NGSW.... DMRs in future obsolete? - Page 2 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Military Weapons Forum AR15, AK47, SKS, H&K, Galil, CETME, FN/FAL, Tanks, Ships, Jets, Helicopters....

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-09-2019, 01:24 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 370
Thanks: 212
Thanked 569 Times in 248 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

I don't see the purpose of having an SMG in an infantry squad. And I'd def want my LMG team to have some 308 ass behind it. There's definitely merit to multiple calibers, I think.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2019, 04:03 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 6,650
Thanks: 1,707
Thanked 21,436 Times in 5,453 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herd Sniper View Post
What we need to do is go with the 6.5 Grendel as our main rifle round and light machinegun round. We can also use it as a squad sniper round or DM round. Once we have selected the 6.5 G as our bullet of choice, we can then go and design a pistol that uses the 6.5 G bullet too for pistols and submachineguns as well. The plan is simple: One caliber or type of bullet that can be used in all sorts of firearms. The only difference will be in two different cartridge lengths. Imagine how that simplifies your logistics for ammo.
I have mixed emotions. 6.5G would be more than ideal out to 600 yards. After that it is 6.5C. So why not just settle on the 6.5C? Reasons why not to?

1. 6.5G can use today's AR15/M16/M4 platform - tradeoff is caliber-specific magazines
2. Weight savings - 6.5G loadout would weigh less than a similar 6.5G loadout
3. Optimal accuracy / velocity achieve with a 22-inch barrel on the 6.5C

That said, reasons to go with 6.5C in an AR-.308 platform:

a. DMRs using the M110 already familiar with it
b. Regular infantry already familiar with the platform
c. better range / terminal ballistics over the 6.5G
d. remains supersonic at 1000 yards where as the .308 out of an M14 is either trans-sonic or already subsonic depending on the ammo being used
e. loss of velocity out of a 20-inch barrel not appreciable enough to worry about.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-09-2019, 06:29 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 370
Thanks: 212
Thanked 569 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_HighCountry View Post
I have mixed emotions. 6.5G would be more than ideal out to 600 yards. After that it is 6.5C. So why not just settle on the 6.5C? Reasons why not to?

1. 6.5G can use today's AR15/M16/M4 platform - tradeoff is caliber-specific magazines
2. Weight savings - 6.5G loadout would weigh less than a similar 6.5G loadout
3. Optimal accuracy / velocity achieve with a 22-inch barrel on the 6.5C

That said, reasons to go with 6.5C in an AR-.308 platform:

a. DMRs using the M110 already familiar with it
b. Regular infantry already familiar with the platform
c. better range / terminal ballistics over the 6.5G
d. remains supersonic at 1000 yards where as the .308 out of an M14 is either trans-sonic or already subsonic depending on the ammo being used
e. loss of velocity out of a 20-inch barrel not appreciable enough to worry about.
Grendel would be a better round for terminal ballistics and AP under 300 yards, where most engagements happen.

600+m engagements are mostly irrelevant to talk about with standard infantry unit engagements. Let the snipers use it.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2019, 11:44 AM
Hick Industries's Avatar
Hick Industries Hick Industries is online now
Live Secret, Live Happy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern Oklahoma
Posts: 14,034
Thanks: 17,421
Thanked 33,911 Times in 9,545 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vodka Wizard View Post
Grendel would be a better round for terminal ballistics and AP under 300 yards, where most engagements happen.

600+m engagements are mostly irrelevant to talk about with standard infantry unit engagements. Let the snipers use it.
I dont follow these comments.
How is a grendel with less powder, lower muzzel vel going to perform better.
Perhaps the Grendel has a heavier bullet.
Why not load the creedmore with the same 6.5mm bullet?
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2019, 12:14 PM
Snyper708 Snyper708 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 1,519
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2,289 Times in 897 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comcamguy View Post
6.8 is best at close or medium range, 300-400 meters. 6.5 creedmore outperforms it and 308 across the board from 185 yards on outward. Shoots softer, goes farther more accurately, and after 160 yards has more ft lbs of energy than 308. 308 is about out of gas at 1000, 6.5 Creedmore carries on effectively 300+ yards before going sub sonic. It also has twice the energy at 1000 yards. US Special Operations Command testes show double the accuracy at 1000 yards. Twice the accuracy, double the energy over 308 at distance.

6.8 doesnít even come into the picture. Itís more in the realm of 300 blackout
So they reinvented the 6.5 Swedish Mauser.
Whoop-tee-doo!!
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-10-2019, 01:44 PM
Astronomy Astronomy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Pineland Expat
Posts: 4,700
Thanks: 4,096
Thanked 15,092 Times in 3,740 Posts
Default

So how do all these proposed squad-spectrum compatible bullets perform as tracers?

Serious question. One whose answer directly led to adoption of sub-performing M855 for the M16A2 rifle & M249 LMG.

I'm doubting the ability of one 6.5ish bullet design to perform all tasks well. It didn't with SS109/M855.

When you start stacking competing requirements (helmet/armor penetration at distance, tracer-burnout range, consistent accuracy across several possible platform variants, suppressor optimized, requirement for ballistically matched tracer & ball, etc.), something has to give.

I've been seeing the push for ammo commonality for ages, but never seen anyone seriously address why it was so overwhelmingly necessary? Yeah, handy to feed the support weapons with rifle ammo during a desperate fight where ammo starts to get low. But that's basically a defensive mindset. Instead of just developing the most effective LMG (or GPMG) round possible for your belt/drum feds... and something separate for rifles & carbines. More of an offensive mindset.

The whole Garand/BAR/M1919, M14/M60, M16A2/SAW, AK/RPK ammo commonality thing never proved very useful in actual practice. Despite the USMC jumping into the same deep end of the pool just a few years ago (and the Army yet again toying with the idea).

I want an automatic weapon/caliber that provides an effective base of fire at fire team & squad levels. And a carbine caliber that provides for maneuvering fires. They don't actually need to fire the same cartridge.

The very premise of that common ammo concept is a flawed nod to a mostly rare logistical conundrum. If you are stripping rifle/carbine ammo to feed your machine guns or "Automatic Rifles"... you are likely already on the losing end of a fight.

People seem to think that fielding a common rifle/machine gun cartridge is something engraved, inviolate, on stone tablets. Without stopping to really ask themselves... why is it actually necessary?

Ammunition commonality is merely nice to have. Not critical. Reduced carried weight and increased effective ranges, accuracy, barrier penetration, and terminal effects are critical.

We should look at two potential calibers. Not one. Each caliber playing to the strengths (and purpose) of their respectively chambered weapons.

Last edited by Astronomy; 09-11-2019 at 12:34 AM.. Reason: typo
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Astronomy For This Useful Post:
Old 09-10-2019, 07:28 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 370
Thanks: 212
Thanked 569 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hick Industries View Post
I dont follow these comments.
How is a grendel with less powder, lower muzzel vel going to perform better.
Perhaps the Grendel has a heavier bullet.
Why not load the creedmore with the same 6.5mm bullet?
Grendel is lighter, has less recoil, and designed to work in an AR platform. There are concerns that a ballistics chart won't address.

Talking about 600m+ shots for regular infantry is for folks who know nothing about the regular infantry.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2019, 12:42 AM
Astronomy Astronomy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Pineland Expat
Posts: 4,700
Thanks: 4,096
Thanked 15,092 Times in 3,740 Posts
Default

Quote:
Talking about 600m+ shots for regular infantry is for folks who know nothing about the regular infantry.
This 100 times. With beaten zones? Yeah. With deliberately aimed grunt rifle/carbine fire? Figure the odds. Not against live, fleeting, moving, and partially exposed targets.

But, as the old tongue-in-cheek adage goes: "It Briefs Well."
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Astronomy For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2019, 01:27 AM
Aerindel's Avatar
Aerindel Aerindel is offline
Abnormality biased.
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Nuevo Alamo
Posts: 5,445
Thanks: 6,513
Thanked 12,817 Times in 4,139 Posts
Default

Quote:
The very premise of that common ammo concept is a flawed nod to a mostly rare logistical conundrum. If you are stripping rifle/carbine ammo to feed your machine guns or "Automatic Rifles"... you are likely already on the losing end of a fight.
It could be worse...you could be choosing a pistol caliber carbine as your long gun to maintain ammo commonality with your pistol It seems a lot of people on this forum think thats a good idea.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aerindel For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2019, 05:56 PM
AZ_HighCountry AZ_HighCountry is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: High country of Arizona
Posts: 6,650
Thanks: 1,707
Thanked 21,436 Times in 5,453 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astronomy View Post
This 100 times. With beaten zones? Yeah. With deliberately aimed grunt rifle/carbine fire? Figure the odds. Not against live, fleeting, moving, and partially exposed targets.

But, as the old tongue-in-cheek adage goes: "It Briefs Well."
We have a director who once said he didn't care what the situation was really like as long as it looked good on Power Point.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to AZ_HighCountry For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2019, 11:49 AM
John McNeil's Avatar
John McNeil John McNeil is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 13
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 5 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Vodka Wizard;19765178]
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ_HighCountry View Post

600+m engagements are mostly irrelevant to talk about with standard infantry unit engagements. Let the snipers use it.
That depends entirely upon which battlefield we're talking about.

In Iraq, or Somalia, or anywhere else urban, yes. Engagements happen from relatively close, to bad-breath-distance close.

In places like Afghanistan, infantry units engage out to the very end of the 5.56 effective range. Frequently.

If we fought a uniformed military in mountainous terrain (the Balkans or much of China for example), I could forsee those types of engagement ranges occurring frequently.

When the oft quoted study was done that determined that most infantry engagements happen within 300m, the soldiers of the era didn't have ubiquitous access to ACOGs, thermal scopes, individual nods, drone feed, etc.

There are many things today that increase the warfighters range beyond what his rifle is adequate for.
Quick reply to this message
Old 09-16-2019, 01:36 PM
Astronomy Astronomy is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Pineland Expat
Posts: 4,700
Thanks: 4,096
Thanked 15,092 Times in 3,740 Posts
Default

Quote:
In places like Afghanistan, infantry units engage out to the very end of the 5.56 effective range. Frequently.
This is true. But it misses the main point. Nobody (on either side) is hitting much of anything at those ranges employing aimed infantry rifle fire (even using magnified optics). They're just slinging lead to keep the other guys' heads down. Fights happen at that range because the Muj deliberately stand off, keeping well out of effective Coalition rifle range. They have to. With AKs, they're already effectively out-ranged by optic & 5.56 equipped foes. With AKs, they're hitting even less than our guys.

Mostly, those long distance engagements are duels between GPMG/HMG (machine guns), rockets, man-portable guided missiles, mortars, and hi-velocity grenade launchers (plus arty & CAS wielded by our side). And, to a point, 5.56 belt feds. Those are the weapons actually in effect. Suppressive rifle fire from AKs & M4s is mostly ineffectual noise out at those distances.

Why? Mainly because almost nobody (on either side) is capable of making consistent hits out at 600 meters against live maneuvering targets...who don't obligingly stand out in the open to get skylined and shot. Few troops can even visually acquire a target at that kind of range. Because they aren't even trained to do it. The enemy is in even worse shape with their primarily AK systems. Truth be told, few troops can actually get hits at 300 either. Not during a fight.

Battles are not won out at 600-1600 meters with rifle fire. They never have been. Not even when most late 19th century military bolt actions featured leaf/tangent sights marked out to a very ambitious 1200+ yards (for accomplishing volley fire beaten zones). The theory was a load of crap back then; it's a load of crap today. Machine guns & company mortars accomplish that task presently.

I served 35 years as an 11/18 MOS guy, observing & training infantry troops from all over the world. Both allied & enemy. I have yet to meet anyone's army fielding effective hitters at 600+ meters employing standard squad infantry rifles (in any caliber). Everyone in a squad or platoon blasting away at some distant area target is called suppression. It's about establishing fire superiority. So that you can maneuver & apply supporting fires.

But it's not the primary method for actually killing the other guy. Because Joe can't hit people on demand at 800 yards. Or even 600 yards. He was never trained to. Nor was the guy on the other side who is shooting back at him. Generally speaking, neither of them possess the marksmanship skill. Regardless of the issued infantry rifle/carbine... or caliber.

Extending the reach of effective rifle/carbine fire is a function of training... not so much about caliber, optics, or platform. Such training is expensive and takes time. And large land-use range facilities. Only very well funded armies can afford it. None of them actually do. Not even the USA.

I could issue everyone in the US military a 1000 yard capable semi-auto DMR in some nominally superior caliber. Battlefield results would change very little. Because most folks would still miss. The same way they do today.

Until general issue infantry optics become computer ranged/aimed/corrected from a day/night HUD (the next big thing), not much is going to change. Because consistently effective 600+ meter squad riflemen are about as rare as unicorn turds.

I served in those Afghan mountains. Mostly with an M4A1. No problem. Especially against guys armed with AKs. Who typically exhibited about half my effective range. If that. Because they were generally very poorly trained marksmen. I didn't try to fight PKMs & RPG-7s out at 900 yards by using non-sniper rifles. Why waste ammo? Wrong tools for the job. Infantry 101.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Astronomy For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2019, 04:21 PM
Vodka Wizard's Avatar
Vodka Wizard Vodka Wizard is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 370
Thanks: 212
Thanked 569 Times in 248 Posts
Default

"Trying to solve S3 problems with S4 solutions," my old man used to say. He was a long time ops SGM and G3 CSM, so maybe he was biased...

Thanks for the post above, Astronomy. It was a great mini 101 course into the world of gunfights like much of what you write. Kudos and appreciation for that.

I think it's hard to really speak definitively on things like the effect we'd see of different calibers or weapons systems on modern combat. There are so many variables and it is just one part of the equation. It could be tantamount to discussion the difference that synthetic vs conventional motor oil could have on the 1/4 mile time of your project car. Of my 12 years I was attached to the infantry for 7. I learned a lot and can talk shop with the pros, but the information that even the squad leaders and PSG's of the regular units had was miles beyond me, and I was one of their fellow rocker-wearing NCOs (which isn't huge, it relegates you to more tent time as a medic with the grunts).

It's one thing to pull it from some field manual but much of what is discussed are lessons earned in blood and passed down through hard training. Yeah, there are definitely different operating temperatures to expect for the different weights of oils, but if you can't work a clutch what does it matter?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Vodka Wizard For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net