Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 243

Thread: Soldier Systems: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

  1. #21
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Duelist View Post
    Every time I've heard about the Army changing rifles or calibers or both since I joined in the 90s, it's turned out to be nothing but noise and money spent on R&D and no real material change in the end.
    Let's see...I'm too young for the Special Purpose Individual Weapon, but I remember Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Individual Combat Weapon (and XM8), Individual Carbine...
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  2. #22
    I don't know... But my guess is that it's the Army, the home of institutional inertia?

  3. #23
    Have any of those proposed improvements actually born fruit? Or have the improvements been so incremental and the costs too high that no one whose career hopes weren't completely tied to program success could see the point? Because that's the way it's looked to me, on the outside since 2000.
    Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
    “It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
    Glenn Reynolds

  4. #24
    Site Supporter JSGlock34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Drang View Post
    Have any of those proposed improvements actually born fruit? Or have the improvements been so incremental and the costs too high that no one whose career hopes weren't completely tied to program success could see the point? Because that's the way it's looked to me, on the outside since 2000.
    Kinda? Have they produced a widely adopted service rifle? No. Have pieces of the various programs entered service? Yes. The first time I ever saw an ACOG was on the AAI entry to the Advanced Combat Rifle program. Now there's one on every Marine's rifle. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon was an overweight monstrosity, but the program spawned the XM25 which has seen some service in Afghanistan.


    Advanced Combat Rifle (ca. 1990)
    Last edited by JSGlock34; 04-05-2017 at 09:03 PM.
    "When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."

  5. #25
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    XM25 has been a useless abortion....

    The solution has been known for over 125 years--ask TR and the Rough Riders how those 7mm Mauser's were on San Juan Hill. Remember the British Pre-WWI .276 Enfield. Review the Pre-WWII US .276 Pederson. Look at the post-WWII British .270/.280 options.

    A 6.5-7mm barrier blind projectile in a cartridge holding at least 40 gr of current technology propellant is ideal (yeah...6mm is cool to for punching paper at range, but it has a bit more problems with barriers than 6.5-7mm). Think .264 USA/6.5 mm NATO as an attempt to capitalize on this knowledge. Make sure whatever is selected conforms to the 8 Points of Light. Upgrade and over-match complete for rifles and LMG.

    Go with a .338 Norma MMG and Sniper Rifle (yes, the .300 Norma is a bit better at long range, but if I was just going to pick one, I'd go with the .338 for greater general purpose versatility).

    In short:

    9 mm pistol
    .264 USA rifle and LMG
    .338 Norma MMG and sniper rifle.

    Done.
    Last edited by DocGKR; 04-05-2017 at 09:57 PM.
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  6. #26
    Textbook need for the 6.5 Grendel since "training" is not an option, not ever.
    #RESIST

  7. #27
    Site Supporter DocGKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...
    Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie

  8. #28
    Site Supporter Trukinjp13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...
    Could the grendel be further into development by now? Just wondering if they have discovered any better loads by now or weights? I do not know, one way or another. Just seems like how 9mm has come along maybe it has evolved some?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #29
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by Trukinjp13 View Post
    Could the grendel be further into development by now? Just wondering if they have discovered any better loads by now or weights? I do not know, one way or another. Just seems like how 9mm has come along maybe it has evolved some?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Grendel would require a new weapons system. It doesn't feed or run reliably enough in the AR platform for any sort of serious use. It requires a fully curved magazine likely function much better in a AK based platform.

  10. #30
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    6.5G is a nice sporting cartridge, but I seem to recall it did not fare so well in the joint USMC-FBI Phase I ammo testing of 2006--seems sporting and military may not have the same requirements...
    Isn't that why you see some of these same organizations running .260 as opposed to 6.5 Creedmoor? I.e case shape affecting reliability?
    Last edited by HCM; 04-05-2017 at 11:33 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •