.
        Not as lite, still much more effective. Shoots accurately at longer range, still great at the shorter range of todays Battles. If person is hit in the trunk of the body they will go down and stay down.
        Mine cost me a Ton. , LOVE it.
        If one use’s the M-14, with a sling, held sideways in a standing position. It is Very efficient when swung from Left to right!
        The Jihadists , do not have any trouble using the Ak-47!
        I understand they are very effective with them.

        • Secundius

          Not an M14! It’s a M1A Squad Scout on an EBR Chassis with an M4 Stock…

          • JYuma

            Last I heard they were selling it as a m-14 still. As I understand it is a 308, 7,62 built on a M-4 type fram. Maybe you are correct in it being one a EBR Chassis. I do not know. I do know what one can done to a 14 to make it a more accurate and controllable weapon on Full Auto.
            I would Love to get my hands on one of the New ones. No matter what they call it. I know that the British have a &.62 Rifle. That they use in the Sand pit.

          • Secundius

            I remember reading an National Geographic magazine in a WDC VA Hospital in 2012. Of a Elderly Afghan Tribesman posing with a his Beloved British “Brown Bess” that has been in his Family for 173-years. And noticing how Beautiful the Rifle was. Lovingly Maintained for more than 4-Generations of Family Usage…

          • JYuma

            They are that. Heavy Too.

        • thedarkknightreturns

          Glad you like it. I’ve never been fond of any of the M1 derived weapons. i.e. From the very get go the Garand was poorly executed, in my opinion it should have been chambered for .276 Pedersen or some quarter bore cartridge…but that is a whole other thing. But, I particularly hate (with a passion) the politics of the M14 and it’s adoption. I am sure you will get many arguments for the blasted thing in the comments section here, but you will never convince me that the M14 was anything more than a gun born from pure politics, a bunch of Army ordnance “engineers” trying to keep their jobs. The M-16 was THE weapon for the Vietnam conflict, but ridiculous measures were taken to try to sabotage the adoption of the M-16. Mainly to the detriment of the average soldier, who is always the victim of politics like this. Well, I guess one less fan in me means more M14s for all you guys who love the things!

          • JYuma

            I , grew up using a 30.06 for a Hunting weapon. Maybe that is why I like the 14 so much. I had no trouble hitting what I wanted to hit. In reality. Every one has a favorite everything.
            For me, I didn’t like chasing what I hit. It stayed where I hit it. it still does today. Although I don’t Hunt any more.
            I am Too Freaking Old, to chase around the Mountains of Eastern Arizona.

    • int19h

      You think so? Let me quote something. Or rather, someone. You decide whether this guy knows better.

      “The M27 that the Marine Corps currently uses for the IAR, is “hands down, the best automatic rifle in the world,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, author of the 2016 book “Scales on War: The Future of America’s Military at Risk.”
      “It outclasses the M4 in every single category,” said Scales, who is not affiliated with Heckler & Koch.
      “The key category is reliability — particularly in dusty, sandy, muddy terrain. The HK has a solid rod system, like the AK-47.”
      The M27, sold to civilians and overseas as the HK 416, uses a piston to control the function of the bolt, and that eliminates problems with gas-tube operating systems used in the M4 ­carbines and M16 rifles, according to the company’s website.
      “If you have a solid rod, then the action can literally blow through things that would normally slow down a bolt action, because you’ve got more mass,” Scales said in a March 27 interview.
      “Whereas, the M4 has a floating bolt that’s not attached to the rod. The gas goes down a long, thin tube — and the gas itself blows against another tube on top of the bolt, which throws the bolt back instead of carrying the bolt back.

      The HK 416’s floating barrel makes it much more accurate and stable than the M4, especially in automatic fire, he said. The rifle also gives troops between 100 and 150 extra meters of effective range than the M4. “It’s the only weapon better than the AK-74, according to people I’ve talked to,” Scales said.

      • Kivaari

        Not everyone agree’s with Scale’s view o the rifles.

        • int19h

          Of course. The point is that this guy was a major general in the Army. And retired as late as 2000. How many more people like this are there among the top brass?

      • UnrepentantLib

        “Whereas, the M4 has a floating bolt that’s not attached to the rod. The gas goes down a long, thin tube — and the gas itself blows against another tube on top of the bolt, which throws the bolt back instead of carrying the bolt back.”
        I read an article a few years ago that explained how the AR-15 action is not a true direct impingement system. The gas actually flows down the tube and is directed into a chamber within the bolt carrier, where it expands, pushing the bolt and bolt carrier apart and turning the bolt. In effect, the bolt carrier is a cylinder and the bolt itself a piston.

      • LilWolfy

        Scales is a joke. Every time he opens his mouth about small arms, I face palm. He’s literally not competent about any of this stuff, even referred to the M4’s gas tube as being made from Aluminum. The bulk of his opinion is from his limited experience in Vietnam with poor soldiers and poor leadership (him), who didn’t enforce maintenance on their M16s, and complains of the “jamming” during one particular assault on their position.

      • Marshall Eubanks

        Wow, that was about the least accurate statement I’ve ever read. Scales’ explanation for why the piston is supposedly more reliably is entirely specious. Frankly, they all are, but his is especially disconnected from reality, having nothing whatever to do with physics and mechanical engineering.

        Also, free floated barrels are ridiculously common across all AR-pattern rifles.

  • Paul

    They are not going back far enough. They should bring back the 1873 Trapdoor Springfield!

    • A bearded being from beyond ti

      Sig P320? F**k that! Give me dat Colt SAA!

    • valorius

      Which the Army actually thought was a better option than the 1860 Henry rifle which held 15x more ammunition…and hit the scene 13 years earlier with no development costs to the Army itself.

      • Paul

        At that time the most important quality for a rifle was the ability to kill a horse. The infantry’s worst fear was cavalry. While the 44 Henry may have been effective against infantry, it was not powerful enough to kill a horse. Add the prevailing mentality of generals who were afraid the troops might waste ammunition and your get the 45/70, 577/450, 43 Spanish 11mm Mauser, etc. Fear of cavalry will still have been strong when the 30/06 was adopted. As the 7.62 NATO is just a shortened 30/06, troops armed with an M-14, FAL or G3 will be well prepared to fight enemy cavalry.

        • valorius

          There is really zero actual evidence that the need to kill a horse outweighed the need to kill personnel, and history certainly does not support that conclusion either.

          In battles where troops used massed lever action rifle fire, the battlefield results were stupendous. Whether during the Civil war, or even the battle of Little Bighorn, when US cavalry with single shot high power rifles were annihilated by natives using lever action rifles.

  • EC

    Maybe do what the Russians do and sprinkle a few designated marksmen at the platoon level?

    • iksnilol

      Don’t y’all do that already?

      If so why not?

      • The late Afghan theater arrangement was one DMR per squad.

      • EC

        It’s happening a bit more from what I understand, but generally speaking marksmen in US forces either use accurised 5.56 rifles or are outright sniper teams. There are M14s being tossed around, but it’s fairly new and not so widespread quite yet.

        As for why, I think it’s a product of historical doctrine. The Russians emphasized massed short-ranged firepower since WWII, which caused them to need to fill the gap of a longer-ranged weapon at the squad level. Americans had been using heavier rifle cartridges as standard issue from WWII to Korea, so there was not such a need.

  • iksnilol

    I don’t really think that 30 caliber weapons are noticeably louder than 5.56.

    • I didn’t either, but Miles said it made a big difference in his WWII live fire trial.

      • iksnilol

        Could it be because they didn’t wear ear pro for that trial?

        • He didn’t in the Marine Corps, either.

          • iksnilol

            BUT THAT’S AGAINST REGULATIONS!?

            HE’S A LOOSE CANNON, I TELL YOU HWAT!

          • Wait, when did the Marines start issuing ears?

      • Twilight sparkle

        It seems like it’s been the opposite to me when you take the amount of powder into consideration. I mean 7.62 NATO is definitely going to be worse than 5.56 because it has a lot more energy that can be turned into noise but that doesn’t really seem related to the caliber of the bore.

      • valorius

        The Nazis seemed to have little problems in the tactical communications department even while employing full power MG42 7.92 bullet hoses.

        The individual rifleman’s weapon isn’t what makes all the noise in combat, really. It’s crew served support weapons.

        • J

          My great Grandfather disagrees.

          • valorius

            Your great grandfather was a beneficiary of the massive battles on the Eastern Front that divided the Nazi forces. Truth be told, the Western front was a side show in WWII.

          • Johannes von’ Strauch

            ? My German Great-Grandfather who fought in the east against Russians and got shot while rescuing a friend by a PPSch trough the stomache and stuck in the spine so that if it would have gotten 1cm futher he would be dead and i NEVER born.
            He beneficiated….. ?

          • valorius

            Sorry, i thought you were saying your great grandfather was a US GI.

  • Anthony Stephan

    Simple solution, why not just add a designated marksman with a semi-auto 7.62 rifle to each fire team, instead of switching the whole army over to .30 cal. You would gain the range in each fire team to take out those medium range machine guns without giving up too much close range fire power.

    • Anonymoose

      That’s gonna be a lot of HK417s…

      • lynyrd65

        They could have a competition and select a cheaper platform (DI AR10 based) for the role. It’s insane to me how much HK charges for their systems.

        • No one

          Hey, got to ride off that brand name reputation from the 80s-early 90s as long as it will get you money!

          • Gary Kirk

            Colt has been doing it since the 1800s..

        • n0truscotsman

          They did have a competition and selected the 417-based G28E for the CSASS role, unfortunately.

          The practical solution that almost everybody agreed with was KAC’s CSASS solution, which could have fulfilled the “7.62mm battle rifle” if needed at a cost that wouldn’t break the bank.

          My conspiracy theory: This is an attempt to go around the G28E by adopting the KAC CSASS. (grins).

          • Form Factor

            These entire HK417 and CSASS stuff is kinda ironic, in the end… it STILL shoots a round with utterly bad shape and insanly low supersonic range for its stupid weight and recoil.

          • n0truscotsman

            It is, but what other options are there besides 7.62? especially for interim roles?

          • roguetechie

            Actually decent rounds?

          • Porty1119

            6.5 and 6mm. .308 is really a pretty awful DMR round.

          • valorius

            It is? .308 has been used to great effect for 50 years.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Lead ball had been used to great effect for 400+ years. The .30 cal bullets are not what made those DM/sniper weapons effective.

          • valorius

            M118LR is a mighty effective cartridge my friend.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Compared to other .30 cal bullets? Sure. Not so much against the better 6.5mm & 6mm bullets though.

          • valorius

            M118LR is highly effective ammunition by any standard.

          • Form Factor

            M118LR with its utter junk G7 BC, stupidly low velocity, bad trajectory, wind drift, and low supersonic range…..?

          • valorius

            Ok bud.

          • ostiariusalpha

            No, really, he’s not wrong. A .243 G7 BC is nothing to crow over compared to what smaller caliber VLD bullets can do.

          • valorius

            Real world results have shown the M118LR to be a tremendously effective cartridge in actual battlefield conditions.

          • Form Factor

            Its ok, but worlds ahead from actually good performing.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Just about any OTM bullet with the same BC would do the same job, there are just better ones out there. Like, a lot better.

          • valorius

            “Perfect is the enemy of good enough”- Kelly Johnson.

          • ostiariusalpha

            That’s actually from an old Italian proverb: Il meglio è nemico del bene. The flip side of it is “Good enough is the enemy of better.” Everything we already have is “good enough” until something better comes along. The M1 Garand was good enough, but the M16 was better. M118LR is good enough, but better is already out there.

          • valorius

            Nothing is ‘better enough’ to justify a change of hundreds of thousands of weapons and ditching a stockpile of hundreds of millions if not billions of rounds of weapons (and not just in the US, but NATO wide)

          • ostiariusalpha

            Sure it is. All those “billions” of rounds are consumables (as are the firearms that shoot them), they’ll be gone in a few years anyways; just replace them with a better round gradually. That’s what we’ve done with new weapons and ammunition for decades, and that’s what will eventually happen even to whatever replaces 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm.

          • valorius

            IMO it’s just not worth the effort for such a minimal gain. A shockingly small % of casualties are caused by small arms in modern war.

          • Form Factor

            Yes its not worth to replace something with rushed junk. BUT with actually good aerodynamic confiqurations (=more ammo, increased fire superority, higher supersonic range, far flatter trajectory, far less wind drift etc) and the coming CT weapons it will make a real diffrence for the guys at the ground, they dont care about youre %’s.

          • valorius

            M118LR is not junk. Give it a rest with the hyperbole. Your “CT” ammo wont be in service anywhere anytime in the next decade (and probably much longer).

            And i am ex Infantry.

          • Form Factor

            I didnt even spoke of your loved M118LR…?
            I just sayd that youre right with small diffrence for the effort, with bad configured rushed rounds.
            But that verry well configured aerodynamic rounds are actually worth it.

          • ostiariusalpha

            The casualties caused by small arms are indeed low, but they are pretty vital for aiding the effectiveness of those mortars, artillery, and warheads. They’re logistical costs are very real also, tons of small arms ammunition are shipped and expended every year. If you can replace 7.62x51mm with a lighter, less expensive to produce, and less costly to transport case-telescoped cartridge, you’d be more than a fool not to. And if that CT cartridge uses a projectile that is lighter, less expensive, has better external ballistics, and with a sabot, even less heat flux (extending barrel life) than the legacy .30 cal bullet, you have a logictical imperative to change calibers. While merely improving performance is neat, it is logistics that wins a war. The .28-26 caliber brass cartridges just don’t offer enough of that logistics benefit to displace the 7.62 NATO, but a clean slate design like the CTSAS offers massive improvements to logistics; plus no penalty to changing the caliber.

          • valorius

            I don’t think CT ammo, based on what i’ve read, is anywhere near military prime time ready. When it is, it’s a discussion worth having.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Ms. Phillips and Textron indicate otherwise, the ammo is basically gtg, it’s simply a matter of testing which caliber is optimal at this point. The carbine could use plenty of refinement, but the MMG is as developed as a pre-production gun gets.

          • valorius

            Which military forces have adopted them?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Which military force had adopted 7.62x51mm in 1952? Or 5.56x45mm in 1958? Both rounds had reached their final form well before adoption, so that has little to do with how “ready” the cartridge design is. The 7.62mm didn’t have any weapons ready for it even two years after it was officially adopted. The CT cartridges are currently being tested on the same track to adoption as any previous round has gone through.

          • valorius

            Which military forces are testing them?

          • ostiariusalpha

            The U.S. military. 75th Rangers at Ft. Benning are going to be doing integrated testing this Summer.

          • valorius

            Good, let’s see how it works out.

          • Johannes von’ Strauch

            Theyr cases and propellant still can use a ton of refinement, which currently is luckly developed by an independent Company.

          • Uniform223

            I don’t know… The A-12 and the SR-71 seem “perfect” to me, hahaha.
            Also perfection is an abstract subjective concept.

          • valorius

            The most amazing part about the SR-71 is how fast it was developed and fielded in an era when everything was done with slide rules and long arithmetic.

          • Uniform223

            True. You also have to think that the A-12 OXCART program was a black budget item and there for didn’t have as much red-tape and bureaucracy to go through. What many peoe do not realize is that the OXCART Program was started just as it’s predecessor the BOXCART (U-2) Program literally started to come off the ground.

          • Concerned Third Party

            False equivalency. Lead ball was fine for muskets, and muskets were fine for volley fire at shorter ranges. Lead ball was lacking for rifles. Hence the Minie ball and other changes that put the rifle at the forefront and rapid changes were made in the 19th and 20th century. A little history goes a long way. 6.5 Creedmoor is an solution looking for a problem.

          • ostiariusalpha

            There’s no false equivalence here. I think Capt. Patrick Ferguson, Timothy Murphy, Thomas Plunkett, Isaac Brock, Martin Scott, and the entire “Green Jacket” Rifle Brigade would find your knowledge of history laughable. If lead ball was only suited for massed fire, the Pennsylvania/Kentucky long rifle, Ferguson breechloader, and Whitworth rifles would never been used in combat. The Minié ball was a definite improvement over the lead ball, and there are 6.Xmm bullets that entirely outperform any projectile loaded in the 7.62x51mm.

          • Concerned Third Party

            6.5 is a hipster round. .308 has been getting the job done for half a century, and if it is insufficient, you step up to .300 WM or .338 Lapua, not 6.5 junk. Leave that crap for the benchrest warriors.

          • Rap Scallion

            Yeah Issue every one a Ruger 10/22!

          • imachinegunstuff

            I read your post above and following your line of logic we should issue everyone 50 BMGs and call it a day.

            Saying that makes as much sense as comparing the 5.56 to a 22 LR. If you can’t stop an attacker with a 5.56 then you just need to learn how to shoot. We used 5.56 as the primary fighting caliber for my squad in Afghanistan and we were undefeated.

            The M1 Garand was great for the 1940s, as proven by the utter failure of the M14 in the 1960s.

          • No one

            Pfft, .50 BMG Barrett rifles are jamomatic poodleshooter caliber rifles.

            We need to just buy some old, proven Soviet 14.5x114mm PTRS workhorses loaded with modern Chinese APHEI rounds and call it a day.

          • n0truscotsman
          • lynyrd65

            With this being a larger contract, having different accuracy and cost requirements I would think a new competition would be made up of more bidders with different systems.

          • roguetechie

            If they did decide to do something this stupid and didn’t even manage to sort of redeem themselves by going with one of the new small frame 308’s…. I’ll make like a liberal and threaten to move to Canada while doing absolutely nothing!!!

            Don’t push me DOD I am REALLY GOOD at doing nothing!

          • Anonymoose

            M110 or Mk17, though?

    • ARCNA442

      That’s what the Russians have been doing for the last 50 years so it should probably work.

      The better option would probably be accelerating the development of the 6.5mm CT machine-gun to replaced the M249’s.

      • valorius

        A new caliber is a solution to exactly nothing.

        • ostiariusalpha

          Lighter weight, better penetration, more supersonic range, and flatter trajectory… you’re right, that solves nothing.

          • valorius

            Our snipers and SDMs have been using .300 win mag and .308 to great effect for decades.

            Our infantry forces have been using 5.56mm to great effect for decades.

            We just spent billions of dollars on M80A1 and M855A1, changing to a new caliber would be insanely stupid.

          • James T Kirk

            People with no experience whatsoever will always bring up the “caliber that should have been” when talking about 5.56’s failings. Amatures study tactics and professionals study logistics. A caliber changeover is FARRRRR from efficient when you look at all the support infantry weapons have to have. Not to mention the fact that I was always taught that (aside from high caliber DMR/sniper weapons) shots at the ranges always brought up in these discussions are crew served weapon ranges, not targets for the individual infantrymen.

          • Kivaari

            Everyone screaming for 7.62mm rifles keep saying the M4 is outranged. The problem isn’t the M4 v. the AKM it is the M249 v. the PKM 7.62x54mmR machinegun. Our soldiers can outshoot the AKM armed enemy. We just need to be using a 7.62mm machinegun to counter the Russian model. Adding a pile of 7.62mm NATO rifles to the mix wont do anything since the ability to hit isn’t dependent on the round, it’s based upon the accuracy found in the individual rifle. The M4 is adequate for its role.

          • Form Factor

            ? 7.62×51 has basicly the same supersonic range as 5.56×45. In therms of fullauto fire its volume of fire anyways for hits.

            M855A1 EPR with minimal recoil in a machine gun is a laserbeam and lasts double the time compared to 7.62×51/54r.
            Technically over double the % hit propability (less movement, double the ammo)

          • Kivaari

            I agree. Those complaining keep bringing up Afghanistan as if our troops are getting whacked daily because of gunfire. We are not losing men to gunfire at extended ranges. The few we have lost have been lost primarily to explosives. I contend we actually have pretty good weapons and tactics. That’s one reason I said the M4 is adequate. The 5.56mm is an excellent round.

          • Form Factor

            Yup and lobbing in MG fire is an entire diffrent thing than some fairy tale Rifle single shots, and has do to almost nothing with the cartridge.
            Just imagine 5.56×45 would have had a good form factor from the beginning.
            Really flat trajectory, double the energy and KE/mm² at range, really high supersonic range, short time of flight.
            The 5.56×45 would have looked like a some space magic cartridge.
            Back in the day they also would have tumbled even more early with theyr shape.
            And then later become the EPR construction.
            Too bad advanced aerodynamic wasnt all that widespread back then.

          • valorius

            I would stick with M855A1 and M80A1 until we perfect infantry portable laser weapons.

          • ostiariusalpha

            M855A1 is awesome, that one’s a keeper. M80A1, while it has great wounding potential due to its EPR design, is a ballistic potato; it’s not really well suited for either a DMR or any machine gun that you want some decent range from.

          • valorius

            M80A1 is not used in an SDM role, M118LR is. M118LR, using the 168gr sierra boat tail match bullet, is highly effective.

            M80A1 should be fine for use in machine guns, which do not require much in the way of precision.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Against hordes of Zulus perhaps, but if you’re trying to eliminate an enemy fire position quickly, then you want your machine guns to be more precise.

          • valorius

            That’s what SDM’s are for. Machine guns are for area suppressive fire.

          • Form Factor

            >Under supression fire, unperfect windy conditions, changing humidity, altitude, angle< a superduper carefully fairy tale single-shot is far less practical than a few simple LMG bursts…….! (that also cause supression additionally)

          • ostiariusalpha

            Using a DM to replace accurate machine gun fire is massively stupid. Wide despersion machine guns are good for massacring tribesmen armed with spears and jezails, or of an infantry advance through No Man’s Land, but accurate walk-on fire was already the direction machine guns were headed by WWII. The kind of wide despersion suppression you indicate is still valid for a squad automatic dealing with opponents at 500 meters or less, but when it’s 900m up a hill, a 5 MOA despersion walked on to the target is hands down better for suppressive fire than 10 MOA despersion.

          • valorius

            There is no such thing as ‘accurate machine gun fire.’

            If you want accurate fire, you use a SDM. If you want area suppressive fire, you use a machine gun.

            At least that’s what they taught us in Infantry school.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Carlos Hathcock would disagree, he nailed a single target with a Ma Deuce at 2500 yds. There are plenty of machine guns that can do precise walk-on fire when properly stabilized.

          • valorius

            He was not using it as a machine gun in that role, but rather as a long range precision support weapon in an era when there was no M-82 or equivalent.

          • Concerned Third Party

            The exception is not the rule. Why do people fail to understand this? The modifier is ‘Carlos Hathcock’, not the gun itself. The man could probably get a 1 KM shot with a black powder Pennsylvania long rifle.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Maybe in your fantasy land. Even Hathcock couldn’t violate physics, if the gun lacked the necessary inherent precision, then even Gunny would have missed. He would have told you the same.

          • Secundius

            Maybe not! The “Ma Deuce” in question was a Special Purpose Model Specifically Modified for Carlos Hathcock. Call the SM-2, Single Shot Model 2 Browning Heavy Machine Gun…

          • VieteranGunsmith

            That is absolutely correct – the Gunny’s M2 was not a machine gun – it was semi auto only.

          • Secundius

            What was Carlo Hathcock’s options?/! Even the Boys .55 Anti-Tank Rifle lacked the Range to do the Job needed…

          • VieteranGunsmith

            With a Unertl scope attached. How many sniper scoped M2 50 cals have you seen?

          • ostiariusalpha

            I’ve seen several, the M2 was even used for sniping in the Korean Conflict. Hathcock loved tinkering, and had an acquaintance fabricate a mount so he could bolt his personal scope to a gun with the automatic mechanism disabled, but there was otherwise nothing particularly special about it; they’re just capable of that sort of precision even bone stock. And setting aside your apparent disrespect for our snipers, there are many currently serving personnel that could make the same distance and wind calls that Gunny did if you gave them a scoped M2. He was an amazing sniper, but Mawhinney and Waldron were just as good.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            That is the mission of Close Air Support, no rifleman will ever prevail against a target that has you downrange and out ranged.

          • ostiariusalpha

            It’s nice that we have good CAS these days, isn’t it? You may have missed the point of this conversation though. Which is that just because 7.62x51mm might be outranged doesn’t mean than it was our only option. There are other bullets that would bring the enemy right back into range, making it harder for them to find suitable terrain to try and pull such a tactic. Both the M2 and M240 are capable of very good precision from a tripod, even in automatic fire, if the bursts are kept to 10-15 rounds.

          • Form Factor

            “I would stick with M855A1 and M80A1 until we perfect infantry portable laser weapons.” Wtfh

            Sure we should stick with it until something is perfected, but surely not laser weapons.
            Just until a absolute perfected CT confiquration is done.
            With that, even for the same caliber you get (only with good form factor ofcourse) far higher supersonic range, much more energy at range, MUCH less wind drift, less weight, more rounds to carry, LESS recoil due to less powder use and because it has no stupidly heavy bolt carrrier bouncing back and forth causing completly uneeded recoil, the chamber just moves up and down.
            Much more reliability, and a more sealed action than a large ejection port.
            Longer barrel for the same overall lenght. And FAR later cookoff due to the extremly good isulation.

            +as soon as lasers come (energy storage is EXTREMLY problematic for that compared to powder), Mirror Armor will require it even MORE damn energy, and reflect most of it into space….

          • valorius

            By CT i’m assuming you mean caseless ammunition?

          • Form Factor

            OH MY GOD, how many damn times did i already told you CT is polymer cased telescopic, not some caseless junk.

          • valorius

            You’ve never told me anything bud.

      • gunsandrockets

        As was clear from the earlier TFB story, the 6.5mm CT ammunition development was aimed at the role of the M240, not the M249.

    • valorius

      Or the Army could do what the Marines did and replace all our SAWs with a 5.56mm carbine. o.O

    • valorius

      They had done that for a while during the Iraq insurgency, i guess they stopped. And have now quickly realized why they did it to begin with.

    • Bierstadt54

      Any sensible person would conclude this too. .30 for everyone is insane.

    • I completely agree that a 7.62 DMR would be a much easier solution.

      Kind of along that line, given all of these developments to counter the “PKM menace,” why not just buy some PKM’s chambered in 7.62 NATO for use if Afghanistan?

      The Polish UKM-2000 is a modernized PKM that uses NATO standard ammo and M13 disintegrating links.

  • Eric Atkinson

    It does not follow that “Unit endurance would be cut in half.” I carry 6 30rd mags plus the one 30rd mag in my Sig 762. That’s 210 rounds. I could carry more. So it seems to me that most infantrymen could do that plus a belt or two of 7.62 for an M240.
    Weight carried should be prioritized by ammo, water, other weapons,med,body armor, Com,and food.

    • No one

      Yeah, clearly they can do better then that with standard loadouts already being in the 90-120 pound range easily!

      Permanent Knee and Spinal damage? What’s that?

      • XT6Wagon

        time to put a ton of mag pouches on the lower legs to help with that…. who cares about aglity in combat, got to mule your load.

        • CommonSense23

          Thats even worse for endurance. Got to move the weight twice.

    • Well Eddie Hall can deadlift a thousand pounds, so you must be right.

      • No one

        It’s simple then, alls the US Army needs to do is start a cloning program to make every soldier a totally loyal version of Brian Shaw.

        Any other defense program is simply a waste our our taxpayers money at this point!

      • Eric Atkinson

        The 7.62×51 NATO round weighs 25.4 g. Two hundred and twenty rounds with mags mass about 6Kg. Are you that weak?

        • I just imagined soldiers running around naked with six kilograms of belted 7.62mm wrapped around their nethers like a diaper. Thank you for that mental image, it really made my day.

  • Don Ward

    Great. The US military should swap over to 7.62 NATO just in time for us to get involved in some jungle war, probably in Venezuela or Myanmar.

    • pun&gun

      North Korea’s looking awfully dangerous lately.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        That one won’t be fought with small arms.

        • Big Daddy

          Every war is if you want to take territory.

          • Porty1119

            Taking territory is not a concern in a NUCLEAR WAR OF ANNIHILATION. Seriously, it’ll be an extended air campaign focused on eliminating NK strategic strike capability.

            Unless the Chicoms do it for us.

          • ARCNA442

            Nuclear weapons don’t magically remove the need for ground troops. Further, it is highly unlikely we could afford to expend more than a hundred warheads given the small size of our current inventory.

          • crackedlenses

            And people complain our nuclear arsenal is too big.

          • valorius

            And if the North decides to pour across the border into S. Korea when we start bombing them?

        • valorius

          Hopefully….

    • Widgt

      We are always fighting the last war.

  • Twilight sparkle

    7.62 makes sense for niche roles but not for general issue

    But why are we all up so late???

    • Marcus Hickman

      Spring vacation 🙂

      • Twilight sparkle

        That makes sense… y’all are lucky lol I just have insomnia

    • Paul White

      sick 2 year old

    • Carlos Velazquez

      Just woke up

  • Sean

    The Defense Dept. is spending 1.5 trillion a plane that doesn’t work. They aren’t getting new rifles now. Or much of anything else. Maybe new uppers for their M4’s in 300 blackout.

    • Twilight sparkle

      If memory serves me correct, there was a request from socom similar to this. Personally I’m not a fan of 300 blackout and it would have a lot of the aforementioned negative attributes that 7.62 NATO has, the problems just wouldn’t be as pronounced.

      • Sean

        I am not a fan either. But it is .30 caliber.

    • CommonSense23

      Why do people keep suggesting 300BLK. It was never meant as anything other than a specialist round for shooting people quietly.

      • No one

        Because people never actually read the origins of why a round was actually made or what it was made for sadly.

      • CJS

        Because they’ve seen the video of Travis Haley hitting a steel plate at 700+ metres with a rds (without thinking about how many shots it took to walk it onto the target), so it must be the dogs teabags!

      • The Blinded One

        It’s the current “5.56 replacement” flavor of the week, just like 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC were back in their day. People always suggest the latest trend in the gun industry every time the military considers adopting a new rifle/pistol/caliber. Right now it’s 300 blackout and striker fired service pistols. A decade ago it was piston ARs and 6.5/6.8 I wouldn’t be surprised if one of these 300 blackout advocates has actually has a 6.8 gas piston AR with an Eotech “Zombie Stopper” sight (and magnifier), biohazard green stock/grip, full length quadrail, and a single mounting point for his single point sling. Obviously it would be loaded with zombie killer ammo, and drenched in froglube.

        • Porty1119

          6.5 actually works, and has better long-range ballistics than .308 in some respects.

      • n0truscotsman

        I have no idea but my forehead hurts from facepalming so much.

      • CommonSense23

        What I find interesting. Is I have gotten to speak to a bunch of fighter pilots from all 3 branches, and all of them have spoken about how the F35 is going to be a game changer, and are looking forward to it.

        • Frank

          Ive seen some simulations, 4 F35 vs 4 other planes (many diffrent tests). From the view of the other planes it was almost scary, the entire time they had nothing on the radar, but you knew something is out there, and suddendly out of nowwhere BAAAM, dead.

      • Sean

        The one that can’t run, can’t fight. Can’t shoot without the recoil from the gun throwing it off target. That can’t hit a moving target. Can’t carry more than missiles or bombs. The one with no range.

        • The Fiat G.91 didn’t cost $1.5T though, mate.

          • Sean

            THe F-35 does.

          • You been reading too much Business Insider, buddy.

          • Uniform223

            Or watching RT, Sputnik “news”, and listening to self proclaimed interweb “experts”.

          • User

            Oh gawd please stop. Yes its absolute insane over there.

          • No one

            It also wasn’t an American plane.

            This guy must be terribly confused. like something who thinks the US Military would switch to ,300 Blackout or something.

  • XT6Wagon

    Sounds good, now just spend the money to run suppressed bullpup rifles in 7.62 CT so that its somewhat comparable to the current load…

    wait? you don’t want $3000 rifles to replace $600 ones? well there you go.

    • Form Factor

      …? If you actually put the 7.62 diameter at max weight, you end up with a stupid high number thats needs insane energy (and recoil) to barely propell it at nearly adequat velocitys. About….. 5311Joule!! The diameter is useless for infantery arms.
      With an overall cartridge weight of 20grams! =166% of even brass cased 5.56×45

      But i quess you meant it as a joke.

      • Anonymoose

        The new 6.5 CT outperforms 6.5 Creedmoor from a barrel that’s half the length. .30cal is going to go the way of the dodo.

        • Form Factor

          Yes, .30cal is dead, and it gets totally outperformed even by this 6.5 CT that is one heck of a stupidly bad configured round.

          • Aono

            I have a tough time imagining a 400J@1200m round to eliminate 762×51 that is better configured than 6.5CT. What are you talking about?

          • Form Factor

            6.5 CT has ONE HECK OF A DUMB -> Form Factor

            Wich gives it a stupid BC for its weight/ and therefore requires an insane amount of energy for adequat velocity = totally uneeded Recoil and weight.

            Its De Facto an insanly bad configured round. Nothing changes that.

          • Aono

            It is essentially a scaled up lead free M855A1 projectile, whose bullet construction is completely oriented around lead-free and Hague-friendly terminal performance. We don’t know what sort of constraints the polymer sleeve imposes on ogive shape, but it’s very likely that this imposes a constraint on how far up the projectile the powder column can go within the cartridge. It’s trivial to find better shapes in practice out there, but none exist within those constraints and then balanced against cartridge coal and swept bore volume.

          • Form Factor

            Yes it does, you have a general idea about what youre talking about, but de facto not the slightest when it goes into high detail, and in general you dont have enough info about it and whats available, so its not your bad.

            Its utterly bad, and wont get trough, others will vastly overcome it.

          • Aono

            Well, what I do have is the ability to present logical arguments rather than waving my hands mysteriously while whispering “high detail.”

          • Form Factor

            Yes, your arguments are good and logical in this case, dont get me wrong, your smart, its just that they arent compatible with more modern technology.

          • Aono

            Fairy dust isn’t an argument.

          • Form Factor

            Oh you will see haha. I gonna win the waiting game and stay correct.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Actually, (Gearward) Mark and I spitballed that a 6mm projectile in a cup sabot fired from the .308 CT would outperform the 6.5 CT by a good bit. Cup sabots don’t have the same precision difficulties that killed the Steyr ACR flechette rounds.

  • Drew Remington

    “The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.”

    So they’re lying right off the bat. This tells me that there was pushback from somewhere so they’ve changed their wording and their plan. I can almost guarantee they have a caliber and weapon system selected, right now, but, they know that testing and getting people to sign off on it will be their biggest hurdle.

    If I was in charge of this program, what would I do? I would make everyone believe that our troops are outgunned. Instead of proposing that we move directly to a particular rifle chambered in a particular caliber, I would make it seem as if we are weighing all of our options, starting with 7.62×51. After transitioning an entire BCT (as the article states) to the GOTS weapons, we would then rebarrel the weapons to the desired caliber. All I have to do then is purchase large quantities of the new ammunition. Once the ammunition is supplied, we replace the rifles because they were never intended to fire the round that we intend to shoot.

    • valorius

      If i was in charge of this program i’d cancel it.

  • Shaun Connery Oliver II

    I like to ask from the heart of a curious individual, not a troll. Who has watched Lawrence Kramer’s testimony about his cartridge, the 6.8×45 UCC? In two videos, he has at least stated why the 6.8×45 UCC is the best candidate to replace the 5.56×45 NATO without going to a battle rifle cartridge like the 7.62×51 NATO, which Nathaniel F. stated beautifully on the reasons why it is a HORRENDOUS idea in the first place. I ABSOLUTELY sure that our US troops DO NOT want to decrease their firepower for, while higher damage and logner range, increased recoil and further loss of battlefield communication. It puts them in a merciless merry go round, a raging revolving door that will make them whirl badly. Just look at what Kramer Defense’s website, take a look at the videos, and check me out. That’s all.

    • The 6.8x45mm UCC is silly. It’s a weaker, dumpier 6.8 SPC, and that cartridge ain’t so great neither.

      • Form Factor

        Nathaniel? Could you maybe put my comment a bit higher in the comment section, it contains some direct math and facts that you just generally adressed. (the one where i adress recoil % and supersonic range)

        It would be practical, so that 7.62×51 fanboys who dont know any of the math see it first, !before! writing theyr fairy tale stomache-facts.
        Otherwise in a few hours the comment section is full of that.

        • Form Factor

          (not the 6.8 one here, the one where i directly adress 7.62×51)

        • I don’t have that ability, sorry.

          • Form Factor

            Nah, no problem, its not as bad as expected, most people seem really sane, i quess quite a lot got well educated by reading your articles before, and know general facts and logic.

    • Form Factor

      A brass bottleneck cartridge will NEVER EVER replace 5.56×45. CT rounds are coming. They are far lighter, have better aerodynamics, better heat isulation, more space efficient mechanism, and far more reliable.

      And 6.8 is a UTTERLY STUPID diameter from the beginning. Its insanly reduces the nose ogive lenght in relation to its diameter, the Form Factor (aerodynamics) become just hilarious -> if you want to use a longer ogive, it wont fit in the mag anymore + for that case the velocity (and supersonic range) would become extremly low. = use a god damn smaller diameter or you reach nothing.

      + KE/mm² is important and Velocity for penetration. Slow thick projectiles are utterly bad in that case…

      + KE=1/2m x v² while p=m x v ! = For the !SAME! Energy a lighter but verry fast projectile (flat trajectory, high supersonic range, high penetration) has LESS recoil, than a heavy and slow one. And that luckly also decreases cartridge overall weight.

  • Form Factor

    UTTERLY STUPID. 7.62×51 is a PIECE OF GARBAGE. Its stupidly thick for its weight with an HILARIOUSLY BAD G7 bc for its stupid weight and recoil. Its has the !SAME! supersonic (=accurate) range as 5.56×45!!!! You get NOTHING besides a bit of wind drift for insane tradeoffs.
    DOUBLE the weight = HALF the Rounds + !even LESS! because the Rifle weights more (barrel, boltcarrier etc).

    +198% the RECOIL Impulse and 311% the RECOIL force !!!!!!!!!!

    + SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.
    +10rounds less capacity (great for ambushes….)

    + CT rounds are coming ANYWAYS, with less weight and far better performance, and actually modern Rifles, instead of our stoneage bottleneck garbage.

    Please god let it rain BRAINS!

    • Autistic Cracker

      I can’t believe the nonsense I’m reading right now. Do you think exterior ballistics and interior ballistics are the only kinds that exist? Have you ever heard of terminal ballistics? And bottleneck cartridges are “stoneage”? WHAT?! CT ammo isn’t even past development yet, and it will be a long time until bottlenecked casing are phased out when it is finally complete.

      You sound like some kind of armchair benchloader.

      • Form Factor

        M855A1 EPR will explode your skull, shred your organs, lungs, arms, legs, any damn day.
        People arent paper targets on a range, they present a tiny silhouette. And 198% the recoil Impulse + 311% the recoil force sure WONT help, -10 rounds per mag also, and half to carry for the same weight even less.

        % hit propability is what kills in this case.

        • Autistic Cracker

          What is armor or barrier defeating capability? Your numbers on recoil are suspect as I doubt every single .308/7.62 rifle has the same effects, or at least direct that recoil that way. To that extent, everyone can shoot different guns and calibers with varying effectiveness.

          I’d also like to know if your claim for both rounds having the same supersonic range took into consideration the match grade ammo that is usually deployed with DMRs?

          • Concerned Third Party

            Form Factor just vomits spell errors and grammatical nightmares all over the place and fancies anyone who disagrees with him isn’t as smart as his grade school certificate holding self.

        • Concerned Third Party

          ‘And 198% the recoil Impulse + 311% the recoil force sure WONT help’
          You spout this endlessly as if it’s some universal for felt recoil. A SCAR-17 has the same felt recoil as a SCAR-16. Felt recoil is all that matters, that is where engineering comes into play. No one gives a toss if the impulse and force are higher if the gun is designed around that fact and eliminates it. 7.62 NATO has a place, just as 5.56 NATO and pistol calibers have their place. If you are engaging targets are 500+ m in windy mountain ranges, the 5.56 falls short. 7.62 NATO is far better in that environment, and for anything beyond that, .338 Lapua and .50 BMG fill the need

      • Porty1119

        Past a certain minimum level of terminal effectiveness, a dead Talitubbie is a dead Talitubbie.

    • Patriot Gunner

      I wouldn’t be so certain about CT ammo. The round is not even close to being fully developed and the guns that currently use them are heavier, have more moving parts and are several orders of magnitude more expensive than the current stuff in gov armories. And on top of all that, non of the infrastructure is setup for it, new loading machines have to be developed, new high density powders, etc. Also, given the current gains in polymers it is not far fetched to think that someone will develop a polymer to replace brass and if that happens you can kiss CT goodbye. Developing a polymer case to replace brass seems like a more logical solution given that everyone can keep using the guns they have. There will be something that replaces brass, but it ain’t going to be tomorrow and it may not even be CT.

      • Form Factor

        ? what a bunch of bs.
        “Developing a polymer case to replace brass seems like a more logical solution given that everyone can keep using the guns they have.”
        Senceless, with polymer you need thicker walls = less chamber volume in our current bottleneck cartridges, + the Rim rips off.
        With the same weapons you will have the same COAL = STUPIDLY BAD form factor (aerodynamics). = utterly bad performance!
        Also the retarded heavy bolt carrier that smacks back and forth causes a ton of UNNEEDED recoil, and waists space. CT is more space efficient = longer barrel/ or shorter rifle. Also CT is much more reliable and by FAR more sealed than a dumb huge ejection port.

        • Patriot Gunner

          Case wall thickness is only an issue with the polymers that we know of now, new polymers are being developed which could allow for the same wall thickness. I agree that CT is more space efficient, but just because its a sealed system doesn’t necessarily mean that the gun will be more reliable. Current weapons using CT ammo are heavier and have more moving parts so reliability is yet to be seen. I am not discounting the merits of CT, but if the gov is given the choice between using polymer cased ammo that is significantly lighter and cheaper than brass while still being able to maintain all of their current weapons versus adopting a new round with all new hardware, well the choice is simple for them. The cost associated with CT is going to be exponentially higher than anyone is going to admit. There are a lot of unintended consequences when switching over to new weapons systems, i.e. how will the rest of the 27 members in NATO respond? Personally I would LOVE to see CT being adopted and eventually become available to the civilian market, but I just don’t see that happening anytime soon.

          • Form Factor

            Timing is like non existent compared to bottneck mechanism, perfectly straight push trough chambering/ejection. Its sealing to mud is incredible compared to a large bottleneck ejection port.
            No case heads to rip of, no shallow case angles under pressure to get stuck in the chamber, no way to get the brass stuck with a piece of sand.
            And actually less moving parts with a well made mechanism…..

            CT weapons are only heavier because Textron is unable to design it properly and it uses a stupid unneeded 6,7 bore, and thick chamber.

            Also tell me more about how the CT LMG with 9,4 Pounds weight more than a Saw with 17,95 pounds……..

            And as said, with current weapon mag COAL your aerodynamic performance stays just hilarious.

            Nato will follow, but only if the absolute perfect round configuration is found, and not some rushed garbage.

          • Patriot Gunner

            Like I’ve said before, I think there is great merit in the CT. However, what we have from HR Textron leaves a lot to be desired. It is still going to need a LOT of time, money and effort to refine the design and be that as it may I wouldn’t hold my breath. Only God knows how long its going to take to actually come to fruition, it could be another 10+ years until they work out all the bugs. I will cut HR Textron some slack, they are probably working with some very hard constraints from their .gov overlords. I would like to see some initiative from private enterprises without govt funding tackle this issue. We would certainly see results much faster.

          • Form Factor

            Its not the slightest as much as 10years. And yes there is a private company without restrains doing a ton of work in this area.

          • Patriot Gunner

            I hope your right, but I think you may be underestimating the bureaucracy that is .gov. Well I’m glad someone else is doing research in this area. What is the name of the company?

          • Concerned Third Party

            Sounds like Form Factor has a stake in this company, which is why his autistic screeching of specious claims and ‘technical jargon’ like this: ‘Timing is like non existent compared to bottneck mechanism’ should be taken with a grain of salt.
            I’m sure he also thinks a Peltier device hooked up to a solar panel is going to solve water shortages in deserts.

            ‘Please god let it rain BRAINS!’
            And learn to spell senseless and the difference between waist and waste you annoying twerp.

          • Patriot Gunner

            I’m highly dubious of his claims regarding this private company (since he did not even provide a name), but anything is possible (although not very probable).

            “I’m sure he also thinks a Peltier device hooked up to a solar panel is going to solve water shortages in deserts.” LOL that is frickin’ hilarious.

    • john huscio

      Switch back to 30.06………love you see more ARs chambered in that….

      • Concerned Third Party

        no

  • FOC Ewe

    We didn’t have this inferiority complex when flamethrowers were still in circulation.

  • Deplorable Anti-Communist Nick

    The good idea fairy strikes again..

  • Paul White

    I’m having an incredibly hard time taking this seriously. I can see maybe increasing DMR’s or going back to a 308 DMR or something, but using a 308 a a general issue?

  • Kirk Newsted

    “Unit endurance would be cut in half. The infantry platoon would go from carrying 16,700 rounds of ammunition to carrying 9,400 rounds, a decrease of almost 44%. This means units would run out of ammunition in a little over half the time that they would with the current ammunition configuration.”

    Then you change your tactics. We’ve done that before.

    • Form Factor

      WTF? You loose an insane amout of fire !SUPERORITY! – THAT IS A FACT, and CANT be changed with some fairy tale tactics. It was changed because 7.62×51 was absolutly unable to work with the needed tactics.

      Read my comment below about actual 7.62×51 facts. You see it would in any area almost not have a single advantage, but insane drawbacks.

      + actually aerodynamic 5.56×45 does OUTPERFORM 7.62×51 in almost every area by far. Rather use that instead to take a giant utterly stupid step backwards.

    • Anonymoose

      We could draw inspiration from Turkey and all those 3rd World crapholes that still use FALs and G3s as their primary rifle. 😀

    • Cal S.

      With even the Pentagon acknowledging that most future battles will be for cities and urban areas, you’d think that they’d realize that a lighter cartridge is better.

      Room-to-room fighting doesn’t require a cartridge that has a combat range of 1,000m.

      • iksnilol

        And 308 doesn’t really have a realistic range of 1000 meters.

        • Cal S.

          Thought it stayed supersonic out to 1,100m? No?

          • iksnilol

            Sniper loads do that, yeah.

            But also consider how much holdover you need to reach the far edges of range.

          • Cal S.

            Nah, man, I got me this $20 “Ballistic-drop compensating” 4x optic from Amazon. I’m good.

          • CommonSense23

            What loads do you know doing that.

          • iksnilol

            Pretty high pressure 10 gram loads. Like 3-3.1 grams of Varget. Or heavy bullets, like 11.5 grams.

            But y’know, those are handloads, I don’t know if there are factory loads. I mean, 308 sucks at long range, you shouldn’t expect past 800 meters. Going 300 meters past that is more done for the challenge than anything else.

          • Form Factor

            1100?? Some sniper stuff. Normal goes barely… 800meter…. supersonic. You see, an insane ton of tradeoffs, and you dont even get actual range for it.

          • CommonSense23

            Around 745 is when it hits transonic.

          • Cal S.

            Well, this is 2017, so it could still identify as supersonic and we couldn’t judge it.

          • valorius

            Thread winner.

          • valorius

            The problem with extreme ranges in combat is target acquisition.

    • LilWolfy

      Change your tactics to “die in place”, or “wait for resupply while the enemy maneuvers”. In this column, we find out who knows the difference between 1A and 8, and who has never even heard of them.

      • valorius

        Modern infantry combat is all about volume of fire.

        This is why i get so stoked about the USMC replacing SAWs with M27s.

        • Quest

          The thing is, can you reload a saw while moving…? No, it slows your entire squad down, and reloading takes an insane amount of time. Id rather have a fast and mobile reload, and a (much) lighter weapon.
          If you want bove you… have to get back in time to the Stoner ACR, 80round polymer-belt-drum, as fast as a mag change. Hard to realize with bottleneck cartridges right now.

          • valorius

            You can easily reload a SAW while on the move with a 30rd STANAG magazine.

            Of course that is NOT the role that machine guns are designed for, and attempting to use this point as a criticism of a machine gun is patently ridiculous.

            The SAW is primarily a base of fire weapon, but one that is light enough to keep up with maneuver elements.

    • valorius

      We changed away from large diameter heavy ammunition for a reason.

      I’d rather see us change to a FN P90/5.7x28mm force than a M110/7.62mm one.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    “The ‘Interim’ component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to
    eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers.”

    Music to my ears. And proof that I was right and you were wrong.

    • Johannes von’ Strauch

      BS, 6.5 is ONLY ok with outdated technology, with the coming change in boundaries these 6.5 will look like GARBAGE, and an insane waist of money.

      • No one

        It’s AFC, It’s pretty much well established he has no idea what he’s talking about regarding anything ever at this point.

        • Johannes von’ Strauch

          I know… if he would have any idea about actual advanced aerodynamics, he would realize all of those listed 6.5’s are garbage.

          But hey its called 6.5 so its magic right.

    • crackedlenses

      Meh, this probably won’t come to fruition until CTAS is ready and we’re building a new cartridge from scratch.

  • n0truscotsman

    That KAC M110 CSASS conversion is looking more and more attractive now /rolls eyes/

    I cant wait to see how this renaissance tragic comedy turns out.

  • Wesley Hartle

    Ok here’s my thoughts. If the army is really concerned about range, bring back 20″ m16 a2s (but without the carry handle) and add a few guys into the squad who are equipped with standard m14s as a midway between standard infantry and dmr sharpshooter. Kinda like in a squad of 16 men you have like maybe 4 guys with bare bones (maybe an acog on top or red dot) m14s and the rest are using standard equipment. This is with the exception of replacing the m4 carbine with full length m16 rifles. I think that would be a better solution than going whole hog and making everyone shoot 7.62.

    • Johannes von’ Strauch

      The thing is, a slight change in aerodynamics of the 5.56×45 give you WAY more range (energy at range and supersonic range) than a few inches of barrel could ever offer…

    • Paul White

      Heck with M14, use an AR10.

    • iksnilol

      Those 10 cm of barrel won’t make you into a DMR.

  • Yeah, this totally makes more sense than maybe putting two Designated Marksmen in a unit to deal with enemy snipers and machinegunners. (9_9 )

  • Major Tom

    “Soldier training would take much longer to reach similar
    proficiency levels, and more regular training would be necessary to
    maintain it. 7.62x51mm produces substantially more recoil than
    5.56mm, even in heavier weapons, and it takes more skill to master
    weapons in this caliber. While this may not be a problem for the
    civilian deer hunter or recreational shooter, is a problem for a
    fighting force which must train thousands of recruits of different
    backgrounds and natural skill levels to proficiency, especially when the
    whole point of moving to 7.62mm would be to give more lethality at long
    range, where shots are even harder.”

    Ya know, we DID overcome this problem in 1942 when everyone learned .30-06 from heavier weapons. We trained millions of men on it at an industrial rate.

    That’s not a very good point against when you look historically. Especially considering the ammunition expenditure per enemy kill in 1944 was much lower than it is today. (And in Vietnam it was much lower than today despite allegedly Vietnam-era troops being “poorly trained conscripts” or so goes the stereotype.)

    Unless troops today are such creampuffs that you have to coddle and accomodate them so much, the training component isn’t a strong argument. (And if they are such creampuffs, Heaven help us if we ever have to engage in a real war like against Russia or China.)

    • Form Factor

      Its still a diffrence….. He doesnt say in any way its something its possible, but there de facto is a diffrence.

      • Form Factor

        Edit: “*its something impossible”

      • Major Tom

        A difference that isn’t a complete deal breaker. If training new systems were, we never should have gone to the M16 in the first place because of the vastly different needs of training on it vs the M1/M14. Instead with that argument, we should have just simply modernized and rechambered the M14 to 5.56mm and left Stoner’s invention in the dust.

        But we didn’t. The training differences didn’t justify it.

        • No one

          The M14 was an absoloute dumpster of a rifle design, the AR-10/15 series destroys it in nearly every way possible (So did the FAL while we’re at it), That’s one of the worst suggestions you could possibly try to do.

          There’s a very good reason the M14 was the shortest lived service rifle in US history.

          • Major Tom

            And the argument of “New training means NO NEW RIFLE” was used to defend the M14, much the same way it’s used to defend retaining 5.56mm and the M16/M4.

            But the training differences between the M14 and M16 didn’t stop adoption of the M16.

          • Form Factor

            Because training is GOD DAMN MORE EASY with the M16.

          • Major Tom

            Only in the sense of you can full-auto dump an entire 20-30 round mag into a target at 100 yards and expect to hit something.

            The M16 has a lot of unnecessary complications when it comes to simple operation. Even doing a simple load, charge, switch from Safe, unload, empty chamber, return to Safe takes twice as many motions and more complication motions than doing the same thing in a FAL, M14, AK, or even some modern arms like a G36.

            There are many things that could be improved on the AR platform. The ease of use argument only exists because there isn’t much in the way of competitors. Hard to find something easier to use than the AR when the AR is all you know and can find.

          • Form Factor

            … it will get replaced, but not by some utterly stupid 7.62×51 bottleneck stoneage rifle

            Never rush things or you be stuck with garbage.

          • iksnilol

            Well, to be rude with you, 5.56 is more efficent and the AR-15 itself is more efficent.

            My easiest proof of this is Norwegian dynamic competitions (basically 3 gun but with only one gun). First, everybody used 308s, the guys with the AR-10s won. Then, one guy went with a Mini-14 (only guy in the comps that used 5.56) and then he won. Then lastly, guys started using AR-15s and won.

            It is an easier gun to use. Simple as that. And the 5.56 is easier to be more accurate with, thus you can get up to a high proficency faster than you would with a .308.

          • Beju

            That reminds me of a NATO slideshow about Sweden’s experience switching to 5.56 in the 1980s. They had to raise the score to get a marksmanship badge because after the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 in the 1980s, pretty much everyone could get a marksmanship badge under the old standard.

            Then they had to raise it again when they issued red dot sights.

          • DW

            Why did that one guy compete with a mini tho

          • iksnilol

            DUDE, IT WAS THE 80’s. IT WAS A CRAZY, COKE-FUELLED ERA!

            I dunno, maybe that was easily available to him in 5.56 or something, I really don’t know. I think he also moved on to a AR-15 though.

          • Uniform223

            “The M16 has a lot of unnecessary complications when it comes to simple operation. Even doing a simple load, charge, switch from Safe, unload, empty chamber, return to Safe takes twice as many motions and more complication motions than doing the same thing in a FAL, M14, AK, or even some modern arms like a G36.”

            > after reading that paragraph you should change your screen-name to “Second Lieutenant Tom”.

        • Form Factor

          Read my comment below with the direct comperasion of 7.62×51, and you realize, that it has so many drawback and almost not a single advantage, that all these training diffrences are already a really minor issue.

    • Don Ward

      Which is why in World War 2 up to 3/4s of American combat troops never fired their weapons for the purpose of killing?

  • adverse4

    Our military of today can not carry those heavy things and ammo too.

  • FT_Ward

    Most people in combat don’t aim their rifle. They point and pull. Most shots aren’t fired at a identified enemy, they’re fired at where the enemy might be. If you could get each rifleman to get one hit per basic load of ammo he carried virtually every war ever fought would be over by lunch on day 2.

    The above is why the vast majority of infantrymen should be armed with an “intermediate” caliber rifle and they should carry more ammo for LMGs, grenade launchers, M72s etc. Good enough for short range combat and spraying hillsides in the hope of suppressing the enemy is good enough in most cases.

  • 22winmag

    7.62×51 infantry rifles?

    Two words: MILLENIAL SNOWFLAKES

    • No one

      Last I checked it was Vietnam era baby boomers that always talk about how great the M14 was and how the M16 is a “jamomatic poddleshooter!”

      Come to think of it, have you ever made a single post here that wasn’t stupid and actually made sense?

    • iksnilol

      But it’s usually you relics who cherish the antiques.

      • aono

        I’m genuinely surprised none of the ballistic geniuses in the comments here has yet proposed a 6.8SPC M14 in a Sage EBR stock with a straight face.

        • iksnilol

          If it’s a Norinco, I’m on a board.

  • derfelcadarn

    Sanity at the DoD ? It’s about time.

    • No one

      Yeah, because going back in time to 1954 = sanity!

      • iksnilol

        THEY INVENTED A FRIGGIN TIME MACHINE, GUYS!

      • Porty1119

        If I could go back in time to 1954, I would do it in a heartbeat.

        • Person

          Hahahaha totally made my Day!!

  • Cal S.

    To your point, a tri-pod mounted machine gun can be taken out by a squad marksman equipped with a larger-caliber rifle. The loss of capability by equipping the entire squad with such weapons to deal with that one machine gun is a setup for failure.

    I genuinely hope those generals still fighting the Cold War get overruled by the newer, more frugal White House. Remember when the Pentagon was pressing the Army and Marine Corps to get along and standardize their M855 ammo? Now they’re considering ditching the whole thing…

    • Form Factor

      Or when standartizing M855A1 EPR

      And no i dont think this gets trough the slightest.

  • Big Daddy

    I have been doing a lot of research on the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. I am in the process of building an AR15 pistol and decided to do it in 6.8mm SPC. There is a reason and after going through ballistics as well as so many people here in Texas using the 6.8 for hogs and deer it seemed like a good idea. I have the parts coming and should have it done in 2 weeks, If it works well I will put together a rifle with a 16″ barrel. I already have a few Ar15s and in many different calibers, 9mm, 45 ACP, 5.56, 300BO, 7,62×39 and 308. Each one has a good and a bad. With the 308 the bad is weight.

    The 6.8 round is superior to the 556 in every way except armor piercing and longer range efficiency. But that’s an ammo/bullet design issue and not one of overall performance. The weight factor in minimal and a weapon like the M27(designed for 6.8) or LWRC SIX8 would be interesting to see how effective it is in the hands of an infantry company or Marines in live fire. Yes it failed before but that was 10 years ago and improvement have been made.

    I have seen many videos on different rounds and have read ballistics as well as many articles written here over the years. I do not pretend to be an expert but I do have some experience. The effectiveness of the M855A1 looks interesting but compared to the M80A1 it’s a joke. The M80A1 is a hand grenade in gel and is armor piercing too. I’m sure a 6.8mm version would be closer to the 308 than 556 in performance. It is a true intermediate cartridge and effective, something the Army seems to have been looking for since before WWII.

    If the 6.8 will work in the M4 I’d say rebarrel them all. if not get a new weapon off the shelf like the SIX8 and call it a day. The 308 is good for sniping and squad marksmen not every soldier and should be used in the GPMGs as well. A 6.8 in every infantrymen’s hands as well as their SAWs would be a huge step up in the effectiveness of small units in combat. The 308 has advantages but too many disadvantages to do that.

    • iksnilol

      6.8 is bad and you should feel bad.

      Also, 308 is bad for sniping and is literally only kept because of the massive amounts of it that is available.

      • Big Daddy

        On the 6.8 have you ever shot one or own one? If not how do you know?

        The 308 has taken out a lot of people when used as a sniper round. As well a game in the USA. It works and is powerful. The size of the bullet itself lends well to different designs and the amount available as well as work done on it over the years far surpasses any other round.

        Things that look good on paper don’t always work in real life. Why argue with what is effective and proven with a wave of the hand dismiss it for something else without that track record because it looks better on paper?

        • iksnilol

          6.8 sucks, it’s like taking the worst of everything and making it into one. Might as well just use 5.56. Does literally the same things whilst being far lighter.

          308 sucks as well, shoot a 6.5×55 once and you’ll see my point (or a 6.5 Creedmoor or something, I know you Americans don’t appreciate the classics). Also, .22 LR has taken out a lot of folks as well, should we arm snipers with it as well. Again, 308 is only here due to inertia.

          • Big Daddy

            You keep saying these things. Do you experience with them, in combat or hunting?

          • BravoSeven

            I’ve never driven a Geo Tracker but I know it sucks.

          • Big Daddy

            These are some of the dumbest most ignorant responses I ever saw on the internet.

            I wonder if anybody making comments have much experience in the US Army or military, hunting or building firearms. I have and have a lot of friends that have. I mean professional soldiers, hunters gunsmiths. I live right near Ft. Hood and you can turn around anywhere here including wallyworld and talk to someone, the majority of them are servicemen or ex-servicemen who have seen combat from Vietnam to the middle east and from the medic or REMF/POG to SOF people. I value their opinions.

            My life right now is involved with the firearms community and I am talking from personal experience as well as from others who know a lot more than I do. Almost everyone who has seen combat says the same thing the about the M855, it sucks and they liked the M193 better in their M4s or M16s. They ALL wanted something with a little more power. They will also say forget 308 they already had enough to carry weight is important. The idea of the 6.8 or intermediate cartridge solves these problems for the average infantryman on every level.

            Who cares what it says on paper!!!! Who cares what the testing says if it’s effective and reliable. It’s about the guy being shot at and having to put his life on the line everyday, who thinks when am I going to die out here. Having a little better more effective rifle and round helps him in terms of survivability and moral, more confidence in ability and equipment during the battle can win more battles. That doesn’t show up on paper but is proven in real life. It’s not fun going into battle with what you know from experience is a POS and ineffective.

            That’s all that counts to a guy in combat, does this weapon give me an edge and a better chance to survive.

          • CommonSense23

            So why exactly 6.8 instead of 6.5.

          • BravoSeven

            I can tell you that I have seen the 6.8 used live, in a hostage situation. SWAT shot armed suspect fleeing residence. Suspect was firing on deputies while running out the door attempting to escape. Suspect took multiple rounds of 6.8 to the chest from under 40 feet away. Did the suspect die? Yes. He died 30 minutes later on the operating table. My point is…there’s no magic bullet, 6.8 included.

          • No one

            You do realize all that data, evidence, and testing goes against your (non existent) combat experience with the 6.8mm don’t you?

            Oh wait, of course not, who needs actual data? That’s meaningless because I shot a deer once with a 6.8mm SPC and it died and therefore it’s the bestest round ever! Which is why to this day no military branch has even considered seriously adopting it.

          • No one

            Considering thr 5.8mm hasn’t seen combat because It’s a bad round, I’d imagine no, no one can claim that.

            I have shot several 6.8mm rifles, they were quite unimpressive and overhyped, after looking at the research and data aswell as actual ballistics tests I reached the conclusion that the 6.8mm SPC was a round looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and is mediocre all around, and wondered why it was even made.

          • iksnilol

            I guess I could order a magazine of 6.8mm to come across the pond, then put it on my kitchen scale and say “yeeeh, definitely hella heavier”.

          • BravoSeven

            He’s already spent the money on the 6.8. You’ll never, ever be able to convince him the 6.8 sucks now.

    • Kivaari

      You should read Nathanial Fs comparison of the 5.56mm and 6.8. It’s enough to convince most of us that the 5.56mm is a better choice. You could make the 6.8 perform with better bullets, but you couldn’t fit it into an AR.

      • Big Daddy

        Have you even shot one? Do you own one? On the contrary everything I have read about it says it’s the perfect choice. And that is why I am building one. Did you ever see what it does to cover as opposed to 5.56? I have and it was enlightening.

        • iksnilol

          Just because I don’t own one doesn’t mean I can’t dismiss it.

          Also, if we’re mentioning cover, have you seen what API 12.7x108mm does to cover? Or for that matter what normal 5.56 AP ammo does to cover?

          • No one

            I’ve never fired M829A4 out of an M256A1, therefore I can’t comment on it’s ability to penetrate “cover” and therefore can conclude 6.8mm SPC is better because I actually have fired rifles chambered in that garbage round.

            Clearly test results, documented experienced and well presented data are meaningless if you haven’t shot something!

          • Big Daddy

            Actually having experience with something under real life conditions do mean a lot more than any testing. As long as it’s not anecdotal evidence by semi trained personnel. Highly trained personnel using something under high stress combat or training is the final equation to a long pattern of testing. That experienced killed the 6.8 in the first place and also lead to it’s improvements. For that matter it has lead to more improvements to the 5.56mm round and rifles than any testing has done.

        • Kivaari

          I never owned one. As I suggested read the great article Nathaial F. did about them. The 6.8 doesn’t give any real edge over the 5.56mm at range. In fact after 600m the 5.56mm outperforms it. It’s not me, it’s in the article. I find those wanting to get 500m plus performance out of an M4 type carbine are asking for too much. A 20 inch rifle can deliver more in 6.8 but so can a 20 inch 5.56mm. Personally I find 400m/yds to be a long range. Throw a 1-5x optic on them and they can both do about the same until the 5.56 beats the 6.8. Neither one is a great long distance cartridge – but any hit at any range is a good hit.

    • Form Factor

      For your 6.8 garbage, heres the actual facts, Copy of my comment: A brass bottleneck cartridge will NEVER EVER replace 5.56×45. CT rounds are coming. They are far lighter, have better aerodynamics, better heat isulation, more space efficient mechanism, and far more reliable.

      And 6.8 is a UTTERLY STUPID diameter from the beginning. Its insanly reduces the nose ogive lenght in relation to its diameter, the Form Factor (aerodynamics) become just hilarious -> if you want to use a longer ogive, it wont fit in the mag anymore + for that case the velocity (and supersonic range) would become extremly low. = use a god damn smaller diameter or you reach nothing.

      + KE/mm² is important and Velocity for penetration. Slow thick projectiles are utterly bad in that case…

      + KE=1/2m x v² while p=m x v ! = For the !SAME! Energy a lighter but verry fast projectile (flat trajectory, high supersonic range, high penetration) has LESS recoil, than a heavy and slow one. And that luckly also decreases cartridge overall weight.

      • Big Daddy

        A lot of dead hogs and dear that any 5.56mm round would not easily kill will have a disagreement with you facts about 6.8mm SPCII
        .

        • No one

          Yes because deer and hogs are just so hard to kill! (Hint, they’re not.)

          And wars are fought against Deer and Hogs!

        • Warfare is not conducted like a hunt, and the military doesn’t use V-Maxes.

          • ostiariusalpha

            If I could hunt hogs with M855A1, I wouldn’t sweat shooting them with 5.56.

          • Or Mk.318.

          • CommonSense23

            Or 70gr.

          • No one

            Or a spear, which someone actually did on video on somethingawful because he got so bored of culling wild hogs invading his friends rice fields using increasingly smaller firearms and bows that he wanted to actually make it challenging. (Yes, he ordered a Cold Steel spear and ran around shanking pigs with it.)

          • Mmmm Brown Tip.

            AKA Barnes TSX like you can get anywhere online.

          • CommonSense23

            Still trying to find someone who will load it to Black hills spec for the 10inch barrels.

          • ostiariusalpha

            I have a lot of that.

  • 48conkli

    Lets face it, anymore, wars are not won with infantry. Naval battleships, Jets, precision bombs, drones, tanks, and mobile artillery do the heavy lifting. Troops nowadays more likely to come in and secure and enforce occupied zones. So for most points the 556 does that very well. But if they really did want to go to a more powerful round, I would throw the 6.5 creedmoor in a SCAR, platform, doesnt address weight savings and ammo capacity but, it would be effective. But if determined to keep AR, and change caliber, 6.5 grendel isnt all that bad, and is currently slated to be used by serbia ‘s military. It does bridge the gap between the 308 and 556 fairly well. It would be easy to switch over and could maintain use of current rifles, with just a barrel and bolt switch for rifles. Yes new technology is coming, but if it was that important it would be already developed. But the technology exists today to have no perceivable recoil from a rifle. Caseless is coming, but there is some issues I a sure with caseless as far as storage and moisture. Crates of ammo need to be able to be stored for potentially long periods of time. There is nothing bad about bottleneck cartridges as I have seen some say in here. Its proven reliable tech that will keep working for years to come. There always is a flavor of the year or decade, bullpups used to be the rage, but they are dying off now. I am supprised the AR is still kicking for military. But like revolvers and 1911s the AR will always remain a popular civilian rifle so long as big government doesnt take them away

    • Form Factor

      Literally everything is wrong….. Not caseless but Polymer Cased… And it has not a single of these problems, it outperforms brass by far.

      Also 6.5Grendel is stupidly slow, has a worse point blank range, less capacity, insane weight for its low performance, !way to much bolt stress! and to shallow case angle = ejection problems. Its unrealistic to adopt, and an INSANE waist of money.

  • ProLiberty82

    I thought why not 6.5 Creedmoore? Got a bit tighter numbers over all over the 7.62X51. 2 sec’s later I remember what I hate about the 6.5’s, they are barrel burners! And that would not be so good for a main battle rifle. And then there would be the hassle of making it a NATO round and either introducing a third caliber or replacing/converting millions of NATO inventory MG’s/battle rifles.

  • LilWolfy

    The Soldier Systems article starts off with, “According to multiple sources….”

    Credibility gone from there.

  • FT_Ward

    Spending other people’s money without the need or requirement to be thrifty or to keep the change is one of the great pleasures of life. Getting to think about and shoot guns for a living is a great job. These combined explain much of the effort to find the magic rifle or pistol. We’ve reached the point of little real return for the dollars spent on small arms but it’ll carry on because there will always be senior officers who are convinced if “only we had used X calibre” we’d have won and of course there will be salesmen ready and able to provide the military whatever it wants. Making it worse is the SOF ability and desire to not be like the conventional force and it’s perpetual search for cooler guns. It’s all a waste of money.

  • Joshua

    Just a fyi, it’s BS.

    “Secret squirrel sources” from the same guy who said the Colt 901 killed Geronimo.

    Also he even mentions in the comments he thought about posting it on the first as a April fools joke.

    I can’t believe the way this story is taking off on the internet.

  • john huscio

    PTR91s for everyone!

  • Rap Scallion

    Sorry Nat….what a crock of BS…..GREAT April Fools Joke!

  • Jay

    This must be one of the April fools articles, that missed the release date.

  • James Matters

    every single argument made against the switch to 7.62 actually means we should equip our troops with 22 rimfire. Unit endurance triples, training time goes down, communications improve, and fire superiority is unmatched.
    It would still be STUPID.
    rebarrel the M14 to 6.5 Creedmore or 6.5x47Lapua, with 120 grain pills, adjust the gas system and don’t look back.

    • CommonSense23

      Why should we use one of the worst rifles of all time?

      • James Matters

        Been wondering why the ar/M series is still in service myself…

        • CommonSense23

          Cause the AR15 has been outperforming the competition. Especially the M14.

          • James Matters

            So that’s why they are looking for an interim weapon? Because it’s too good?

          • valorius

            They have a never ending need to waste billions on totally moronic programs. That’s what this nonsense is all about.

            CS23 is right.

          • James Matters

            You got me there!

        • No one

          Probably because the M14 was a dumpster of a design back then and it’s an even worse one now.

          Why some people have a glowing reputation of it shows just how little people actually know about firearms and buy into pop history myths instead.

          Also, lol at chambering a service rifle in benchrest shooting rounds.

          • James Matters

            The Creedmore was designed for across the course service rifle. The ballistics of bith 6.5’s are similar; very good. Barrels can be lighter than 7.62, stocks can be lighter, and the ammo is lighter. Magazines would need work too. But for an interim weapon, it splits the differences at minimal cost.
            A new upper for the M4/AR has been rejected so Grendel/6.8 is out.
            Either 6.5 round would be good choice in terms of recoil/range tradeoffs. You could even go down as low as an 85 grain bullet if velocity was a primary concern. But then why not stick with the 5.56 77 grainer?
            And why would you not consider an inherently accurate round for service rifle? It has the ballistics and recoil requirements, and can be made to feed well. It’s the 7.62 round that needs to go away.

    • valorius

      That would be a total waste of money. 5.56mm M855A1 cost BILLIONS to develop and actually works very well.

      • James Matters

        No argument from me. I also hear the 77 gr round has also been performing well.

        • valorius

          Mk262 77gr is sensational vs soft tissue, but is not barrier blind.

          • Quest

            But M855A1 with its velocity reacts much faster in tissue than such insanly slow otm.

          • valorius

            Mk262 destabilizes even faster and at much lower velocities because it’s longer, so it upsets almost immediately upon impact.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cffa33931706905e8839e64542ab836985ce6fdeaec9e9bb425553d4d99f063e.jpg

          • No one

            Careful with that, that’s a Gary Roberts commissioned test sheet so
            some of the results are…..a tad rigged. M855’s neck was greatly
            extended, that’s actually originally Fackler’s test photomanipulated by
            Roberts to be his typical self. also, the 6.8mm SPC was actually a
            Ballistic Tip and not an OTM in that test that he lied about which made
            it far more effective then an OTM but also a blatant violation of the
            Hague.

            Not saying it detracts from your point, just saying, beware of the sources of the data you use.

          • No one

            Also, the bottom one is actually M193, not M855, once again with a photomanipulated neck.

          • valorius

            Trust me, you’d have a hard time finding someone more skeptical of Dr. Roberts D.D.S. than me.

          • Quest

            … Destabilize… wtf? Were talking about fragmentation, destabilisation is tumbling. So you think an OTM (OPEN tip match) has its primary function in tumbling… dude on what planet do you live. Its !OPEN! tip, does expand.

            And no theyr are the SAME lenght, also Mk262 has a higher gyroscopic stability due to its heavy lead than M855A1 EPR (higher= bad, worse angle of attack at range, more drag, later tumbling after fragmentation range)

            Mk262 is stupidly slow, and reacts really late with a long neck in tissue. M855A1 is fast, reacts instantly, and even instantly without any neck from really short barrels… Besides that Mk262’s penetration is just hilarious.

          • valorius

            The tumbling is what causes fragmentation as the structural integrity of the projectile is overcome as it tumbles 90 degrees perpendicular to the axis of flight.

            I posted the chart, so if you want to disagree, open the chart and scream at it.

          • Form Factor

            …. dude …. its OPEN TM for a reason it doesnt tumble and then fragment, it does expand without tumbling.

            If mk262 would actually need to tumble first, the instantly on entrance fragmenting M855A1 EPR would outperform it even more drasticly.

            I really expected to much of you.

          • valorius

            You’re completely wrong. Mk262 does not expand, it tumbles then fragments.

          • Form Factor

            If it would need to tumble, it is an incredible stupid round, with extrem long neck, that has the same fleet yaw problems as M855 greentip had.

            It is stupidly slow, has hilarious penetration, worse MPBR, worse trajectory. And if it doesnt expand, it only has bit more energy at range… that it cant use anyways for penetration or wounding because it utterly sucks in penetration, takes way too long to tumble, and is affected by fleet yaw.

          • valorius

            youre talking gibberish

          • Form Factor

            It one heck of a garbage round compared to M855A1 EPR.

            Ive looked up some tests, the one ive remembered was Mk262 expanding, maybe it was fast enough out of a longer barrel to do so.

            The test ive seen now it did not and took an entire 5,5inches (~14cm) to finally react. So you might be right, its so awefully slow that even an open tip doesnt react anymore.

            So whats the “gibberish” about your loved garbage round, tell me? Any good facts about it…?
            As said:

            Stupidly slow, has hilarious penetration, worse MPBR, worse trajectory. Only has bit more energy at range… that it cant use anyways for penetration or wounding because it utterly sucks in penetration, takes way too long to tumble, and is affected by fleet yaw.

          • valorius

            Mk262 does not expand, it fragments. It fragments at velocities as low as 2100 fps. In actual combat Mk262 has earned a reputation for being devastatingly effective.

          • Form Factor

            “Earned a reputation” for something. Expect every single physical fact speaks fully against it. They did hit and it worked. That still doesnt change the fact that it utterly sucks compared to M855A1 EPR.

          • Form Factor

            So an entire 247meters….. wow that is even FAR worse than expected. And that only after taking a ton of time to finally tumble (5,5inch 14cm, icepicking).

            “See you at 600” _M855A1 EPR

          • valorius

            They fragment after 10 centimeters of penetration dude. Did you read the chart i posted?

            I seriously, seriously doubt M855A1 fragments at all at 600 meters.

    • “lol y don’t we just use .22 then?” is the dumbest counter-argument there is in this discussion.

      • XT6Wagon

        american 180 for room clearing. If 277 rounds of aimed fire doesn’t get it done, you are doing it wrong. Now for shooting things outside pistol range…

  • valorius

    “US Army units would lose their fire superiority at short range. One
    of the major infantry combat lessons of World War II, Korea, and
    Vietnam was that he who shoots the most tends to win, or at least makes
    it very, very hard on the other guy. The larger 7.62mm caliber brings
    with it a serious disadvantage in this area, which is why it and other
    similar calibers have been virtually universally dropped as standard rifle rounds in military forces all over the world.

    In short, a switch to the 7.62mm NATO amounts to trading one
    relatively minor problem – that of confronting medium machine guns with
    small units like the fireteam or squad – for a major one. The reality of
    achieving fire superiority at short range with lightweight ammunition
    from rapid fire guns is one that is so important that it shaped the
    landscape of 20th Century small arms design ever since the end of World
    War II.”

    These two paragraphs are exactly why i think the USMC replacing SAWs with M27s is so patently stupid.

    This new US Army potential proposal/concept is stupid squared.

    • CommonSense23

      People keep acting like we are getting outranged with our rifles instead of by belt fed machine guns.

      • Yeah, the notion that standard infantry rifles will beat a tripod mounted 7.62 machine gun is ludicrous. The whole point of machineguns is that they beat rifles.

        It’s like trying the make scissors beat rock.

  • valorius

    This makes no sense at all- it is just the US Military (once again) pissing away billions on absolutely moronic nonsense.

  • Some Rabbit

    There are those who never got over the switch to 9mm and 5.56mm. We saw the same thing when smokeless powder meant the days of big lead bullets at subsonic velocity were over. One Army surgeon of the time insisted that there was no way a .30 spitzer bullet would be lethal regardless how fast it was traveling. WWI proved him wrong. The fact that after all this time there are still some folks stuck on battle rifles and the .45 ACP is just plain pathetic.

  • valorius

    TODAY FROM POPULAR MECHANICS:
    4/4/2017
    “The Marines Are in the Market For Brand New Rifles

    The M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle could be going to all “grunts.”
    (like i said last month, btw).

    Good to see both services on the same page, as usual….

  • Flight Er Doc

    6 or 6.5mm cartridge….AR platform. COTS.

    Problem solved.

  • Seth Hill

    Seems that many here haven’t read the linked article:
    1) They are CONSIDERING going to them for an INTERIM period. IOW they are discussing it and it would be for a short period of time.
    2) “The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.” is the reason for considering it. I think it is a bad idea for all infantry to move to 7.62 NATO, it should only apply to DMRs since not all of the enemy is shooting 7.62x54R. They may be shooting 7.62×39 but 5.56 covers that in range.
    3) “Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA.” It may be a good idea to move to one of those or a 6.x round over the 5.56.

    • valorius

      It’s all a waste of money. Issue already existing M14s with ACOGs at the rate of 1 per rifle squad- problem solved.

      • James Matters

        There you go making sense again…

      • Concerned Third Party

        Spot on. 7.62 is great for DMR, everything else should be using 5.56 and there shouldn’t be a penny wasted on feeding the egos of paper pushing muppets trying to pretend they are innovating. There’s zero need to adopt a 6.5 for anything. It offers nothing over a 5.56 at closer ranges than a lot of wasted energy and increased cost and its ‘shining performance’ comes at ranges beyond what Designated Marksmen tend to engage anyway. If the 7.62 is insufficient, .300 WM or .338 Lapua has always been the step up.

  • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

    It’s time to learn from Australian in Viet Nam, British against Argentinians at Falkland Island and Saudi against Houti in Yemen.
    It’snt wort to bring 12.000 ammo pieces if you must spend 3 or 4 to take an enemy off.
    Better to kill him with one shot from 0 to 1000 m
    M14 was a god rifle, but you put it in service hurriedly with non seasoned wooden stocks.
    If you had chose FAL or G3 instead things would be far better.

    • No one

      There’s so many things flat out wrong with this comment I don’t know where to begin.

      (Well, I would, if the auto moderator would stop deleting my comments for no reason at all.)

    • Form Factor

      Except that 7.62×51 has literally the !SAME! supersonic range as 5.56×45. With double the weight = HALF the rounds and NO fire superority, !TRIPLE! the recoil, -10rounds per mag.

      Much Heavier Rifle (bolt carrier, barrel), and shorther barrel (even shorther supersonic range) for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber……
      A thousand drawbacks with almost not a single advantage.

      Also M855A1 EPR fragments instantly, totally shreds organs, lungs, arms, legs, and fragments out to 600meter, over that range tumbles in flesh.

      • No one

        Don’t forget the part where.

        M80 was actually a notoriously terrible round, and myths about it some mystical instant kill magic fairy dust round while people can take a full magazine of 5.56mm and keep fighting is one of most tired out age old myths still floating around.

        Or that even if soldiers that aren’t dedicated snipers were trained to even hit targets at 1000m (they’re not, not even close), they still wouldn’t hit that far and get magical one shot kills even with 7.62x51mm rifles even close to average and relying on that would be sheer folly, they’d get 600m shots high tops if they’re lucky, cut that in half when you don’t know the range of your target because you don’t have a dedicated spotter to tell you that or other factors like differences in elevation.

        Or that contrary to his misguided beliefs, the M14 was laughably terrible in reality and the AR-10/15 Platforms stomp all over it.

    • CommonSense23

      Anybody who thinks the M14 is a good rifle has just outed themselves as not to be taken seriously.

      • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

        223 has exactly half the energy of .308.
        I used BM59, L1A1 and G3 and know exactly what they could do.
        Maybe we need something near 6,5- 7 mm rifle cartridges, but 308 is far better and full auto fire for AR is usually a waste of ammo.

        2017-04-06 22:29 GMT+02:00 Disqus :

        • No one

          Keyhole through a target with M80 instead of actually creating a deadlier wound due to M80’s terrible bullet design?

    • crackedlenses

      “Better to kill him with one shot from 0 to 1000 m”

      Then you should be advocating for reequipping our troops with .50 BMG rifles.

      • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

        5,56 wounds after introduction of SS109 are exactly of the same kind of that of 7,62×51.
        Capsize appens only with old M193 55 gr bullets.
        At ranges greater tha 300 m vantage il all for biggers calibers.
        Also anti material effects are far greater.

        2017-04-07 3:15 GMT+02:00 Disqus :

        • CommonSense23

          You realize we abandoned M855 right.

          • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

            I know that US Army obliged all NATO Countries to take 7,62 before and 5,56 after only to change everything one minute after..

            We could have chose FN FAL and MAG in the original ,280 caliber avoiding all these problems,

            And tell me about .300 Blackout.

            2017-04-07 19:24 GMT+02:00 Disqus :

          • No one

            I can tell you that .280 British in it’s actual non very early loadings was just a hair less powerful then 7.62x51mm in reality and had horrible ballistics and accuracy.

            I can also tell you that if you if you genuinely think that .300 Blackout is a viable replacement for standard issue rifles then you’re patently insane and never even read what the cartridge was designed for, let alone that it would never be picked over 5.56x45mm

          • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

            OK, as usual, everything done outside USA is terrible and non functional.
            We have 3 problems.
            1 Tactical employment. If you fight on IFV you need more an MP than an AR.or a Rifle.
            For heavy fire there are Bushmasters and M2.
            If you fight by foot you need something to kill an enemy over 600m.
            2 Cartridge: If you need to stop a car, shoot down Helicopters or to penetrate armour vest you need 7,62×51 (or 8×57, 303, 30/06 etc).
            3 Weapons. M14 and BM59 where economical solution how not waste some million of Garands.
            You coud take AR10, G3, FAL instead.
            Today we coould not save Garand.

            There is a world of military rifle caliber apart .30.

            Squad MG must use the same cartridge of squad rifle, but 5,56 is too weak for support weapons.

            2017-04-08 8:17 GMT+02:00 Disqus :

          • No one

            We have 3 problems.

            1 Tactical employment. If you fight on IFV you need more an MP than an AR.or a Rifle. For heavy fire there are Bushmasters and M2.

            This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but…ok?

            If you fight by foot you need something to kill an enemy over 600m.

            Grenade Launchers, Mortars, DMRs, MGs? and RRs/Rocket Launchers?

            Also, rifleman aren’t even trained to engage targets at 600m, let alone actually try it in a combat situation unless they absolutely have to. (and if you’re getting heavily fired upon at that range where you can’t fight, It’s not because the enemies are using infantry rifles, It’s because they’re suppressing you with belt fed machine guns or sharpshooters you’d have to be suicidal to try and engage those targets regardless of what your infantry rifle is chambered in and expect to come out on top) and even if they were, you can hit and kill things that far with M855A1, Mk 318, or mainly Mk 282

            2Cartridge: If you need to stop a car, shoot down Helicopters or to
            penetrate armour vest you need 7,62×51 (or 8×57, 303, 30/06 etc).

            M855A1, MK 318 and M995 will stop cars just fine, even if they couldn’t kill the engine (which they can), they’d have little issue penetrating the actual interior.

            Wait, are you actually suggesting that troops use small arms fire to take on helicopters? are you actually insane? even if you’d hit them more often then not (you wouldn’t), you’d do so little damage with small arms fire even on unarmored or lightly armored Helos that it would be pointless and 7.62x51mm wouldn’t do significantly more damage anyway as you’re firing inert rounds, If you’re suggestiong soldiers try to engage gunships like Hinds, Apaches, Havocs, WZ-10s, Cobras/Vipers, Kamovs, etc. with small arms fire, I’m sure the helicopter crew would get a great laugh at your attempts to engage them don’t even hit them at altitude. you know, right before they shred your entire squad to ribbons with HE autocannon fire.

            This isn’t a video game, small arms are pathetically useless against helicopters in all but a very small percentage of situations, and in those incredibly rare sitations, whether or not you’re firing 5.56mm or 7.62mm would be the least of your concerns.

            Lastly, the idea you need 7.62 to penetrate armored vests is patently, completely false. M855A1 will already easily defeat Kevlar and Helmets at 1,000m-1,200m (ranges long past where you’d ever engage an actual combat target), and it punches straight though Level III+ Armor plates plus the kevlar carrier vest which M80 7.62mm won’t even do at any range. M80A1 will do it, neither M855A1 nor M80A1 will defeat Level IV ceramic/composite plates at any range, M995 and M993 possibly could, but there’s literally no round that 7.62mm has that will defeat vests or plate levels that 5.56mm can’t.

            3 Weapons. The AR-10/15 platform completely destroys the M14 and BM59, our other options, while not perfect, work just fine like our MGs, DMRs, RRs, Grenade Launchers (which are having promising smart munitions in development for them like the Pike, something that would make 7.62mm rifles even less needed) dedicated long range precision rifles, etc.

            “You coud take AR10, G3, FAL instead.” Which would be a massive step backwards.

            “Squad MG must use the same cartridge of squad rifle, but 5,56 is too weak for support weapons.”

            Oh boy, yet another GPC advocate.

            If anything, it would make more sense to tailor MGs to their own round and leave everything else untouched, less, is infact, not more. Sorry to tell you.

          • Paolo Vittorio Minotti

            It’ seems that you dont’ studied history.
            Look what appened to Fallschirmjager at Crete or IDF at Mitla pass. Then take a look at helo losses of USMC over Fallujia.
            You can also look at Himalayan China-India incidents.
            Heavy weapons are nice, but you have to carry them.
            Take a look at a mortar platoon.
            Did you ever bring a mortar tube or plate?
            How many UH1 went down for VC fire?

            Instead to change averything try to teach troops how to use their rifles.
            Caliber apart, i have seen more AR15-M16 bown up than every other kind of gun.
            And if you comtinue to feed them with supercharged ammo and heavy balls receiver failure will increase.

            2017-04-08 14:22 GMT+02:00 Disqus :

          • No one

            “It’ seems that you dont’ studied history.” I imagine I’ve studied it better then you have, I imagine it would help if you actually help to not shift goalposts after I proved your statements wrong on everything you wrote above.

            “Look what appened to Fallschirmjager at Crete” That fight the Germans won despite the island being blockaded with a superior naval force? great example, I also didn’t realize that troops in WW2 had access to level III+-IV armor plating, Helicopters or that the concept of SCHV even existed at the time, what was the point of this again? (Most standard issue cartridges for rifles and MGs were of the same power at the time,

            “or IDF at Mitla pass” that fight the IDF also won with losses massively in the Egyptians favor despite the Egyptians having a prepared ambush they basically walked right into? you’re not very good at this.

            “Then take a look at helo losses of USMC over Fallujia.” The vast majority of all helo losses in all branches from 2003-2004 in Iraq (aka: when the 2 battles for Fallujah actually took place) were chalked up to crashes, mostly in bad weather, heavy machine guns, actual AA fire from guns like 14.5mm-23mm ZPU platforms, RPG hits on low flyers, or even MANPADS, your point?

            Should we issue ZPU-4s as standard issue “rifles” for anti helicopter capability? I mean, unlike 5.56mm and 7.62mm, those will penetrate Level IV plates too!

            “How many UH1 went down for VC fire?” What were the vast majority of helos brought down with? better question! (Hint, it probably wasn’t AK fire or 7.62x54mmR fire.) How well built and what differences in tactics and technology was there with helos at the time?

            “i have seen more AR15-M16 bown up than every other kind of gun.” You must not have seen very many guns then. also, list me any gun that isn’t an incredibly obscure prototype, I’ll find you some that suffered catastrophic malfunctions.

            “And if you comtinue to feed them with supercharged ammo and heavy balls receiver failure will increase.”

            M855A1 and MK 318 have the same bullet weight as M855 does, clearly much heavier, only Mk 262 is heavier and that has nothing to do with failure rates on a firearm.

            The pressure of military grade M855 was 55,000-58,000 PSI, Mk 318 is identical, M855A1 is all of 62,000-63,000, anyone like Gary Roberts and his lackies who claim that it’s “nearing proof load pressures” obviously don’t know what they’re talking about seeing as how military proof loads for 5.56x45mm are as high as 75,000-78,000 PSI.

  • By that metric, the US hasn’t won a war since they adopted 7.62, either. CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS.

    • Form Factor

      Wasnt the Iraq War won? Yes there was a radical Insurgency, but the war against the actual military was won by a verry wide margin.

  • gunsandrockets

    With the budgetary squeeze the DOD and Army are falling victim to, this “interim rifle” idea is not going anywhere.

  • Mikial

    Read the original article at Soldier Systems. The author doesn’t really say Yeah or Nay to the idea, he just puts out both sides of the issue.

    A couple of points:

    I did PSD work in Iraq for over 2 years from 2004 to 2007, and carried several different rifles int hat time. My preference was always the M4, but it did have drawbacks, particularly in terms of its power when trying to stop an oncoming vehicle. We alternated out magazines with Green Tip and steel core AP rounds in case we hand to try to disable an engine on a vehicle attempting to make a suicide run on one of our convoys, but we also always had a few guys with 7.62 rifles just in case.

    On the other hand, troops these days carry around 100 pounds of gear when out on operations, and the weight:ammo capacity issue is a genuine consideration.

    • Form Factor

      Stopping cars is verry rare, also why not shoot the driver or tires? Triple the Recoil and -10Rounds per mag sure wont help.

      Since 2010, after youre time, M855A1 EPR got in use, it goes trough lvl3+ steel.(normal 7.62×51 doesnt even go trough lvl3 with serval dozends of shots)

      • Form Factor

        (M855A1 EPR is an 5.56×45 with verry hard steel head, that has excellent penetration, but also fragments instantly in flesh and out to 600m, with a supersonic range similar to 7.62×51)

        • Do we have any confirmation on the 600m fragmentation range / minimal velocity required to fragment for M855A1? It’s doing 1700fps at 475 yards, so it would need something like a 1500fps velocity threshold to fragment at 600.

          That would be awesome, I’d just like to know whether this is actually the case.

      • FT_Ward

        Why not? Because most people shooting at cars in Iraq weren’t convinced it was a VBIED. They could recite the “characteristics of a VBIED” by heart but often really shot “just cause”.

        • ostiariusalpha

          There’s also a slight difference between killing an engine over a misunderstanding, and mistakenly slaughtering a family.

  • larry

    the problem is, we are always fighting the last war. the 5.56 is fine in jungle warfare where your target is 70 yards or less, at 200 yards it is just adequate and at 400 yards the average soldier won’t hit anything. the 7.62X51 is good out to 800 yards. when your target is at 600 yards you have a chance with the longer range round, with the 5.56 you can fire the whole magazine and still not hit a thing. our current wars are not in a jungle.
    the thinking pattern for the development of the 5.56 was not to kill the enemy but to wound them. wound one and it takes 2 to carry him off the battle field effectively removing 3. that doesn’t work when you are fighting fanatics.

    • ShootCommEverywhere

      If a soldier would be struggling to hit a target at 400 yards with one rifle, why would switching calibers magically make him more than twice as accurate and enable him to consistently engage an 800 yard target?

      I’ll also say that with modern optics and a good zero on a 5.56mm carbine, an infantryman should be able to engage to 400 and beyond very effectively. Marine Corps REMFs that touch a rifle once a year routinely make 9/15 on a man size 500yd target in changing wind conditions. The round doesn’t go transonic from a 14.5″ barrel until 800yds, according to my ballistic calculator, which also puts the drop for M855 from the same barrel at 500yds as 3.4 mils (100yd zero) versus M80 ball out of a 16.5″ barrel which has 3.5 mils of drop (Same zero).

      It’s not a matter of hitting the target, it’s about terminal performance, which can be enhanced through different bullet construction if we opt to recognize that the notion of Hague and “politely shooting people in ways it won’t hurt as much” is not as humane as using bullets that have the best terminal performance possible to impart a minimum of suffering.

      • Kivaari

        Considering that any cartridge adopted would likely fall within a few hundred FPS of the 5.56mm the trajectory wont be so different. A 7.62mm NATO and a 5.56mm NATO round don’t have significantly different ballistics other than FPE. If fired from mythical identical rifles the hitting ability would be essentially the same. The 5.56mm is an excellent performing cartridge as has been shown in both combat and the target range. So far nothing can deliver the same performance with the same recoil, cartridge weight, flash, noise and range. Anything that outperforms it comes with increased negatives. We just need to keep what we have and ensure that really good tough optics are part of the package. An ACOG that had a focus feature would be great.

      • CommonSense23

        One of my mentors when I was still in the military spent a lot of time as a sniper in JSOC. He considered his effective range with a rifle trading fire to be around a 100 yards. It’s way harder hitting a target that doesn’t want to be shot that is also shooting at you than people think.

        • Kivaari

          That’s probably closer to the truth.

      • larry

        it doesn’t make him more accurate, it just gives him more range it is a momentum thing. a 7.62 is still going transonic past a thousand yards.
        gravity works on both bullets exactly the same. the requested parameters were to be the same as the m2 ball, they didn’t quite make it. in order to get the same terminal ballistics as the m2 the 5.56 has to have an initial velocity around 3300 fps from a 20″ barrel at about 62,000 – 65,000 lb/sq in, not a good pressure range for the m16. i don’t have my reloading book with me so this is from memory. also no 5.56 has ever won the 1,000 yard match. the ‘-06 has, the 7.62 has, but not the 5.56.

        lets be honest about it, the hague was not about killing it was about those who survived a hit, to minimize long term damage. a old style fmj in the gut wasn’t going to blow most of your intestines out your back. if you’ve seen a gut shot deer with a jsp, then you know it is not a pretty sight and they don’t die quickly. a well placed heart-lung or brain shot with a jsp kills in seconds and humanly, but hunting game is not the spray and pray of war, and snipers can kill just as effectively with a fmj as with a jsp.

        • Form Factor

          7.62×51 goes subsonic well under 800 meter.

          • larry

            If you are shooting a low BC bullet out of a 16″ barrel you are probably right. if you are shooting a high BC bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2600fps you will still be supersonic at about 1000yards but not much past.

          • Form Factor

            The problem is 7.62 is so stupidly thick, that a mid weight bullet has low bc, and a high bc bullet will have stupid low velocity.

            And additionally, if you actually want to use 7.62×51 mainly but have Rifles of current size for usual urban combat, due to the as said longer mag and chamber lenght, you barrel lenght gets even shorter, and your supersonic range and trajectory even worse.

            So what is better, waisting dozends to hundrets of millions for a ton of extrem tradeoffs. And than be stuck with it for decades…

            Or simply waiting just verry few years to finally get really high performance weapons (rising chamber, CT, aerodynamic projectiles, etc)

          • larry

            you are behind the times. the current bc for the 155 gr matchking is 0.464; the bc for the flat line 155.5 gr palma is 0.553, in their words their “155.5 gr 30 caliber bullet has the velocity of a 125-135gr bullet and has the BC of a 185-200gr bullet.” bc for a spitzer is the ratio of bullet diam to bullet length.

            not necessarily, bullpups can put a full sized chamber, 20 round mag and a 18-20in barrel in the same length as a standard m4 with a 14in barrel (30-33in). and yes, I know bullpups have their issues also.

            this was my point about fighting the “last war”. the m16 was designed for a korea style conflict; it was serviceable for vietnam. it was marginal for the first gulf war and inadequate for afganistan.

    • Kivaari

      It is the optics that make soldiers and marine hit at 400m. Just about any rifle handed a soldier is pretty useless at 400m unless it is topped with glass.

      • larry

        I shoot about 1moa (308 win. bolt action), with optics I shoot less than 1moa. translated that is about a 4 inch(or less) group at 400 yards. what makes a soldier hit at 400 yards is practice, knowing your rifle and being consistant.

        • Form Factor

          Yeah, have fun shooting sub moa fairy tale shots under supression fire.

          • larry

            the rule for under suppression fire is to keep you head lower than your butt. yes i can shoot sub moa. last time at the range it was 6 rounds completely covered by a quarter.

          • Form Factor

            And did the paper shot back?

          • larry

            LOL

        • CommonSense23

          You really think you can shoot 1 MOA in combat?

          • larry

            I shoot head shots on rabbits in the run. I really don’t like messing up the meat or the pelt.

          • CommonSense23

            Cool, doing that in combat is completely different game.

          • larry

            in most combat – true, it’s stick the gun above your head and spray and pray. snipers are a different story.

          • Form Factor

            Why always just trow in sray and pray. Yes some guys with iron sights shoot over cover supression fire. And if the enemy is not yet spotted you shoot over cover for suppression fire even with an ACOG.
            But not having sub MOA accuracy doesnt mean your spray and pray. You shoot aimed supression fire, and if a target becomes actually visible you shoot as good as you can in the boundaries of your position (standing/crouching/prone/ with bipod or rested on cover) and Recoil.

          • Form Factor

            Omg what an hilarious liar……..

            Btw, does it shoot back?

          • larry

            I have over 100 pelts up in the attic that I haven’t done anything with yet, but believe what ever you want.

    • CommonSense23

      Dude you are repeating the myth of shooting to wound with 5.56 which is blatantly false. And how do you think soldiers are going to make hits with 7.62 at 400 when they can’t with 5.56.

      • larry

        it is called ballistics. a 55 grain bullet does not have the momentum that a 147 grain bullet does at the same velocity. the 5.56 was designed to have about the same initial velocity as the 7.62 nato. a higher velocity means a flatter trajectory but a lighter bullet loses it velocity faster and drops more at the same range. to put it simply with a 7.62 you don’t have to aim over the enemy head to make a chest shot at the same range.
        ps. if you look at the bottom of the list you will see the wounding requirement.
        this was the parameters that were requested by CONARC when the 5.56 was proposed [they didn’t get every thing they wanted]:

        .22 Caliber
        Bullet exceeding supersonic speed at 500 yards, > 1126 fps

        Rifle weight 6 lb
        Magazine capacity of 20 rounds
        Select fire for both semi-automatic and fully automatic use
        Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards
        Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards a hair more than 1/8 inch

        Accuracy and ballistics equal to M2 ball ammunition (.30-06 Garand)
        Wounding ability equal to M1 Carbine

        • Form Factor

          Except that 7.62×51 has almost the same supersonic range as 5.56×45 and WORSE trajectory.

          +Triple the Recoil
          +Double the weight (=half the rounds and extrem fire superority loss)
          + 10Rounds less capacity per mag
          +heavyer Rifle (boltcarrier and barrel)

          +SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght = even worse supersonic range and trajectory

        • CommonSense23

          It’s called terminal ballistics. Which means total energy isn’t the most important part. Its what it does with its energy. That’s why M16s firing M193 caused more tissue destruction than a M14 firing M80.

          • larry

            it causes more tissue damage because it fragments and tumbles in the body. the 7.63 has a heaver jacket and holds together better. the m193 holds to the letter of the hague but not the spirit of the hague

          • CommonSense23

            It holds to the spirit of the Hague also. The Hague was never meant to be the end of expanding munitions, just their use on white people.

          • larry

            the hague is suppose to hold to everyone who signed it irregardless of color. so your racist comment is irrelevant. we signed the hague, we can’t use expanding munitions in warfare.

          • No one

            Except for the fact we never ratified the Hague of 1899, 2 seconds of looking that up would’ve done alot. and even if we did, the Hague and St Petersburg declarations only cover “expanding, flattening, exploding, poisoned, and fulminating” bullets, It literally says absolutely nothing about Fragmenting bullets, and once again, even if it did, it’s only bullets specifically designed to do so, M193 wasn’t designed to do it, it was an unknown effect at the time that a bullet hitting that fast would lose it’s structural integrity and tear itself apart at the base where it’s the weakest due to the jacket not fully covering the base.

            It’s not a violation of the Hague, and your attempts to backpedal on it being more damaging then the M80 icepicking wonder (the real “wounding” round here) are pointless.

            You also left out the part in the CONARC where it’s “wounding ability that exceeds .30 Carbine.”, But facts aren’t needed here.

          • larry

            we did not ratify parts of the hague. the hague does address fragmenting bullets “prohibition of the use of bullets which can easily expand or change their form inside the human body such as bullets with a hard covering which does not completely cover the core, or containing indentations”. change their form inside the body sounds a lot like fragmenting. but of course we did not sign on to that part of the hague, so we can use exploding bullets and poison bullets … why bother having rules of war at all, why should we worry about war crimes or crimes against humanity. line up prisoners and machine gun them. we hold to those rules because we don’t want them used against us.
            just an FYI we known what .22 rounds do since the swift. plus the m193 was tested on pigs we knew exactly what it characteristics were.

          • CommonSense23

            Actually no we didn’t sign that part, wisely so. And the Hague was kinda racist document. It specifically allowed the use of such expanding munitions on non signatories and for colonial use. Look at who attended the orginal Hague. The ole Dum Dum rounds were still good to go for use on the uncivilized folks.

          • larry

            you are correct we didn’t sign that part of the convention, so we can use ricin and cyanide coated bullets. we also did not sign the part about poison gas bomb and shells. so they can be used against us, the uncivilized folk. i find it curious that of the 71 countries that have signed on to article I only 34 have signed on to article IV sect 3 there are a lot of uncivilized folk out there

          • Secundius

            So the Bullets you are going to be using, are going to be Factory Preloaded Magazine before Firing?/! Because ANY “Actual” Physical Handling of the Bullet Cartridge is Likely to Kill the Shooter of that weapon…

          • larry

            first of all, I not going to be using poison tipped cartridges. talk to CommonSense23 about that one. he’s the one who doesn’t want to abide by the hague convention.
            I’ve handled potassium cyanide, it is used in the jewellery industry for flashing gold. it being one of the few things that compounds with gold. I would not recommend handling it with out gloves but a couple of grains landing on the skin and brushed off isn’t going to hurt you much, if at all. it really depends on length of contact.sustained skin contact can produce inflammation and blistering most poisons don’t travel through skin contact although there are exceptions.

          • Secundius

            There’s a Big Difference between “Potassium Cyanide” and either “Ricin” and “Cyanide”. Approximately 300mg of “Potassium Cyanide” will KILL an Adult in a Few Minutes if Ingested. “Ricin” (~70mg) and “Cyanide” (~200mg) also Immediately. So unless you plan to Fight a “War for Day’s without a Foreseeable End” in a “M.O.P.” Suit where the Ambient Temperature outside the suit is 110F or greater. It’s NOT a “Viable Solution” in Fighting a War…

          • larry

            potassium cyanide is a stable salt of cyanide add it to it to HCl and you get prussic acid which boils at ~78°F making it rather difficult to handle. do you understand the difference between 2 tenths of a gram and 3 tenth of a gram, it ain’t much and relative to a ~15 gram bullet. the hollow in a hp spitzer is just about 3 tenths of a gram in size.
            ricin is a hemocide catalyst it attacks hemoglobin and breaks it apart. the ricin molecule then attacks the next hemoglobin molecule. it also attacks the ribosomes in the same manner. the lethal dose of of ricin is ~200 micrograms or about 0.2 mg, that’s about what will fit on the head of a pin, and it takes ~1 to 3 days to kill you. 70mg will kill about 350 people. now if you are eating it 70mg will kill you in about 6 hours but i don’t imagine you would be eating it in a war.

          • Secundius

            If “Potassium Cyanide” boils at ~78F, than it would “Flash Vaporize” in a Firearms Barrel exceeding ~500F. And if you’re Not Eating or any other “Bodily Function”, then you ARE a “G.I.” (Government Issue)…

          • larry

            HCN or prussic acid boils at `78°F, not potassium cyanide. KCN melts at 1,174°F and boils at almost 3,000°F
            I would never let a barrel get to 500°F, It throws off the point of impact.
            what’s your point about “G.I”?

          • Secundius

            In the Heat of Battle it would be Virutally Impossible to keep your Rifle Barrel from Reaching +500F

          • larry

            if you spray and pray you are right, but that is what machine guns, m60, are for. some one in the pentagon thought that the side that puts the most bullets down range wins, didn’t work in nam. if you fire 30 rounds at a talaban on a mountain trail 600yards away and don’t kill him, then you haven’t won. one round from 7.62 in capable hands and he is dead.

          • Secundius

            Sometimes “Peeing” on your Barrel “Isn’t” an Option…

          • larry

            tell me how many snipers use the 5.56 – zero.

            you don’t use a m16/m4 for short range suppression fire you use a m249 saw. of course at 22lb loaded, not counting the weight of the spare barrel, you no longer have a weight advantage over a modern version of the m14. 30 rounds of 5.56 weigh more than 1 round of 7.62. [yes I’m being sarcastic]
            if you are in jungle warfare and you are using raw recruits, the m16/m4 is fine. although in that environment I rather have an ak47.

            the development of the m14 was an attempt to correct problems with the garand and give it the function of the bar. the platform was fine for korea but hard on raw recruits. it takes more than a week of live fire training to develop recoil resistance, and the platform was inappropriate for vietnam. the m16/5.56 platform was ok for desert storm, somewhat weak on range but warthogs took care of that problem. the m16/5.56 is inappropriate for the high desert mountains of afghanistan where you need a longer range round with more punch.
            which brings us back to my original post, the military is always fighting the previous war.

          • Secundius

            And you’re Telling Me This for a Reason Right?/! Even though NONE of my Comments are about the 5.56×45. Even an AK can be “Broken” and beyond 300-meters it’s a “Fire Hose”, with the Probability of Hitting a Man Size Object at Less than 4%…

          • larry

            I figured that if you are in a conversation you should at least know something about the conversation. you are obviously not a chemist, considering your KCN melting point comment. just for reference, a man sized target is awfully small at 300 meters. you can cover it with your thumb at arms distance. also just for reference nether the m16 nor the ak were designed for long range accuracy and it takes a lot more to break an ak than a m16 (changing powders from IMR to ball broke the m16).

          • Secundius

            I don’t own either an “AK” types or an “AR” types! To me their Both Totally Useless Weapons. I Like WWI, WWII and some Korean War era “Battle Rifles”…

          • larry

            that makes 2 of us. I also don’t own either, although I’ve used both. I won’t go as far as to say they are totally useless. they serve the purpose they were originally designed for: the AK, reliability, it will shoot any piece of crap ammunition you can find for it, in almost any environment in the world; the AR, ease of use, a 6year old can learn to shoot it, raw recruits who’ve never handled a gun before …
            my preferences are WW2 and earlier.

    • No one

      “the thinking pattern for the development of the 5.56 was not to kill the enemy but to wound them.”

      You lost any credibility when you repeated this age old, countlessly posted myth.

      • larry

        I knew one of the generals that was involved in the development of the 5.56 nato, his hobby was gunsmithing. tell me would you use the 5.56 to hunt deer in your area? in my area it is not legal to hunt big game with it. it is a great little varmint round developed from 2 other varmint rounds. the bullet was designed to fragment at ranges up to 150 yards. fragmenting bullets make for messy wounds, but unless you hit something vital it’s not likely to kill, at least not right away.

        • Form Factor

          Well luckly M855A1 EPR fragments out to 600m.

          And “unless you hit somethign vital” … like with every round?

          M855A1 EPR will instantly shreds your arms/ legs. Have fun to be combat effective after that.

          • Concerned Third Party

            And you stop spreading BS too. It’s not the range that causes fragmentation it’s the velocity. You aren’t getting fragmentation at that range with anything less than a full size M16. Carbines shorten that range to 400m, and 11.5″ commandos take it down even further to CQB ranges. Also a 7.62 will instantly shred your limbs as well, despite the lower velocity. And in CQB ranges a 9mm will tear you to pieces if you’re not armored up.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      The average soldier can’t hit anything beyond 100 m with any weapon in the midst of combat. And this has been proven repeatedly for the last 80 years.

      • larry

        the average soldier isn’t trained to hit anything over 100m.

  • FT_Ward

    Is the term “interim” tied to regulations regarding procurement? Just wondering if calling something that gets around inconvenient rules about tendering etc.

  • b. griffin

    mis-stake.

  • Darrell Elmore

    First as an ex-BAR man and one who carried both M-14s and M-16 varients for over 30 years and I learned that I never worried about the weight of ammo so long as it fit the need. I can also state that we need the right rifle for the specific battles being fought. When the average contact is measured in the close category maybe noise superiority is important. When you are engaging at 500 plus meters the 5.56 is not very effective and it also has very poor penetration of much other than a jacket or plywood door! the commentrs of the author make me think he is at heart a bean counter and has not spent enough time on the tip of the spear. On the other hand there are intermediate rounds that perform very close to the 7.62×51 but weigh less and can be accommodated by M-16 type frames with limited modification – mods that can be done in a unit arms room.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Your understanding of ballistics is inaccurate and seems to be based on pre-internet rumors.

      When your essential gear masses 150 lbs or more, you do worry about the weight of ammo. There are numerous professional studies on the matter. They all come to the same conclusion.

    • Kalash

      Nat is an engineering nerd who has never seen anything fierce in his life. He makes statements like this because he’s a nerd and therefore must be smarter than you because he says so because his numbers say so because he must know better because he’s smarter than you because he said so. It reminds me of MacNamara’s kind thinking you could win a war just by numbers. Go check his post history and see how much he loves to stretch facts and cuck for AR15 and 556. Be sure to read all the comments for his 6.8 and 6.5 posts. Have fun!

  • Ark

    This seems like an incredible overcorrection in response to a set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated. The fact that the US fought a low-intensity war in a mountainous country that was unusually conducive to long-range engagements does not nullify the original, still valid reasons for moving to 5.56.

    At most, you need one guy in a squad who has a .308 DMR and a good optic, along with the training to use it. There’s a reason nobody gives their regular army grunts a full-power battle rifle anymore.

  • NickG

    Fake news…aint going to happen.

  • No one

    ARVN tropps didn’t have to carry 90-120 pounds on top of that, do you not realize how light overall loadouts ins in Vietnam were compared to today?

    You clearly don’t so don’t bother answering even though I already said it, stop acting like some big strong man Brian Shaw clone, you’re not, and would probably require a semi truck to carry you over a small hill with your proposed armchair combat loadout.

  • trjnsd

    Somehow, I always thought a mix of heavy (7.62×51) and light (5.56×45) weapons would work much better than relying one all of one or the other. And have as many of both on hand as needed to get the job done! Overwhelming force beats anything else.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      That would make sense, and indeed, was done in WWII and Korea.

      I wonder how many of the anti-5.56 crowd still love the ballistically inferior .30 carbine.

    • If you look at a Russian BTR squad, you’ve got most of the men with 5.45 AK74’s, plus a 7.62 PKM machine gun, 7.62 SVD marksmans rifle, and a dedicated RPG gunner.

      It’s a much more versatile and ferocious setup then the US equivalent squad of all 5.56 and 40mm grenade launchers.

  • Martingard

    I carried an M14 for the first couple of months in `nam and them had the fortune of humping an M60, which was totally awesome. The M14 performed quite well and was deadly accurate with one shot kills. The 60 didn’t require as much accuracy but was indeed quite lethal. The 60 was totally awesome out the door at lower altitudes as I found out later on. They all worked pretty well, I thought. Today’s weaponry is obviously more advanced and designed to better eliminate the opponents. Wish I was young again so I could try them all out. Loved the M79, too!

    • No one

      It’s never too late to get that experience. Try somewhere like Battlefield Vegas or somewhere similar to it where they have a massive selection of fully automatic modern weapons they’ll let you rent out, pretty fun time.

  • Omerli

    Well the Turks went back to 7.62 NATO in their MPT 76 and they’ve been engaged in almost continuous combat for nearly 40 years and of the type likely to be encountered by the U.S. in most foreseeable scenarios. Indeed they will keep the .223 for certain roles and terrains so they also have developed their new MPT 55. The U.S. will also likely field both calibers for a while.

  • You need a perspective adjustment. I’m not the guy you should be calling “weak”; I’m not a soldier or a Marine. Here are the people you are actually talking about:

    http://s3files.core77.com/blog/comments/images/48680_41704_193293_211979748815905_2989250_o.jpg

    ^That guy? Make sure to tell him he’s weak for not wanting to carry another 3.8 kg/8.4 lbs (oh yeah, you’re math is wrong: 220 rounds of 7.62mm in PMags weighs 7 kilos, not 6).

    http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285×214/188986_1.jpg

    ^Tell this British guy, too.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c8/29/16/c8291691783ece68a5aa26e645ebe25b.jpg

    ^Hey buddy! Look at you. Such a pathetic weakling. Why aren’t you carrying an M14!?

    http://uqnews.drupal.uq.edu.au/filething/get/10148/26119.jpg

    ^These ozzies are weak, too!

    http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/1.jpeg

    ^What a lazy jackass. Here’s another 8 pounds, hippie!

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/flash/Lens/2009/07/20090720_Guttenfelder/20090720-Guttenfelder017.jpg

    ^Disgusting. He needs another four kilos of motivation!

    http://i.imgur.com/KnVNOkE.png

    ^Maybe he wouldn’t be so tired if he just worked out more!

    The sort of crap you’re peddling needs to be left at the door. There is a very real discussion to be had about the soldier’s load and what tradeoffs between weight and capability are appropriate and which ones aren’t. Nobody’s denying that.

    A bunch of my buddies went off to war, and I would later become friends with many of the other veterans who returned. Guess what, it was my “weak” and “lazy” Millenial generation that actually fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and too many of them came back with a 100% disability rating. They didn’t just give their time, they gave their health, too. These people have the physical ability of men twice their age, because of people like you who thought “eh, what’s a few more pounds?”

    The weight has to come out. That isn’t negotiable.

    • No one

      Holy hell this is one good old fashion piledriver of Atkinson’ awful posting.

  • Triplanetary

    This may be a simplistic question but all other factors aside, If someone can shoot you dead but you can’t reach him with your weapon, isn’t that illogical ?

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      There are statistically almost zero troops who can hit anything beyond 100 meters in combat, and that has been proven by every major military on the planet.

      • Triplanetary

        This may be a prosaic misundertanding, I said all other factors aside. To get any traction amoung anyone who is not familiar orr interested, this is the literal sort of equivalance that many will place on the question. Given your very practical answer, someone might say, How do you keep the enemy’s head down if you can’t reach where they are firing at you. This of course presupposes that it is one guy with a gun shooting at another, nothing else, (fair fight, figurative reality).

  • Tom Utech

    Worked damn well for me 49 years ago, about 8,615 miles west of here.

  • Secundius

    Sounds like the Bennel Machine Company of Brooklyn, NY’s T25 Light Rifle by Earle Harvey or the M1E14 Mk.2 Mod.0 Garand…

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Trapdoor Springfields fire even bigger bullets. Maybe we should go back to those.

      • Secundius

        As I recall the article mention an Interim Infantry Rifle made in 1954 in 7.62x51mmR. Not a infantry Rifle made in 1873 in .45-70…

        • No one

          7.62x51mm Is rimmed now? When did this happen?

          • Secundius

            Force of Habit! Specific meaning “Right-Hand Twist”…

  • geoh777

    “This means units would run out of ammunition in a little over half the time that they would with the current ammunition configuration.”

    The assumptions here include that troops’ effectiveness with the more powerful, more far ranging, and more penetrative round would be the same, that training out the impulse to “pray and spray” the lighter 5.56 round would be of no effect, that some principles of “one shot, one kill” would not be included in training, that each troop would be expected to carry into battle all of his own ammunition supply, and that resupply of ammo would not get greater emphasis and support.

    Perhaps the doctrines of Robert McNamara, the corporate “efficiency expert with his stinginess with metals and other materials, have now faded away.
    .

    • Secundius

      I doubt that Either the US Military or the US Department of Homeland Security is going to be Running Out of Small Arms Ammunition (30mm or Smaller) anytime soon! The USDHS bought ~1.5-Billion rounds of SAA in 11 March 2013. Enough to Train and Service Use for the next 20-years. And the US Military bought ~15-Billion rounds of ATK Ammunition for ~$210-Million USD in 2016, Just for “Training Purposes”…

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Sure, they’ll have lots of it in warehouses. That’s not the same as having it on your body. Gear up in battle rattle, then swap out 7.62. I’ll wait.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      That “assumption” was repeatedly proven by every military in the world, which is why everyone is using 5.5-6mm calibers now.

      You know who first preached that “one shot, one kill” crap? Gen Stephen Vincent Benet, grandfather of the poet. A history teacher at West Point during the Civil War, who, in the 1870s as head of logistics, lied to Congress that “The men in the field do not like repeaters as it only affords them the opportunity to waste ammo.” He’s the reason the Army went back to a single shot PISTOL alongside a single shot rifle.

      And then the Little Bighorn happened.

      And ..308 has the same penetration on sandbags as 5.56. That is, <1

  • Steve_7

    April Fools!

  • bobk90

    The 7.62 or 30 Caliber Round WON WW2 if I’m not mistaken…. Just ask the Germans in Stalingrad what the Russians used in Winning….
    Almost every war since WW2 has been FOUGHT with 7.62×39 and it didn’t hinder any of them in Fighting!

    • Concerned Third Party

      You are mistaken. This is common core levels of reasoning going on here. Ballistically 8mm Mauser is superior to .30-06 and 7.62x54R. Ballistics have nothing to do with winning wars…

      • bobk90

        Exactly my point friend, it was the 30 caliber round and the “determination” of the Men & Women who used it… Being able to carrying more ammo has never won a War, otherwise every ARMY in the World would be using the .22lr, which can Kill right? The 5.56 was designed to maim & damage, hence the “dum dum” round. However, with the 5.56/223 round a blade of grass or small twig can deflect the round where as the 30 caliber is not affected, right? Also, the m16/m4 is no longer truly automatic but instead a 3 round burst per squeeze of the trigger. They changed that because soldiers were using up all the extra ammo they were able to carry, so having the extra ammo was a mute point. Imagine them issuing the AR-10 30 cal with 3 round burst and the bad guys getting hit with that… Even if their hyped up on something or they have Vests with Plates we could issue them the .30 cal black tipped armor piercing rounds just like in WW2! I’m not saying the 5.56 doesn’t have a place but I would personally rather have a 30 cal any day of the week. Just saying…

        • No one

          Can you not make a post based entirely on pop history myths and other longstanding myths that have been long debunked about a thousand times? thanks.

          • bobk90

            What I have written are not Myths and are the simple Facts of the Matter! Unless of course you can prove me wrong with something other than your words!

          • No one

            Considering you’re the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you there champ. (also, last I checked, you also supplied “nothing but words”, but I guess a little hypocrisy never hurt anyone right?)

            1. “Being able to carrying more ammo has never won a War” That’s because things like Strategy, Tactics, and Logistics, aswell as on field assets like Artillery, Air strikes, and Vehicles, whether transport, logistical or armored support vehicles tend to win wars ever since WW1, Troops are necessary to hold and push into territory but ultimately inflict a very small % of actual casualties and the former are needed to actually accomplish objectives. But saying that being able to carry more ammunition, mainly as technology and doctrine has evolved is incredibly ignorant.

            “otherwise every ARMY in the World would be using the .22lr, which can Kill right?” This is literally the worst copout argument 7.62mm fanboys always use. hey, by your logic, let’s equip every soldier with 12.7×99, or better yet, 14.5x114mm rifles because carry weight, volume of fire and ammunition capacity don’t mean anything right? those are much bigger then 7.62x51mm too so my logic is flawless! What? It’s simply the same as your argument, just in the inverse direction.

            Also, might want to check what all of NATO uses aswell as many non NATO members, It’s also 5.56x45mm, or 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm, I guess the Soviet Union/Russia and China also switched to their own version of SCHV rounds from 7.62x39mm because ammunition capacity and recoil reduction, weight, volume of fire, ballistic trajectory, etc etc must mean nothing and those Americans and their allies were never really onto anything worth taking note it. Please go inform “every ARMY” that they’re clearly wrong and you know better.

            “The 5.56 was designed to maim & damage, hence the “dum dum” round.” 1. you clearly have no idea what a dum dum round is and 2. that is infact a myth as nowhere was is ever stated that the 5.56mm was designed to simply maim and wound but this is a line taken completely out of context regarding the .30 Carbine, infact, let’s go look at the actual CONARC requirements for what eventually become the M16 and the 5.56mm round.

            1. Rifle weight no heavier then 6 lbs with a loaded 20 round magazine with a “conventional” stock.

            2. Be Semi/Full auto select fire

            3. Remain Supersonic/accurate out to the range of 500 yards.

            4. Penetrate a standard steel helmet, flak jacket/body armor, and 0.135″ steel armor plate at 500 yards.

            5. Match the trajectory and accuracy of the M2 Ball Round fired from an M1 Garand.

            6. The line that always gets taken take out of context. “must exceed the wounding capability of the .30 Carbine”, so tell me, was the .30 Carbine also designed to simply wound targets and take them off the battlefield (and, that specific line which is parroted endlessly is never actually written, people just see “exceed the wounding” on .30 carbine and made assumptions) or do people simply read one line wrong? Also, there’s a meaning to the word “exceed”.

            It’s all there in the 1957 CONARC requirements, read it, or don’t, I really don’t care, either way, you’re wrong and I’m not going to hand feed you facts you should look up yourself considering you’re the one who shifted the burden of proof when it was on you in the first place.

            ” with the 5.56/223 round a blade of grass or small twig can deflect the round where as the 30 caliber is not affected, right?”

            Yes, blades of grass will clearly provide so much resistance that it will literally “deflect” a 22 caliber round! this is how physics work!, And rounds that happen to be .30 caliber (nevermind which .30 caliber cartridge it was fired from, just .30 caliber!) Are magical and aren’t affected at all by obstacles in their way, hate to tell you this but they are. Any round can have it’s trajectory altered by stiff enough obstacles, saying a blade of grass will “deflect” a 5.56mm round is sheer lunacy though. go look up what the word “deflect” means and get back to me.

            “Also, the m16/m4 is no longer truly automatic but instead a 3 round burst per squeeze of the trigger. They changed that because soldiers were using up all the extra ammo they were able to carry, so having the extra ammo was a mute point.”

            1. What exactly is a “mute” point? 2. the M4A1, aka the standard issue rifle of the army is infact Safe/Semi/Full, not Safe/Semi/Burst, only the retired original M4s had the burst fire trigger pack, the USMC is also likely to phase out the M16 soon in favor of the fully automatic M27 (yet another 5.56mm AR-15 variant), It turns out that troops who were untrained to not waste all their ammo was fixed with that whole training thing and we’re going/have been back to full auto for a while now. “Mute” point indeed.

            ” Imagine them issuing the AR-10 30 cal with 3 round burst and the bad guys getting hit with that…”

            Yeah, I’m trying to imagine it, mostly because it wouldn’t ever happen because firing a full auto original model AR-10 feels like getting hit in the face with a jackhammer and you wouldn’t even hit your target in the first place, it turns out lightweight weapons with higher recoiling rounds don’t mix too well on burst fire or full auto, burst fire recoil would likely be even worse. Try actually firing an original AR-10 before making up nonsense.

            ” Even if their hyped up on something or they have Vests with Plates we could issue them the .30 cal black tipped armor piercing rounds just like in WW2″

            Black tip and M80A1 will only penetrate up to Level III+, both M855A1 and M995 will already do this just fine at combat ranges, No round the 7.62mm can fire will penetrate Level IV armor plating except possibly M993, which no one knows because the exact penetration of M993 is classified, M995 can probably also penetrate Level IV plates, saying that 7.62x51mm is needed for armor penetration is literally a non existent issue at this point.

            ” I’m not saying the 5.56 doesn’t have a place but I would personally rather have a 30 cal any day of the week. Just saying…”

            You go do that I guess…

        • Form Factor

          Standart Lvl4 plates stop 7.62×51 AP any day….. (even 7.62×63 AP).
          And tungstenvarbid is IMPOSSIBLE to field for general use, its extremly expensive and rare.

          = low recoil high capacity 5.56×45 instantly fragmenting M855A1 EPR shredding arms legs, necks etc is way better against armored opponents.

          • Form Factor

            And to your video, M855A1 EPR instantly fragments even from short barrels, totally shredding organs, lungs, arms, legs, neck. Fragment out to 600m.
            And M855A1 EPR goes trough lvl3+ while usual 7.62×51 doesnt even go trough lv3 with dozends of shots, normal 5.56×45 FMJ goes trough lvl3 and lvl3a at once and is still lethal.

            In combat and with EPR projectiles, % hit propability matters, half the rounds and 198% the RECOIL Impulse and 311% the RECOIL force sure DOESNT HELP.

            -SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.
            -10rounds less capacity

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      I believe a lot of firebombing and nukes had something to do with winning the war.

      • bobk90

        Yes , Yes they did ;-P

  • Sounds like a job for the M14 once again.

    “The path of least resistance may well be to adopt an existing 7.62mm
    Government Off The Shelf (GOTS) weapon. It means less oversight and is
    quicker to put in action.”

    The TACOM M14EBR-RI, and Ron Smith ‘Crazy Horse’ M14 rifles can be put
    into action faster, and in larger numbers than any of the 4 rifles
    mentioned. We could field 100,000 of them rather quickly. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c212ee9eef977805818c7958cba07c10c13389d61e0203e417b0cd8e4ae73dd6.jpg

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      They’d be better off adopting a rifle that met its design criteria. There’s a reason the M14 started phasing out before they finished issuing it.

      • With the lone exception of the Springfield M1903, the M14 rifle is the longest serving rifle used by units of U.S. Armed forces. The reason the M14 was phased out as a general issue rifle was political, so we may as well use a BR that’s in inventory.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fc6383e08c2b88e27bb6bf64de46830e8ecd4da578c47e170472b955a85bbf96.jpg

        • No one

          “the M14 rifle is the longest serving rifle used by units of U.S. Armed forces”

          It was also the SHORTEST serving standard issue rifle for a very good reason. (Hint, It was really bad.)

          And once again, as stated above, the reason it was phased out wasn’t political and this is pretty much just an excuse used by M14 fanboys to try and deny the AR-15 was ultimately just better, it was based on actual studies from WWII and Korea that showed a 7.62mm rifle, mainly a terrible one like the M14 was not needed and a SCHV lightweight design would be far more ideal in actual average combat ranges, the ability get off the first shot and the ability to throw down more firepower then the enemy.

          • HINT: The M14 is excellent in the hands of trained marksmen, it’s only as bad as you say on the internet. Also, neither the M14 or the M16 were available in WWII, or Korea.

          • No one

            No, It’s actually really bad 20-30s era tech and it shows, even the actual models I’ve fired were not good (actual M14’s not the somehow even worse M1As) and both jammed more and shot less accurate groups then any AR-15 I’ve ever owned! (who would’ve thought an open topped, magazine fed rifle would be unreliable?) It’s also less mechanically accurate then the original AR-10 which fires the same round despite the AR-10 being lighter.

            And I never said either were in WWII or Korea, what I did say that post war studies indicated that.

            1. A majority of firefights in WWII and Korea happened at ranges at or below 300m, and with said units running into each other by chance, whoever got off the first accurate shots in these situations tended to win so a 1000m round like the .30-06 wasn’t needed for an infantry weapon.

            2. Who could throw down more firepower in these fights was also a major factor in determining who came out on top.

            These conclusions lead to the idea of a lightweight weapon that you could carry more ammunition for, that was easily brought to bear and could throw down more accurate firepower then the enemy using a lighter round should be looked into.

            Sure enough in actual tests, a 9 man squad of men armed with M16s (which had 20 round magazines at the time) could outgun a 14 man squad of men armed with M14s.

            That’s the facts of the matter. Want more? read R. Blake Steven’s Books on the matter or the book “The Great Rifle Controversy”.

          • Secundius

            Several years ago there was a Television Show called “Triggers” on the Military Channel. They had a Competition between an M1 Garand and an AK-47 in a Ten Catagory Competition. The M1 won 9 of 10 Catagories, the Catagory “Lost” was Ammunition Capacity…

  • kcshooter

    Clickbait B/S.
    Gimme a break. Are people actually buying into the crap?

  • JF

    “According to a recent article …” By chance was this recent article published on April 1st?

  • paul

    Why is it a good idea to go smaller caliber in a military situation, when here in the US, I get slammed for recommending the Tokerov round with a TT-33 or a CZ-52 over a 9mm?

    • No one

      Nothing is wrong with the 7.62x25mm round itself, but the TT-33 is rather dated and the CZ-52 really doesn’t work that well.

      Plus they’re both large for single stack pistols and ammo is harder to find.

      Also, people who recommend 9mm get non sense rants from people like .45 fanboys all the time, even though .45 ACP isn’t any more effective in actual situations then 9mm. Not really the best example.

      • paul

        I realize that these handguns are not “modern”, but I also know that they will last a long time and are designed for a very powerful round. While a manufacturer in Turkey is making a clone of the TT-33, the 7.5 FK Brno was obviously designed to shoot the Tok round, but later decided to manufacture it for a round that is just enough different that it wouldn’t be right to use the Tok round. The true reason is that the West does not want this powerful round around for everyone to have. The “cop killer” bullet bs and the ATF seemingly being just fine on AR pistols, is just another way they can disarm us or limit the ammo.
        They aren’t mass producing Tok ammo in modern forms because there are not any modern guns made to shoot it, they aren’t manufacturing modern guns to shoot this round because there is no mass produced modern ammo.

        This round is too damaging to the target to use in a handgun and has too much power for a carbine that shoots pistol rounds.

        • No one

          No one make pistols for it because there’s a massive risk it wouldn’t sell at this point.

          There’s already a very solid market for 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, .357 SIG is “probably” the most the popular pistol round next to these designed for full size defensive pistols, and that’s a very distant 4th.

          I’d personally like a full size modern 7.62x25mm double stack, the only one I know of is an export model made in China (and thus Illegal to import to the US) who happens to have alot of surplus 7.62x35mm they can sell with it. (Pakistan, their ally and next door neighbor has pretty lax gun control laws), that works for them, the question is would it work here? I don’t know. What I do know is that It’s a gamble manufacturers aren’t willing to take a potential massive loss on if the answer is no.

          • No one

            *7.62x25mm

          • paul

            The point I was trying to make is the Obama administration made sure that no more cheap milsurp Tok ammo could come to our shores. They are “cop killer” rounds, even if they are not solid core. They seem to be afraid of this round, it was cheap and very effective.
            Rebarreling a Destroyer or modifying another carbine to fire this round would give you a high powered handgun and a carbine that could actually do something – a great SHTF pair(or 5 pair) with10,000 rounds hidden and not many more people could use them against you if your ammo was secure.
            If they started making guns again in .30 cal, maybe some people would realize that that caliber is tried and true – there is a reason they keep going back to it.

          • Secundius

            Obama alone Can’t Ban a Specific Ammunition Type or Gun Type without US Congressional support. A “Simple Majority Vote in the House is 218-Votes, So “Some” Republicans had to be Supporting the Vote Count…

          • Secundius

            Try Egypt, Indonesia, Romania, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Serbia or Any of the Former Soviet-Block Countries. Virtually Every country in the World has at least One Ammunition Vendor…

        • Kalash

          Um. Paul, I’m a proud owner of an M57 (Serbian 9+1 7.62×25 TT33 + manual safety). It’s really a tad slimmer than an M1911, it’s serial number is 00001943, and it’s in production, available for $230. I also bought new commercial FMJ and HP ammo for it last week, and I take it shooting all the time. I have used my commercial and surplus ammunition with a rented PPS43C, and it was a lot of fun, performing great. I don’t know where you’re getting your doom and gloom about the Tok and its round from.

          • paul

            The doom and gloom is what others say. I think this is a perfect round, but people say “it is too small” even though it hits hard and thru and thru. This round will penetrate a vest, I have holde in 5/8″ plate to prove it’s strength. The Obama government stopped importing this round as milsurp ammo and I am sure that influenced Brno in this new handgun with there choice of a new round.

          • Kalash

            I don’t see anything about laws or bans put in place on it. I think what happened was we shot all of it. If you look hard, you can see some on sale. Do keep in mind military 7.62×25 has been out of production for most likely the better part of a century — unlike 7.62x54R, 5.45×39, and 7.62×39, there is no extant military production of it. Obama’s administration saw an enormous rise in milsurp firearms due to the insane price spices in commercial guns. That bubble happened, and then we bought all the old guns and shot all the old ammo. I hold onto my milsup ammo because I want to retain something that has a little extra kick.

          • paul

            It was unavailable and there was a big shipment coming in. I ordered 4 spam cans 10 min after it was anounced they were on sale and I got a “sold out” email from the company. I inquired at a few other places, and they did not get thier shipment either. Finally I was told by a wholesaler that the shipment was held as “solid core” and “cop killer” bullets. It was not, but the Obama administration would not allow any more to be imported into the US. The milsurp Tok ammo was still much cheaper in Canada, but you can’t bring that in either. Suppossably put a stop to any more milsurp handguns that shot Tok ammo also from being imported.

  • survivor50

    You know…there was a reason we didn’t have “M-30 s” instead of our “M-60 s” on HUEYS !!!
    Just sayin’…

  • Walt Mather

    It was my understanding it was intended to just add a few 7.62 back in the mix, not replace the 5.56 but insure some in each unit had them.

  • adverse4

    What the military really needs is assault BB rifles. Light weight, hi cap, 1,000s of rounds ammo in small containers. Then they can hang 15 lbs of crap on the rifle, and call it light. A better solution would be a battle pistol to supplement the M4 PDW. If the military goes back the way of an actual battle rifle they are going to have to build bigger glorified armored pickups for the troops to ride in.

  • GNTownsend

    Before the Army wastes any more taxpayer dollars on buying one kind of rifle as opposed to another, perhaps they can address the one, single, glaring difference in why their military guns/ammo suck so much! Yes, that’s right…it’s the shortsighted and myopic restriction that the DoD lawyers place on the US military…and that is the demand we use full metal jacket ammunition. FMJ ammo doesn’t mushroom or expand on impact with enemy bodies, therefore they punch nice, neat little .22 or .30 caliber holes without transferring the majority of their energy into the target. Not one single state in the United States will allow hunting of any animals with FMJ ammunition…one must use EXPANDING bullets in order to humanely take game animals. Shouldn’t we afford America’s enemies with the same consideration? Imagine how much more effective the puny 5.56mm bullet would be if it were a 62 grain softpoint. More bullet expansion means less need to send it out of the barrel with ginormous speed…and more effective results when it hits something soft…like a Taliban’s forehead. Remove the stupid ammo restrictions and then investigate which gun/caliber combination works the best.

    • ostiariusalpha

      The U.S. military doesn’t use FMJs anymore.

      • GNTownsend

        The so-called “bronze point” on more recent military ammo still adheres to the Hague Accords ban on soft-point bullets, so it works and behaves like FMJ ammo. Unless you can see a hollow point or exposed lead in the tip (or plastic tip protector), your ammo is still FMJ.

        • I suggest you watch a video of the M855A1 Gel Test, and then try and find any 5.56 load that is as impressive.

          It’s a revolutionary design that is in no way “still a FMJ.”

        • ostiariusalpha

          The EPR bullet behaves nothing like a FMJ, its terminal ballistics are actually very similar to a solid copper hollow point with a polymer tip, except that its tip is instead a hardened steel penetrator that allows it better performance against light cover than any current HP design. The EPR bullet delivers consistently devastating wounds, unlike green tip.

    • Colonel K

      I believe the restriction was removed with regard to handguns last year. I don’t know if the rifle ammunition restriction was removed.

      • Secundius

        Fifth Generation Glock’s or “M” Models are STILL Restricted to Military, Law Enforcement and Corrections ONLY for the Foreseeable Future…

        • Colonel K

          I’m not sure I understand your comment. How does it apply to military use of HP ammo?

          • Secundius

            Your comment wasn’t specific? “Restriction was removed with regards to handguns”! That can bestrictions Interpreted Many Ways. magazine Restrictions, Barrel Length Restrictions, Model Restrictions, Caliber Restrictions. I wasn’t aware of any Ammunition Restrictions on Handguns…

          • Colonel K

            I was responding to GNTownsend’s question regarding why our military isn’t allowed to use expanding bullets. I read an article last year that said the restriction on hollow point (HP) pistol ammo had been removed by DoD. I’m not are of any change in rifle ammunition policy.

          • Secundius

            Some Special Forces Units like “Delta Force” still use “Dum dums”…

          • Secundius

            In 11 August 2015, the US Army (in General) were Cleared to use “Dum Dum’s” as Standard Ammunition…

  • John Swinkels

    Lets face facts here military requirement is to punch a helmet at 300 yes which the .223 does.And lets agree the 7.62 can be a Beast in a light rifle.So why not move to the proven 6.5 in 260 rem.Its accurate med recoil and fantastic ballistic Coefficient. I don’t think their will be an answer.

  • Colonel K

    Not wishing to be clobbered by passionate arguments for or against existing and past technology, I’d prefer to look forward. The needs of a soldier vary according to climate, range, obstacles, and capabilities of his opponent. Ideally, a personal weapon should be light, low recoiling, fast handling, ergonomically refined, accurate, long ranged, reliable, and effective. This means pairing the rifle/carbine with the right ammunition. The solution may be as simple as developing new ammunition and powder, or as complex as developing an entirely new approach to small arms and ammunition. Both efforts are underway, but turning back the clock is not going to achieve these goals, nor is sitting on current laurels.

  • Gort

    Well, if that is the case, I hope everyone gets SCAR 17s with ACOGs.

  • Jackson

    They need something with a little more range. Just place one or two in each squad for distance shooting. Leave the others with the 5.56.

    • No one

      We’ve already been doing 1 DMR per squad since late Afghanistan.

      Which means this article (the original, not the TFB cover) makes even less sense.

      I don’t even think It’s true anyway as the source and the fact they don’t even list their “multiple sources” is really suspiscious, but the amount of headaches you get from people thinking an all 7.62mm standard issue rifle would be a good idea just kind of makes your brain hurt.

      • Jackson

        Yeah,know what you mean. Like I said they just need one or two long range per squad. Whatever rifle/round combination works and is the best out there.

  • johngardner

    Thoughtful article, but it fails to consider the problem the Army is trying to solve by using the 7.62: need for increased range and penetration in Afghanistan where the other side is increasingly engaging at ranges far beyond optimal for the 5.56 round.

    You’re certainly right that studies leading to adoption of the M-16 pointed to the need for increased infantry fire volume. In Korea, squads regularly added additional BAR’s, 30 cal light machine guns with shoulder stocks to achieve that (without any study). (That experience was also why there was such a howl when the Quad-50 motor carriage was removed from inventory.) I don’t think that firepower need will go away, suggesting to me that perhaps only Afghan bound troops ought to be so equipped. But, let the Army decide what they need to deploy and to whom. Please!

  • Richard Lutz

    It would only make sense to adopt an intermediate power 7.62mm round like the .300 AAC Blackout in a compact SBR like the SIG 553 which is well suited to use with a sound suppressor (watch Blackhawk Down to see why they are needed), not the full power 7.62x51mm round.

  • Richard Lutz

    SIG 553 in .300 AAC

    It would only make sense to adopt an intermediate power 7.62mm round like the .300 AAC Blackout in a compact SBR like the SIG 553 which is (unlike ARs) very well suited to use with a sound suppressor (watch Blackhawk Down to see why sound suppressors are needed), not the full power 7.62x51mm round. With the sound suppressor removed and stock folded it makes an excellent PDW for non-combat troops like artillerymen and drivers. Fit it with a longer and heavier barrel and bipod and it makes a very good SAW when used with high capacity 50 to 100 round magazines. Ideally they would be fitted with a folding stock that can be shortened like an M4 stock to change the LOP.

    • No one

      .300 Blackout is literally an even worse suggestion for a new standard issue infantry round then 6.8mm SPC, and that’s saying alot.

    • Form Factor

      .300blk has absolut HILARIOUS trajectory, stupid wind drift, extremly low KE/mm² and penetration.

      All that for… more weight… and millions of dollars cost.

  • fmike15

    The reasons the m16 replaced the m14 were political. Lets not forget the payola too. It was all part of the cold war weapons race. The US wanted something that looked like it came off a flying saucer to counter the ak47 and our troops suffered for it even today over 50 years later. Strange the the worlds superpower is still using the same garbage and everyone else has or is trying to move on from 50+ year old technology. Someone is getting their pockets lined at the expense of our troops.

    • No one

      The reason the M16 replaced the M14 was because the M14 was an unreliable trash rifle and the AR-10/15 platforms stomp all over it.

      Ironically, you want to know what WAS political? the adoption of the M14 over the FAL which was a far better rifle.

      The SCHV concept and M16 being adopted wasn’t political, it was based on actual research done from conflicts like WW2 and Korea that showed a 800m-1000m round wasn’t needed for an infantry weapon and that usually the squad that fired first and could throw out the most fire, and by extension of that, a 9 man squad of M16 gunners (using 20 round magazines at the time) could outgun a 14 man squad of M14 gunners, your favorite gun sucked, get over it already. (But yeah, troops clearly suffered for having a rifle that had better accuracy, ballistics and terminal effects then the AK-47 keyhole wonder.)

      Also, pray tell, if everyone is trying to move away from the AR-15, why why do so many nations still use variants of it, why are people still adopting it (New Zealand and France say hi) and why did H&K go out of their way to make the MK M4…. I mean HK 416 which is basically a flat out ripoff of the design with a gas pistol slapped on it and people treat this as the greatest, most innovative rifle of all time?

      Stop acting like you know what you’re talking about when you don’t, It’s really annoying for people who actually do.

      • No one

        *Gas Piston

  • El Mac

    Im calling bullsh#t on this “news”.

  • Greenman9

    How about switching AR uppers to 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. Either cartridge gives more mass and the 6.5 Grendel is superior to even the 7.62 at ranges beyond 400 meters.

    • No one

      Probably because the 6.8x43mm is absolutely terrible and 6.5mm Grendel would require an upper and ammo load that’s stupidly heavy, and also result in less rounds per magazine resulting in more reloads and less ammunition carried overall.

    • Kalash

      That could word. 6.8 doesn’t travel great, but 6.5 does. It’s about 30% heavier than 223. Of course, there’s no money in infantry — better roll out another multibillion dollar wonderweapon program that will never see the light of day!

  • Kivaari

    Was that ARVN soldier carrying 80 to 100 pounds of gear? I don’t remember images of heavily loaded ARVN troops. Most seemed to have a minimum of rifle ammo and a butt-pack.

  • Jones2112

    For the most part warfare changed after WWI, the days of one thousand yard warfare came to an end after the war thus the invention of AK-47 came into being, shortly after the M-16 came into being…it makes little sense going back to an antiquated rifle which is heavier, not as reliable in certain conditions and heavier ammo that would need to be carried by troops not to mention cleaning etc…

    It would be OK to use it as a DMR where you’d have a couple of troops in a squad carry them but not the entire infantry…

    • No one

      Hell, even if we were in dire need of more 7.62mm DMRs, there would be no reason to use an M14 variant when things like the SR-25EM/M110 and the various SCAR-17 based precision rifle variants being sold now, the former of which we have quite a few of.

      Got to love the hypocritical M14 fanboys who criticize that we’re not advancing because we’re using “50s-60s era technology!”, But somehow switching back to a bad rifle that was 20s-30s era technology that should’ve been canned for the FAL or AR-10 in the first place is a much better, more advanced idea.

      • Kivaari

        What seems to get ignored is all the problems the M14 rifle suffered. All the defects that led to it being withdrawn from service after just a few years.
        I recommend everyone read Ezell’s “The Great Rifle Controversy”. After reading that you should come away thinking “Just what were they thinking?”.
        7.62mm does hit harder – but it all comes with negative trade-offs. It is heavy and bulky.

        • No one

          They could also read where Chris Vance explored the army trials which contradicted those found by ARPA that stated “only the M14 is worthy of service” between it, the M16 and the AK-47, only for the Army Inspector General to investigate on Vance’s behalf and find out the tests done were incredibly rigged in favor of the M14 and there was a massive bias towards it. (They were also rigged during cold weather tests against the FAL, very odd coincidence.)

          It’s a good thing a supposed “political decision” wasn’t done like M14 fanboys always claim, because It’s amazing the testers weren’t tried for corruption after finding this out.

          (Something something “M16 only in service because someone lining their pockets at the expense of our troops!” response from an M14 fanboy coming soon.)

  • UnrepentantLib

    Let me see if I can understand this: we don’t have enough money to switch over to a (theoretically) more effective intermediate round, like a 6.8 or 6.5mm, but we’re going to find enough money to switch back to a 7.62mm rifle? And only as a n interim until they (someday) come out with caseless ammunition.

    • Form Factor

      6.8 is absolute garbage, its ballistics are extremly hilarious for stupid weight and higher recoil (+ totally uneeded recoil due to KE=1/2m x v² while p=m x v).

      6.5 is verry slow, has a bad maximum point blank range, hilarious penetration due to its slow velocity, cant be used anyways because its case angle is way to small an causes ejection problems under military use and decreases reliability. Need a diffren bolthead, has less mag capacity, has for the same pressures a to large inner surface that causes higher bolt stress, and has smaller locking lugs…….

      And no caseless is not that great. CT polymer cased telescopic is currently developed and has dozends of advantages to brass bottleneck and caseless. It comes in a few years. And brings actual sicnificant performance diffrence in a ton of areas that is actually worth to spend the money on that some 6.8 bs.

    • Kalash

      “We don’t have enough money”

      Stop right there. We have enough money. I once ran the calcs in another thread. The result was in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but that’s not too much more than a typical of helicopters or tanks, or even just paying everyone’s wages for a few months, or at most a small single digit percentage of our Wunderwaffen project, I mean cosmic money black hole, I mean contractor gold orgy, I mean world’s most expensive vaporware, I mean F35 program.

  • Martingard

    Loved the M14 and the M60 but I use to hunt with a .264 Win magnum. That was the flattest shooting most accurate weapon I’ve ever had. I loaded with boat tail hollow points and took down a huge buffalo with one shot to it’s chest. It definitely had some take-down power.

    • Form Factor

      And that means…?

      Basicly nothing to this discussion. The M14 was garbage, the M60 cool but stupidly heavy.
      7.62×51 pure aerodynamic garbage.

      .264 ok but still junk compared to actual good aerodynamic configurations.

    • .264 Winchester Magnum is really underrated. I think it’s a minor shame the round is basically out of circulation now.

  • Uncle Fosters Coonhound

    . During his 2 1/2 service during WWII Dad loved the M1 Garand for its ruggedness and accuracy (Expert) at distance, loved the Tommy Gun in Close Quarters because it “would tear things -up and get the job done”, the Grease Gun because “it was light and easy to shoot (for suppressive fire)”, loved the BAR because you “could shoot an airplane down with it”(saw it done). He was trained, proficient with, and carried each of those firearms at one point/place or another.(he was also issued a Colt revolver with half-moon clips in 45auto) In Vietnam my brother and cousins carried everything from a Swedish K (MACV) to a Ruger 22(aircrew) pistol including the M14, BAR, Garand and addition to the M16 and short CAR. Boiled down to area of operation and mission and marksmanship/shot placement and a will to kill as necessary. Most if not all reasons the M16 had such an early high rate of failure have been, one way or the other, fixed over the last 50 years but it is still .22 cal…
    I have 2 observations 1- No combat vet I know ever wanted to load-out with less fight stopping power to bring themselves and buddies back home.. 2- The US Government will issue what the MIC bought and paid for politicians/bureaucrats think a US fighting man(and woman) should have regardless of need. It is ALL about the business of ‘boots beans and bullets’ and has mattered little whether it be outfitting for Nation vs Nation conscript combat or Urban CQB/ UN Policing.
    All in all I find entertaining opinions here, even those whose experience appears to be filed under multiple screen names with COD type video games and war movie bona fides. ; ) Just my $.02
    Press On

    • Form Factor

      The excellent steel penetrating and instantly in tissue fragmenting 5.56×45 M855A1 EPR used since 6YEARS will instantly shred your organs, lungs, arms, legs. And fragments out to 600m.

      While 7.62×51 M80 takes 17cm to finally start to tumble.

      • Kalash

        Kindly explain why 5.56×45 is classified as a small game round, but 7.62×51 can handle thousand pound moose, then.

        • Form Factor

          Because civillians can use hollow points, softpoints, tipped hollow points.

          What i mean was 5.56×45 M855A1 EPR is devastating and puts you out of combat. While 7.62×51 isnt magic, M80 takes ~17cm to finally yaw. But 7.62×51 also exists in the EPR (M80A1), which performs really good in therminal therms, but due to its lighter weight has even worse aerodynamics than the already terrible unaerodynamic (for its weight and recoil) M80.

          With the EPR projectile, % hit propability is what counts, 197 to 311% the recoil, half the rounds to carry, and 10rounds less per mag will do no good in that area…

          • Secundius

            In 11 August 2015, the US Military relaxed the rules concerning the use of “Dum dum’s” and “BB’s” (Surface Bearing Rounds)…

          • Kalash

            None of that is relevant. Please go to Alaska and tell rural residents that you’re taking your M4gery out to hunt bears. I anticipate lulz. Lighter bullets weigh less and push less, but don’t travel as far or as efficiently, nor do they penetrate as deeply. You forget that ballistics are equations, so what happens on one end impacts the other end.

    • A bunch of my ancestors were in the Battle of Culloden and the Jacobite Uprising. I bet a few of them had fond memories of the ability of the Land Pattern to put down Englishmen, too.

  • Jason Lewis

    6.5 Grendel sounds like a good compromise.

    • Form Factor

      You have not the slightest idea. 6.5 is stupidly slow, has a bad maximum point blank range, hilarious penetration due to its slow velocity, cant be used anyways because its case angle is way to small an causes ejection problems under military use and decreases reliability. Is stupidly heavy. Needs a diffrent bolthead, has less mag capacity, has for the same pressures a to large inner surface that causes higher bolt stress, and has smaller locking lugs…….

      CT polymer cased telescopic is currently developed and has dozends of advantages to brass bottleneck and caseless. It comes in a few years. And brings actual sicnificant performance diffrence in a ton of areas that is actually worth to spend the money on that some high tradeoff 6.5 bs in a stoneage bottleneck rifle.

      • Kalash

        It’s okay, we get it, you worship Nat but you write like Lance.

  • d s

    Maybe the 7.62 is too much horse power. Why not a new caliber like the .260 in auto. More H/P than 5.56.

    • U

      .260 is has dozends of drawbacks, i wouldnt go any over .23622 inch

      All you need is an aerodynamic projectile at good speed (minimum 3000fps if not a bit higher), that reaches 1200m 1312y supersonic. So anything over a certain boundary will just increase recoil, weight, etc.

      .260 will be so heavy, that it neets a stupid amount of energy to get it to 3000fps (~3300J). That creates recoil and blast from a carbine that is unusable. And % hit propability goes way down. Also weight increases extremly and you have verry few rounds, and no fire superority.

      • No one

        I don’t know, I think rounds up to .243 or .244 caliber could be workable if you really wanted a slightly larger round, but then again, I’m not in a position to actually design rounds for the military so that’s more their call then mine.

        The Chinese 5.8x42mm DBP10 round and it’s predecessor loadings use a .236 diameter projectile, these are kind of oddly designed though as they were designed to be 1. really, really accurate for ball ammunition with a great ballistic trajectory (they also have a rather long L/D ratio), and 2. have incredible armor penetration for their size.

        The problem is, the PLA didn’t prioritize wounding/killing effects at all, so, while they are very accurate, very punchy versus hardened steel and titanium and the like, and have a really good trajectory, their wounding ability leaves much to be desired unless said very long projectile yaws very quickly in flesh due to the fact everything from the jacket (which has a “pocket” at the end to act as a makeshift AP cap against armor) to the core to the penetrator itself is rock solid and doesn’t come apart even at the muzzle velocity of 3,100 fps against tissue and bone. (as tests against knocked out pigs and gel/soap show at least.)

      • d s

        Ok. Then the .243 WSSM. SMALL AND FAST. 65gr. 3600 fps.

        • No one

          Have fun designing a double stack magazine that wide.

          And a barrel that can handle that out of a fully automatic weapon.

          • d s

            Ok,I give up. Give them bean shooters.

          • No one

            a .243-244 round probably is the ceiling of what’s actually doable, but .243 WSSM is way too fat and has way too big of a powder charge and MV for a fully automatic weapon of that bore.

            You’re not going in the wrong direction per say with that caliber, but the WSSM family works in bolt actions because magazine size and barrel wear aren’t as big of issues. (2,800-3,200 fps are the ideal range depending on the projectile weight and design.)

            Try something else that’s a tad more reasonable in that caliber range if you really want to try that route and you may be onto sometime.

        • Form Factor

          65grain is FAR too light for a .242, thats a weight for .224

          Your bc would go down to much.

  • CommonSense

    Is this author serious? Too many mistakes and short sighted, to boot. WWI and WWII were fought and won using .30 arms. There’s benefit of a .30 over a .22 (mass in motion) when shooting through brush, glass and other material. What does 44% more ammo (author’s numbers) do when you expend more rounds per target? What tripod mounted 7.62×51? (A photograph of an m14 with a sling). Is he writing of M60s and M240s, or a 1918 BAR – all on bipods. Why did the author not mention the military’s recall of m14s dispersed around the nation to be redeployed to combat troops in the fight? What a waste of a headline.

    • Form Factor

      7.62×51 is a PIECE OF GARBAGE. Its stupidly thick for its weight with an HILARIOUSLY BAD G7 bc for its stupid weight and recoil. Its has the !SAME! supersonic (=accurate) range as 5.56×45! You get NOTHING besides a bit of wind drift for insane tradeoffs.
      DOUBLE the weight = HALF the Rounds + !even LESS! because the Rifle weights more (barrel, boltcarrier etc).

      +198% the RECOIL Impulse and 311% the RECOIL force !!!!!! = way less % hit propability in urban combat

      + SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.
      +10rounds less capacity (great for ambushes….)

      And to your “more per target”, M855A1 EPR will shred your organs, lungs, arms, legs, neck, pop your head, any damn day.

      + CT rounds are coming ANYWAYS, with less weight and far better performance, and actually modern Rifles, instead of our stoneage bottleneck garbage.

      Let it rain brains…

    • No one

      I’m pretty sure WWI and WW2 were actually won by the massive amount of Artillery, Aircraft, and combat vehicles that inflicted that massive majority of wounded and kills on the enemy and not foot soldiers, and also destroyed things like support, logistics and production centers.

      Speaking of logistics, it also helped that the Germans were completely clueless about this concept.

  • cwolf

    Obviously lots of passion as folks love to argue calibers.

    The USMC has the right idea. Test a new concept at 29 Palms, then, if it works, have units try it in combat.

    In reality, what you want to do is the traditional DOTLMS analysis…. what is the requirement and what are the best solutions.

    If the requirement is an enemy MG team at 800-1,500m in the mountains, I’m not sure a rifle (whether 556, 762, 6.5 Grendel, 338 Lapua, etc.) is the best solution. Shooting uphill on a mountain at a MG team hiding in the rocks while you’re hiding in the rocks is tough.

    Other options might be:

    raytheonDOTcom/capabilities/products/pike/

    youtubeDOTcom/watch?v=pFndoKYV3dA M6 mortar 60mm FAMOS fast mortar

    dticDOTmil/ndia/2011smallarms/WednesdayInter12677Stauffenberg.pdf In this case, leverage the smart 40mm grenade in a lightweight ‘knee mortar.’

    In any case, a smart scope will help a lot.

    thefirearmblogDOTcom/blog/2017/02/08/u-s-army-eyeing-ballistic-computer-scope-tech/

    • No one

      The Pike has looked very promising for quite a while now, and funnily enough it tends to get GPC/7.62mm fanboys really mad when you point out such a device would be far, far more effective at dealing with belt fed MG fire at long ranges then any infantry rifle would ever be.

      Whether or not it ends up panning out is another matter though.

      • cwolf

        The SDMs are doing a great job.

        Humping heavy loads high in the mountains is stunningly doubly hard (uphill and low O2).

        You’re right…. any new system would require lots of testing.

        Even though the smart 40mm “long” grenade is mature, a new single shot ground launcher would have to be validated. All of which assumes such a launcher is feasible and light enough.

        Everbody has 40mm ‘short’ weapons (not quite enough range and not smart) and various missiles (heavy & big).

        So, the 7.62 or 6.5 Grendel for SDM may be the only quick solution. The acquisition community would have a cow, but buying a hundred 6.5 G rifles for quick testing in CO or wherever, then if good results, buying enough for SDM in county is not impossible. Or NSWC makes some very nice 7.62 ammo.

        I know this is obvious, but sitting at a bench or on a nice pad on a manicured flat range at Quantico or Benning, calculating wind with nice flags, at known ranges is a totally different thing than being sweat soaked and sucking thin air hard while dodging bullets and hiding behind rocks trying to spot a dust puff at 800+m. Smart scopes are readily available and are a force multiplier.

        • Form Factor

          6.5 Grendel has far to shallow case angles which cause ejection problems. It has also to much bolt stress due to its large rim, the locking lugs are also weaker than on 5.56×45.

          6.5Grendel is also supidly slow and therefore has a bad trajectory and point blank range, its supersonic range isnt impressive too.

          Why even the Grendel if you go for an DMR anyways (not the AR15 coal restrictions that are the reason for 6.5Grendels flaws), using a 6,2mm bullet with good shape and good velocity is a FAR better way.

          • cwolf

            Pick a caliber you like that is accurate out to 1,000m with reasonable recoil and a reasonably flat trajectory that is available off-the-shelf.

            The larger point is the military can field a SDM rifle in any caliber they need, even if just for a particular mission or environment. NSWC already developed an improved 300 WM cartridge. SOCOM is using the Mk-21 Precision Sniper Rifles (7.62, 300WM, 338 Lapua).

            Ideally using the DARPA smart scope (ok, not in production) or any smart scope.

  • jcitizen

    Aren’t they already issuing at least one semi-auto rifle like that to a platoon? Maybe each squad? I see it on the news carrying them all the time. Pardon my ignorance,. as I’ve been out quite a few years, and my buds left the GWOT years ago.

    • No one

      Not just platoon, It’s literally 1 DMR a squad since later Afghanistan theater.

      • jcitizen

        Thanks! I was hoping as such, as it makes more sense to me! I suppose – me being an old fart – I’d be carrying a Remington M40, but I’m sure things have changed since way back then.

  • Zane Gregg

    same old BS from eggheads who have never been in combat it sounds like. . . it works and kills spectacularly. . . all the negatives here are repeating someone else’s crap, blah, blah, blah. . . (example) OH!, it was “uncontrollable in full auto Marcell !!!!!” i fired thousands of rounds in RVN with my M14 /bipods/full auto . . . it killed very well and with authority . . . simply put, it worked for us in RVN 66/67 before the politics of the f***ing M16 came along . . ask the families of the dead Marines from 3/5 who died in large part from weapon failure. . . quit whining and move forward snowflake, they are dead ahead and expecting you. . .

    • No one

      “Same old BS from eggheads who have never been in combat it sounds like” -Same old BS who thinks someone who thinks being deployed = he gets to ignore all actual history, tests, data, and evidence that show he’s wrong and can just spout out endless pop history myths and anecdotes without getting called on it.

      “all the negatives here are repeating someone else’s crap, blah, blah, blah. . .” Oh god you can cut the irony with a knife.

      “”uncontrollable in full auto Marcell !!!!!” i fired thousands of rounds in RVN with my M14 /bipods/full auto” WOW, you fired a rifle on full auto that weighs nearly 11 pounds loaded using a bipod? I’m sure that bipod had nothing at all to do with recoil control in the slightest.

      I’ve fired an M2A1 on a tripod from a private owner in Oregon and it was “controllable”, I’m sure the tripod and massive weight of the weapon had nothing to do with it! Let’s issue every soldier that!

      ” it killed very well and with authority . . . simply put,” So does 5.56mm, and unlike M80 it didn’t just have the terminal effect profile of an icepick, but I forgot facts are meaningless here.

      “it worked for us in RVN 66/67 before the politics of the f***ing M16 came along . .”

      Which politics were those? The politics that allowed the Army to rig the M14 prototypes over the FAL in cold weather testing? or the politics where the Army General Inspector found out there was massive corruption involved in testing between the M14, M16, and AK-47 they thought no one would find out about because they were incredibly biased towards the M14 and rigged the tests massively in it’s favor (and where ARPA testing found the exact opposite results they did without said massive bias)?

      There we’re no politics favoring the M16, if anything, the politics of the Army favored THE M14 because they were afraid of changing from their dated 20s-30s era technology rifle that so much money was already sunk into. If anything, you should be thankful you’re pulling the usual excuse M14 fanboys do when they can’t face the harsh reality the AR-15 was a much better platform and the M14 was awful, the testers would’ve been charged with corruption otherwise.

      “ask the families of the dead Marines from 3/5 who died in large part from weapon failure. . .” Should I also go around asking the families of every dead M14 rifleman how they feel about their dead son who died when all the debris in a jungle gummed up the top of their open action rifle? oh, that must be a myth though, I forgot the M14 is some super rifle and no one wielding it ever died!

      “quit whining and move forward snowflake, they are dead ahead and expecting you. . .”

      Wear the typical 90-150lb combat load modern soldiers have to wear in a desert for 16 hours a day, do that for 6 months, then try and talk tough big man, until then, please shut up because you don’t know anything.

      • Zane Gregg

        another egg-head moron . . go pound sand up your ass genius

        • No one

          Great response, you completely refuted everything I said.

          What else can I except from a single digit IQ simpleton who can’t even read though?

    • I will sing you the song of my people: pics or it didn’t happen

      On a more serious note, I don’t see the connection with thinking a return to 7.62mm is a bad idea and denial that the M16’s introduction to Vietnam was a disaster. It was, I never denied that.

  • Zane Gregg

    also . . the germans conquered most of europe with a bot action 8mm. . . just sayin

    • No one

      And then got completely stomped and lost the actual war when the big boys came out to play.

      I also didn’t realize the Kar98K was the only weapon the Germans had in their inventory and the technology of the time of WW2 was anywhere close to today, It’s pretty impressive that they managed to do that in a war where the vast majority of losses on both sides were due to Artillery and Aircraft!

      …..Wait.

      • Secundius

        Also simplified Logistics, because Aircraft and Squad Machine Guns were the Same Caliber…

        • No one

          When I think of “WW2 Germany”, Logistics expertise isn’t exactly the first thing that comes to mind. (there’s more to logistics then unified ammo, like not having your vehicles and troop divisions outrun their supply lines by light years for example.)

          • Secundius

            US Military was pretty good at doing that too in WWII! My father fought during the Italian Campaign and carried two Rifles. One was the M1 Garland and the other was the 98k Mauser. Because he “Never” knew from one day to the next, which Ammunition he was going to be Fighting with. Ours or Theirs…

      • Zane Gregg

        yes, artillery and aircraft are the biggest killers, conclusions reached in every war. I’m talking about the topic of the article . . small arms . . the 8mm bolt action did their heavy lifting as the main infantry weapon. . not textbooks, plagiarized theory and smug conclusions. The M14 did a spectacular job in RVN from my humble first hand experience and was replaced largely due to political BS . The worn-out excuse that it wasnt controllable in full auto is crap, I was the AR man and weighed 117 lbs when I left the country (from 155 lbs when we arrived) I controlled it fine. Also, there were only three AR’s in a squad, the rest were semi auto, not every man a automatic rifleman as later with the M16. The 7.62 is a stone killer with the punch and power needed . . not a “mouse gun”

        • Where I was at in Vietnam there was no real air support. We were on our own to defend ourselves with what we had humped in on our shoulders. The only advantage we had over the enemy was holding the high ground. The range of the M-14 was our only advantage over the enemy and we learned to use that advantage well.

  • The Sherman escape hatch in ubder the feet of the assistant driver/bow gunner. It is NOT easy to remove by any means.

    • jcitizen

      Yep!

    • jcitizen

      You can get a good feel what it was like to be in a Sherman by watching the move Fury. In that, one of the crew finally had to jump down the belly hatch to save his life – a really good movie, although I’m sure Hollywood made a few boo-boos just to spice things up.

  • roguetechie

    Yeah, that article is stupid and the person who wrote it should self flagellate them self to death for writing such stupid tripe…

    And?

  • Curmudgeon

    The looserounds article makes some cogent arguments in an overblown way but also relies too often on exaggerations or outright lies. Grabbing the handguard on an M14 type is no problem at all–it is merely supposed to be short enough to not bind between the front of the receiver and the rear of the barrel band. That = vertical stringing even before the barrel warms up with the first five rounds. But the front handguard on an M1 Garand, THAT needs to be epoxied and/or glued and screwed to the front ferrule so as to not futz up your accuracy. The maintenance with a glass bedded M14 happens to include not taking it out of the stock for routine cleaning. That is just not needed. The trigger group can be removed more often if needed and has little effect on degrading the bedding. The complaints I heard from the gas gunners back in the day was if…IF their bedding got compromised before the barrel was due for replacement, as in at 5,000-7,000 rounds.

    And the accuracy horror stories based on a huge number of a small sample of rifles having out of spec (read that as NOT “mil-spec”) fitment of stocks, op rods, etc. smell too much like cherry-picking or misplaced blame.

    At least I can remove the bolt and op rod during an M14 type’s stoppage, even if they are somehow jammed halfway back through their range of travel. Try that with your BCG three inches into the buffer tube. BTDT and it was not pretty.

  • Kalash

    Kneejerk, kneejerk everywhere. Obviously, short barrel 5.56×45 weapons aren’t getting the job 100% done, so something else needs to be put in as a supplementary measure. Remember those articles about engagements from BEYOND 5.56 range? Those are still a common enough occurrence to make 7.62×51 have a place still with the infantry. Remember all that talk about 6.5, designed to make up for the range shortcomings of 5.56? Well, it seems if the men with fancy uniforms may just put the M14 back in, like they had done earlier.

    • Form Factor

      On 7.62×51 actual performance, copy: Its stupidly thick for its weight with an hilarious bad G7 BC for its stupid weight and recoil. Its has the !SAME! supersonic (=accurate) range as 5.56×45!!!! You get NOTHING besides a bit of wind drift for insane tradeoffs.
      DOUBLE the weight = HALF the Rounds + !even LESS! because the Rifle weights more (barrel, boltcarrier etc).

      +198% the RECOIL Impulse and 311% the RECOIL force !!!!!!!!!!

      + SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.
      +10rounds less capacity (great for ambushes….)

      + CT rounds are coming ANYWAYS, with less weight and far better performance, and actually modern Rifles, instead of our stoneage bottleneck garbage.

      • Kalash

        CT ain’t here yet. Can’t do anything with hardware that doesn’t exist.
        For the record, the 556 recoil impulse is extremely low, so almost anything is going to look high compared to it.
        308 also hits much harder at longer ranges, which is what they’re trying to solve. Read “Retaking the Infantry Half Kilometer” and shut up.

      • I found it comforting that I could kill the enemy at ranges more than 500 yards and that those I was defending myself against were my targets for 400 yards before I came within their range. The enemy was decimated coming up the hills after us. Remember when you are greatly outnumbered and have no hope of air support or medivac that killing ground of 300 to 400 yards before the enemy could kill us was the difference in not being overrun by a much greater force. The M-14 gave us the advantage of being able to cut them down to a defendable number. It was better than hunkering down and then praying and spraying with a M-16 when they were on us. At that point the best weapon was still not an M16 but instead a carefully sharpened entrenching tool.

  • No one

    Great job reporting my post that completely refuted every point you said by the way.

    Sounds like someone here who’s spouting about “truth” can’t fash the truth himself, how ironic.

  • Form Factor

    Its and abslute garbage cartridge for military use. As said, stupidly slow, low maximum point blank range. Way to shallow angles for ejection, more bolt stress, weaker bolt lugs. = FULLY unacceptable for the Military.

    It would be the most insane waist of money ever.

    A 6.1mm Projectile at high velocity has a far better trajectory, and due to its better shape… a better BC and energy retention at range.

    While also having less recoil, HIGHER supersonic range, less weight, higher KE/mm² (penetration).

  • VieteranGunsmith

    This is sheer idiocy. I’ve seen this argument in one form or another since the early 1970’s when I served, and the idea that returning to a 30 caliber cartridge is going to be an advantage is about as sensible as handing the troops a lot of BS, and it is the kind of BS that gets people killed in combat. Our troops have use the 5.56 NATO round for decades and most of them wouldn’t be able to control anything with more recoil than that. Remember that none of these people have ever fired a 7.62 NATO weapon, and are doing good to hit a 300 yard target with 5.56. Their marksmanship is only going to get worse with a larger, more recoil energy round. The reasons the military adopted the 5.56 round and weapons built for it were ease of training, more likelihood of hitting targets at combat ranges and the individual combat soldiers can carry twice as much ammo.
    The person or persons behind this idea should be made to pack and tote the combat load of a current day infantryman’s weapon and ammo – but in 7.62 caliber on a forced march, doubletime.
    Better yet, why not issue all of our troops belt fed automatic weapons in 30 cal. then you can have a virtual wall of lead out to 800 meters and push the enemy off the field like a bulldozer.
    Does anyone see how bassackwards this kind of thinking is? IF we had the perfect solution in 1959, why did they go to all the expense and effort to develop the M-16? There is no reason sensible on earth to ask for a new 30 caliber weapons system. When you need more than full auto rifle fire, it is time to go to mortars and artillery support.
    Every war we’ve fought since I was born has had some kind of difference that is particular to that theater of operations, and we keep showing up with the previous war’s weapons. This is a tactical operations problem and not a weapons inventory one. If your enemy will not accommodate your close in battle tactics, you need to address that with fire support that outranges and outclasses the firepower the enemy can bring to bear.
    If the enemy opens up at long range, that is what field radio and fire missions are made to handle. This idea is an old waste of time. We have a well equipped and multi mission armed forces capable of prevailing under all circumstances if they are led and deployed properly and with the correct support in the field.
    No ammunition is going to rectify the problem if your leadership doesn’t account for an enemy using terrain and distance against you. To try to offset that by changing caliber is stupid on wheels, and it will get more people killed than the judicious use of firepower from superior weapons. Airstrikes and artillery barrages are the major players that don’t get utilized often enough, but when employed properly almost always end the fight.

  • Thomas

    A BAR in 6.5 creedmore with select of 300 or 150 would solve most problems that presented themselves with an internal suppressor to lighten weight requirement for control ability.

  • LilWolfy

    That article is filled with so many inaccuracies, indicative of an amateur, that it should be purged from our memories and the author beaten, then sent to correct their work and return with the corrections when they are 100% certain they have accomplished that task (they’ll never come back if they’re smart).

  • VieteranGunsmith

    When you are outgunned by the enemy, you call artillery fire missions and air support to wipe them out. It helps if the CO planned ahead and made these resources available to support you in the field.
    Air Cavalry, A-10s, Navy, Marines and Air Force aircraft should always be part of the battle plan, even on recon or outreach missions. If you get sent into a situation where contact is likely, your commander is responsible for supporting you in the field and no magic rifle is ever going to make up for the lack of fire support. Not in this war, or any to come.

  • Zoomie

    This is a good thing! The only conflicts where the US has used a 556 round has been against insurgents, not professional military. The enemy didn’t have air support or artillery. For two world wars, soldiers fought with 30 caliber type weapons at the squad level. It gave them serious firepower out to1000 yards. US troops also carried a wider variety of weapons( i.e. Sub machine guns, BAR, and several types of light machine guns).
    Finally here are some interesting facts:
    556 round will not penetrate body armor.
    556 weapons were designed for short range defense.
    556 is a varmit round original intended to shoot small animals.
    The historical error made by our military is to base future conflicts on past ones! When the German military unleash blitzkrieg on the world, no one saw it coming. Perhaps a better plan would be a wider variety of weapons in a platoon. Say 30 and 556?

    • Form Factor

      7.62×51 doesnt even go 800m supersonic (no more than 5.56×45…)= absolute no 1000y actual Rifle effective range

      Even 7.62×63 with extremly expensive Tungstencarbide core doesnt even go trough standart LVL4 ANYWAYS.

      5.56×45 M855A1 EPR will totally shred your organs, lungs, arms, neck, pop your skull any damn day.
      It fragments instantly, and even out to 600m.
      While 7.62×51 takes 17cm to finally start to yaw….

      If the Germans had the todays M855A1 EPR they would have whopped everyones butt.

      7.62×51 has a hilariously low supersonic range for its stupid weight an recoil.
      Its stupidly thick for its weight with an hilariously BAD G7 BC.

      DOUBLE the weight = HALF the Rounds + !even LESS! because the Rifle weights more (barrel, boltcarrier etc). Which creates an extreme lack of fire superority…

      +198% the RECOIL Impulse and 311% the RECOIL force!!!!

      + SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.
      +10rounds less capacity (great for ambushes….)

      + CT rounds are coming ANYWAYS, with less weight and far better performance, and actually modern Rifles, instead of our stoneage bottleneck garbage.

      = it wont gonna happen

      • Secundius

        The Germans did produce a Subsonic 7.92×57 round with a muzzle Velocity of ~720-ft/sec, and IF used with a Silencer. Only produced a sound of ~35-decibels, though the range was only about ~300-meters…

        • Form Factor

          What has it to to with 7.62×51?

          • Secundius

            Nothing! Other than the fact that Germany came up in the comment: “If only the Germans had the today’s M855A1 EPR”. Past Tense Vs. Future Tense…

  • supergun

    The M-16 is perhaps the finest weapon ever made.

    • Form Factor

      Well its the AR15 platform, so the M16 is made pretty bad because they ignored to include chamber chrome plating which let it rust.

      The M16A2 A3 A4 is better. And the M4 comes too. The best AR15’s in the military are the upgraded M4’s. And in the civillian area some well put together high end stuff.

      • supergun

        I couldn’t agree with you more. The M-16 started the Legend.

        • Form Factor

          Yup. It wont stay forever, but it reigns as long as brass bottleneck cartridges are NATO adopted, which means basicly just a few years.

          • supergun

            Yelp. Mine will always stay.

  • Jarhead0369

    I started with the M-14, and it was a great rifle. Heavy, yes, but accurate beyond 500 yards AND shooting a bullet which weighs more than a 5.56 CARTRIDGE. 7.62×51 shoots through things that stop a 5.56. For clearing rooms and from inside vehicles an SBR is better, however I question the utility of carrying twice as much ammo, if you need to shoot an enemy twice as many times.

    • Form Factor

      The M14 was an unreliable piece of grabage, and heavy. It jammed instantly, like the AKM while the AR15 did run 100% covered in mud.
      The M14 jammed instantly in the sand test, while the AR gas did blow any debree away before the ejection port opens…

      5.56×45 is accurate beyond 500yards too, it has literally the same supersonic range as 7.62×51…. because 7.62×51 is stupidly thick and bad shaped for its weight.

      Your old 7.62×51 bullet doesnt even go lvl3 with serval dozends shots…. 5.56×45 M193 trough lvl3 and lvl3a at ONCE and is still lethal. M855A1 EPR goes trough lvl3+, and has the same penetration at walls as 7.62×51

      “twice as many” M855A1 EPR fragments instantly, totally shreds your organs, lungs, arms, legs, neck, pops your skull. It fragments out to 600meter! While 7.62×51 takes 17cm to finally start to tumble…!

      Further 7.62×51 has +198% the Recoil Impulse and 311% the Recoil force…

      + SHORTER barrel for the same overall lenght due to the longer mag and chamber = decreasing supersonic range and increasing blast.

      +10rounds less capacity (great for ambushes….)

      So stop with the stomache facts.

  • marvin james

    I carried the M14 In Nam. I was the one Marine in my company that didn’t give my rifle over to the m16. Anyone that was there would say that prey and sprey became the technique that comes with the M16. The 223 hasn’t the ability at most times to be lethal at any range beyond two hundred yards, even if the average grunt hit anything.

    • Form Factor

      Except that 5.56×45 M855A1 EPR iS ADOPTED SINCE 6 DAMN YEARS idiot. Not the old M855.

      It fragments instantly, totally shreds your organs, lungs, arms, legs, neck, pops your skull.

      It fragments out to 600meter! While 7.62×51 takes 17cm to finally start to tumble…!

      Spray and Pray is not a technique, its direct supression fire with DOUBLE the ammo and low recoil = DOUBLE the (if not more due to more controllable weapon) FIRE SUPERORITY.

      • marvin james

        The reason I stated what I said is, that is if had any degree of comen sense in that argument was the reliabiliy of the rifle. Ever heard of the jamming that we had?223 versus the 7.62 came down to that fact alone. It was at first my choice. After awhile I was ordered to carry it.

    • I hear a lot of folks claiming all sorts of things about how they “didn’t give up their weapons” or “they threw out their weapons” because they did/didn’t like them.

      I find this hard to believe. I know the Vietnam War was supposed to be a low point for discipline in the US military, but I still have a hard time with the idea that you could simply defy orders like that.

  • Bad Penguin

    The Army always fights the last war. However, you must have never fired a SCAR17 before. Extremely accurate and no more recoil than an M-4 while having superior range. Most of the western world went to the 5.56 because we did. No other reason. The Euro’s were looking at 6.5 or 6.8 cal weapons.

  • Mike S

    This whole thing sounds like a bunch of folks arguing about 4 different subjects without designating what the heck they’re shooting their mouth off about. Maybe a bunch of bean-counters went on retreat and figured they could save some money on supplies without knowing what these things are going to be used for.

    Different types of battle demand different armament and support, who the heck is going to generalize on a single round. And what do they now refer to as the “standard infantry”? Our specialized forces have many more responsibilities than the military of 50 years ago, things have changed but the college educated “leaders” can’t seem to plan for more than 1 or 2 situations at a time. Probably not too many long range problems on the streets of a city while the guys in the hills don’t have too many doors to break down.

    On top of all that, it seems like a bunch of politically correct desk jockeys (insert 4 letter acronym here) have connections that will benefit from a widespread change in ammunition and rifles. We’ve already got a wide range of tools, just need to keep assigning them in the right locations. Intelligence from the line won’t do any good if there’s nobody making decisions that know WTF they’re doing. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • Glen Bowers

    Years ago I got in to the Prepper movement, we called ourselves survivalist at that time. My dilemma was to go 7.62 or 5.56. I chose the 5.56 as my main stay. All the reasons are obvious. Lighter, you can carry more, cheaper, easier to stock pile. I have stayed with the long barrel rifles for the added performance. Are you going to hold a position? Or are you going to be mobile?

  • Edward N. Barnes

    Finally, a post that gets to the nub of the matter. The 5.56 round just hasn’t got the range to be effective when shooting from one mountain range to the next.

    • Exactly right. This is a cold hard fact of ballistics. It is not something that one can cover one’s eyes and ignore out of some emotional attachment to small caliber philosophy.

      It holds true even for medium caliber advocates such as myself. As much as might I favor the 7.62×51 NATO round, I cannot deny that there is a good reason snipers operating in terrain such as Afghanistan feel the need to escalate to rounds such as the .300 Winchester Magnum and the .338 Lapua Magnum.

      This is the firearms counterpart to the rule in automotive engineering: “There is no substitute for cubic inches”.

      It’s comical that some posters would actually trying to claim that “because I’m such a good rifleman, I’m just as effective with my 5.56 at 7.62 round range”.

      It’s not about the shooter. It’s about the ammunition, which is controlled by the laws of physics.

  • Nunya Bidniz

    4 days after April 1st? Getting a little sloppy there w/ the pranks, aren’t you?

  • LazyReader

    50 years of playing with intermediate caliber rounds….the British had the right idea with .27 caliber. Or a cheaper better strategy would be two 7.62 riflemen per squad. Now that squad thing differs. A marine squad is 10-14, an Army Squad is 7-9. So whether it’s HK417 or LMT 308’s or something or modernized AR-10’s. Now 2-3 7.62 riflemen per squad, that’s 8-20 per platoon, train every man to use it

    • Form Factor

      Absolutely not, anything over .24 is ONLY good with outdated technology.

      An actually good shaped smaller Projectile will totally reck .27 british any damn day.

      Everything above just increases weight, recoil, and decreases capacity, -for nothing.

  • thedarkknightreturns

    Neat story about your father’s time in the service, thanks for sharing. You make some good points. I believe 5.56 gets the job done, and I like it for my uses.

  • thedarkknightreturns

    AWww, Daaayum…..is this guy here all night or what….

    • roguetechie

      Ba dum tsh

  • Bageeria

    With the introduction of women and gender confused persons into combat line units we better the 5.56 it easier for them to carry and fight with.

    • JYuma

      Another Great Reason to Go back to The M-14!!!
      If you can’t Handle the Weapon. You don’t need to Be There.

      • Form Factor

        There is literally zero reason to go back to the utter piece of garbage “m14”.

        • JYuma

          Your opinion and $ 1.50, will get you a Cop of Coffee in just about any Cafe or Circle K you go to.

        • The M-14 is the best military rifle in history. I was given a M-16 when I arrived in Vietnam and before I left the armory I traded it for a M-14. Why would anyone want to go to a real war with a Mattel toy gun. For the M-16 to be effective one needed to be within bayonet range and the bayonet was the option of choice. I never understood the M-16 as a combat weapon. It did not even make a good club.

        • Except that it the best shoulder held weapon ever devised. I have never held a better infantry weapon and cannot imagine anyone making one better. My life and the lives of my fellow Marines were saved by this weapon. It shot accurately at long range, made a great mount for a bayonet and was quite a lethal club. No weapon held by a man was more effective than the M14. There will never be a more deadly or formidable weapon than a well trained and motivated Marine holding an M14.

          • Form Factor

            Its stupidly heavy, stupidly unbalanced, and EXTREMLY unreliable in mud/ sand.

            InRange M14 Mud test – instant jam
            InRange M14 Sand test – instant jam

            InRange AR15 Sand test – blew any sand away due to the gas system before opening the ejection port
            Inrange AR15 Mud test – no stoppages even with open dustcover

            InRange AK Mud test – instant jam

            +7.62×51 is extremly bad shaped, its aerodynamics are stupidly bad for its cartridge weight and recoil.

          • ROFLOL! The real test is combat which it is designed for and the M-14 performed perfectly. As I said, it was the perfect hand to hand combat weapon surpassed only by the sharpened entrenching tool. Never had a jam that was not instantly cleared. (Almost always caused by mud in the magazine) which is user error and not the fault of the weapon.

            The AR-15 was nothing more than a toy gun built to let non-riflemen defend themselves in combat. It was a woman’s weapon and not the weapon of a man. The M-14 felt like a natural part of a man’ body and enhanced his survive ability in combat the M-16 did not. Bottom line…it is foolish and criminal to give a person in combat a weapon so poor that it increases the casualties of those carrying the weapon rather than increasing the casualties of the enemy. Bottom line is that the M-14 could kill a man before he got into range to lob a grenade and the AR-15 could not.

            I fought in Khe Sahn with the 3rd Marine Division in 1967-68 and had the opportunity to defend myself in a target rich environment. This country boy from North Carolina is writing this today because of the quality of weapon that was represented by the M-14. It is criminal to send a Marine into combat with a toy gun like the M-16. Sometime try crushing a man’s skull with a Mattel Barbie gun like the M-16. That will not end well for you.

          • JYuma

            I have never had those problems with a 14. In the three years I used one, when I was in the Service.
            I use one for my hunting for Mule Deer in the Deserts of Southern Arizona now.
            Maybe , I am just Lucky? Maybe I know how to keep my Rifle Clean and in good working shape.

        • BigR

          I loved my M14! The M4 “ain’t” cutting it long range. The 7.62 has reach and knock down power. I was never bothered by the recoil.

        • JYuma

          Thats your opinion.
          With that and a $1.50, one can get a Good cup of Coffee, at most any 7-11’s in the country!

  • larry

    first, I didn’t mention the .45 acp, I don’t own one and I don’t shoot them. I shoot .44mag. I chose that round because of its flexibility. I hand load, so I can tailor loads from a pipsqueak .430 round ball on up. my heavy load is a 200gr jhp siting on top of 31gr of H110 which gives me ~1800f/s out of a 7.5 inch barrel (I do not recommend any one use this load – it is a hot load), also the .44 is suitable for snakes with a snake load.
    the 5.56/.223 (yes, I know there is a slight difference) was develop as an intermediate between the .222 remington and the .222 remington mag, both are varmint cartridges designed for small game. the 5.56 is a great medium range small game and varmint round, I use it for rabbits beyond 75 yards and coyotes out to about 200 yards (yes I reload for it too) the 5.56 managed to pass its military quals by using a 22″ barrel and over pressuring the case. most of the balistics for it use a 24″ barrel. the .223 is restricted to small game because, quite frankly, on larger game it is not humane. an impact on a deer’s rib or shoulder and the bullet fragments wounding the animal. if you are good enough and close enough you can place the bullet at the base of the deer skull and kill it humanely, but most hunters are not capable of doing that. a .243 is considered minimum for deer although I have a friend who use to hunt white-tail with a .22 hornet. the reason african countries require .375 or .40 caliber and up is politics, money, and publicity. more elephants, rhinos and cape Buffalo have been taken with the small .257 roberts than any other single caliber, but you have to get close and be perfect on your shot. a .600 nitro express will go through an elephant rib, shoulder, or skull. (yes, I have pulled the trigger on a .600 nitro express, kicks like a mule – not pleasant)