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

[HCM]

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

Since they are talking 7.62x51 sized systems why not 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Rem ?

It is basically just a rebarrrel for the 7.62x51 guns.

[Mike C]

Round and round we go. How is the 7.62 x 51 overmatch against the 7.62 x 54R?

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.

As a small example one of the last squads that my group of guys killed on an SKT mission we had 1 240 and they had 2 RPG's, 2 PKMs and 2 AK variants. A PKM is easily capable is suppressing a squad, just like we use our 240's. Make that two from opposing sides plus RPG fire and AK fire and it's makes for a bad day. More so when add significant distance or barriers to that.

I think Doc is spot on as always. I would love to hear more about the .264 USA. It looks very promising from the little I have found about it. Doc do you have anymore resources on it, or is it all first hand lab info you have?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redhat]

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.

As a small example one of the last squads that my group of guys killed on an SKT mission we had 1 240 and they had 2 RPG's, 2 PKMs and 2 AK variants. A PKM is easily capable is suppressing a squad, just like we use our 240's. Make that two from opposing sides plus RPG fire and AK fire and it's makes for a bad day. More so when add significant distance or barriers to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks but my question was about comparing capabilities of the 2 calibers.

Regarding what you described, couldn't that be addressed by changing the mix of weapons in the squad? Also, if the enemy squad was "heavier" than yours, how were they defeated?

[LittleLebowski]

Since they are talking 7.62x51 sized systems why not 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Rem ?

It is basically just a rebarrrel for the 7.62x51 guns.

***edited because I misread your response***

I think it's because 7.62x51 is already in the Big Army supply chain (I'm well aware of SOF usage of .260).

I recommended the 6.5 Grendel because it is an upgrade for the AR15 pattern rifles, not the AR10 pattern rifles. It gives the user near .308 performance in an AR15 sized package. It stomps the 5.56 in every way ballistically speaking.

[LittleLebowski]

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...

Strongly recommend you give SLG a call regarding his personal usage of the 6.5 Grendel.

[TiroFijo]

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.

I think the .mil reaaally wants a larger leap in technology (spend once, not twice, in a reconversion), and they are hoping some sort of lightweight cases and a caliber change to have the cake and eat it.

Here is the TFB interview with Kori Phillips, head of the LSAT proyect: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ment-6-5mm-ct/

But apparently this promising technology is still not ready for prime time, thus the indecision that lasts forever...

[JHC]

I can't speak exactly to the reason for the switch. I am not saying that our 240's don't cut it but the way the weapons squads break down over a standard infantry platoon you essentially have 1 240 per squad if you have the manning to do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus one or two SAW?

[Mike C]

Thanks but my question was about comparing capabilities of the 2 calibers.

Regarding what you described, couldn't that be addressed by changing the mix of weapons in the squad? Also, if the enemy squad was "heavier" than yours, how were they defeated?

Things like TOE, ALO and MTOE control what can or can't be had which breaks down all the way to team level. Maybe SF, Rangers and other specialized units have more control based on geographical location/operational need but standard infantry units have what they have and often can't get more. At least that's how things worked in my experience. Pulling an extra MG from another squad was like asking to have sex with someone else's wife. There are also ROE limits that can often hamper your ability to whip out bigger guns as well. For example something like a 25mm on a Brad. This especially holds true in built up urban settings.

To answer your last question in short speed, surprise, and violence of action with heavy doses or marksmanship sprinkled on top. Thinking faster, team tactics and again marksmanship make all the difference. No sarcasm intended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[spinmove_]

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.

How is the development coming on that .264USA cartridge coming? Any updates on that?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[HCM]

***edited because I misread your response***

I think it's because 7.62x51 is already in the Big Army supply chain (I'm well aware of SOF usage of .260).

I recommended the 6.5 Grendel because it is an upgrade for the AR15 pattern rifles, not the AR10 pattern rifles. It gives the user near .308 performance in an AR15 sized package. It stomps the 5.56 in every way ballistically speaking.

I'm aware of the ballistics on the 6.5 Grendel but even with dedicated AA magazines the 6.5 G ARs I've seen and shot won't run reliably with more than 10 or 12 in the mag. It retains the case taper of the original rounds it was based on. The taper in the case just does not play well with the trannaition into the straight feed portion of the AR mag.

Same reason 7.62x39 never really works right out of ARs.

It would likely work well out of say an AK type mag with a full curve magazine. Something like a SIG 550 series in 6,5G might work