Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 155 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
They just had to make a new rifle with a bigger round. But why?
Looking at countries like China and Russia they have scaled down the size of the round they us. China and Russia use a combat rifle with a caliber similar to the United States.
So does the US really need to waste millions of tax payer money to try to change from what everyone else is switching to.
With all the well made rounds that could be switched to without creating a whole new platform, with a barrel swap and a BCG change we could use the 6.5 Grendel
There would be no need for a complete change of everything, even using the same magazines.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
828 Posts
" The NGSW (Next Gen Squad Weapon) program was designed to replace the standard rifle and squad machine gun.

A big part of the weapon’s development has centered around its ammunition. The 6.8mm decision came after years of evaluation and study, and debate, in small caliber circles. Early efforts also looked at 6.5mm to fill the niche between the existing 7.62mm and 5.56mm currently in the arsenal.

Army officials want a caliber that’s lighter than the 7.62mm currently used in some sniper systems and medium machine guns such as the M240.

But they want it to be as lethal or more at longer ranges to increase squad “overmatch” against peer and violent extremist adversaries, many of which use small arms that outrange the 5.56mm round common to the M4 and M16 used by nearly all soldiers."


Only 1 in 4 soldiers likely to see Army’s newest rifle in coming years (armytimes.com)
 

·
Bug-In Prepper
Joined
·
1,314 Posts
Don't worry about it. There is a genuine need for a better intermediate cartridge, but the new 6.8mm candidates aren't going to work out, and everyone is going to point at NGSW's failure for decades as proof that 5.56x45mm can never be replaced.

(They'll be wrong, but that's just how this industry works.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
I'm all for it. Then the gun grabbers can not longer say ARs are "weapons of war."

I have read some educated opinions, this doesn't mean they are right, that the M16 was so optimized for Vietnam that it really was not the rifle the military needed long term. It was optimized for full auto fire against non-armored targets at shorter ranges. The 5.56, single shot, just doesn't have the range or the knock down power that's been needed in later conflicts. Now we have troops in vast deserts where the average shooting distances are probably longer.

I always thought they should have replaced the M14 with the AR-10 or a US version of the FN/FAL or something like that. I've alway thought the 7.62x51 is a great round.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Everything being improved cant go with that, even being used since the 60's itself has been improved. So improved that most NATO countries us it. I do agree that a caliber change would be nice, but a whole new weapon system is not the answer. The gun grabbers will always scream the AR is a "weapon of war". Look at the AK platform, they still fight to ban it.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
9,776 Posts
I believe they should replace the rifle, and chamber a more capable cartridge as well.
The M16 dates back to the Viet Nam war. Every other weapon system has been massively improved, so its high time we improve our front line rifle.
Actually the design dates back to the 50s.
 

·
Semper Fi
Joined
·
9,776 Posts
I'm all for it. Then the gun grabbers can not longer say ARs are "weapons of war."

I have read some educated opinions, this doesn't mean they are right, that the M16 was so optimized for Vietnam that it really was not the rifle the military needed long term. It was optimized for full auto fire against non-armored targets at shorter ranges. The 5.56, single shot, just doesn't have the range or the knock down power that's been needed in later conflicts. Now we have troops in vast deserts where the average shooting distances are probably longer.

I always thought they should have replaced the M14 with the AR-10 or a US version of the FN/FAL or something like that. I've alway thought the 7.62x51 is a great round.
The FAL was originally designed around an intermediate cartridge (.280 British). The US Military forced FN to redesign it to accomadate .7.62x51 (which was at the limits of what the rifle could handle) and then turned it down in favor of the M14.
 

·
That'll be the day...
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
The Grendel should have been the choice... but it would have killed too many of the enemies. They want a round that will wound..... And it is smart and humane to wound.... rather than kill.

The 6.5 Grendel has been my dream gun for 5 years. Super low recoil and very effective on game out to 500 yards.


........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,108 Posts
The short answer is that we have a war coming on fast, primarily with a "peer" level opponent but spanning may different environmental AOs. Simply put, we needed a 30 cal round with more distance than a 7.62x39, a heavy hit like it, but a lighter per round wieght than the traditional 7.62x51 round.

The 556 / AR will be mission specific and a second line armament. Especislly since so many are in private hands and military armories. Bribed traitors like Biden have been paid to cripple this by whatever means by the CCP. Joe has no scruples at all, on display vividly during his entire political career.

A war is coming. Our current president is in the employ of that enemy, his pattern of extremist political policies make sense in that light, as does the vital need for an upgraded rifle round to fight that war. It has to be user and producer friendly for our near future allies too.
 

·
Live Secret, Live Happy
Joined
·
16,176 Posts
Everything being improved cant go with that, even being used since the 60's itself has been improved. So improved that most NATO countries us it. I do agree that a caliber change would be nice, but a whole new weapon system is not the answer. The gun grabbers will always scream the AR is a "weapon of war". Look at the AK platform, they still fight to ban it.
Compare the function of our primary rifle, with the function of air launched strike weapons.
In VM our best strike weapon used a B&W tv camera, and a person in a second plane flew the Walleye into the target.
In desert storm we used a small number of laser guided paveway weapons (left over from VN) and lots of million dollar Tomahawks.
In the GWoT we launched tens of thousands of JDAM missiles, guided by INS, laser, or GPS. A JDAM is accurate to half meter, and costs about as much as a used car.

So why hasn't our primary rifle improved by a comparable ammount? Why does the M16 still fire a punny fmj bullet, with minimal armor penetration, unreliable short range stopping power?

Why does our primary rifle not have built in laser designation, 200 rds magazines, 600m effective range against armored personell, and a short range "One shot stopper" round.

Btw, why haven't we built a laser guided 40mm amoring piercing missile (Spike), that fits in a M203 launcher. Give the average Marine squad the power to defeat an APC. NAVAIR Spike - Wikipedia
 

·
That'll be the day...
Joined
·
3,919 Posts
But not a range round, very similar characteristics to an AK round

Yep... actually less than the 7.62AK. But how many military engagements are beyond 100 yards?

Both the 762AK and 3Black are incredibly effective at wounding the enemy. And the goal is to wound.... not kill.

One wounded soldier takes two healthy soldiers to carry him out.

If I have 30 enemies closing in on my BOL, I am shooting 10 of them.... every 3rd one. 'cause they will be too damn dumb to ignore the wounded.


.......
 
1 - 20 of 155 Posts
Top