Bingo.
DOD should have been doing incremental upgrades and field testing new ideas since 9/11; instead progress has been glacially slow, inordinately expensive, and utterly muddled in bureaucratic intransigence and sloth.
Bingo.
DOD should have been doing incremental upgrades and field testing new ideas since 9/11; instead progress has been glacially slow, inordinately expensive, and utterly muddled in bureaucratic intransigence and sloth.
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
In the big scheme of things, the point of the spear that actually uses carbines, rifles, carbines, pistols, etc. is small - suggest Army/USMC buy the best available solution for those most likely to close with and destroy the enemy and the rest of MIL will be well served with current versions of M4, SAW, etc.
Gosh, Doc.....you make it sound like part of government!Originally Posted by DocGKR
Since Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders stormed up San Juan Hill into the hail of fire from 7 mm Mausers most folks knowledgeable in the field have known that projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range offer ideal terminal performance for military rifle use.
The British realized this and attempted to adopt the Enfield P14 in .276 caliber, unfortunately WWI broke out before the development work was complete so the UK forces reverted back to .303 as stocks of weapons and ammunition were readily available.
Likewise, in the late 1920’s, John Garand originally designed the M1 rifle in .276 caliber for which Frankford Arsenal provided the new ammunition that used a 125 gr bullet at approximately 2700 f/s. Ordnance trials determined that Garand’s .276 caliber T3E2 rifle was an ideal combat weapon, however, development of the .276 rifle was halted in 1932 because of the large remaining stocks of old .30-06 caliber M1906 150 gr FMJ ammunition left over from WWI.
Following WWII the British developed their EM2 rifle, experimenting with both .270 and .280 caliber 130 to 140 gr ammunition fired at approximately 2400 f/s but were forced to scuttle the effort and go with the 7.62x51 mm as churlishly pushed by the US.
More recently the USASOC ARC, JSWB-IPT, CTTSO-TSWG MURG and AIM programs, as well as the 2010 ARDEC caliber study yet again all clearly and conclusively demonstrated the superior efficacy of projectiles in the 6.5-7mm range for an infantry rifle.
Last edited by DocGKR; 10-21-2018 at 06:30 PM.
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Added paragraphs
#RESIST
Going to jump off the diving board into the deep end where I have little business of swimming. Fortunately, there is adult supervision and a lifeguard.
The article said Army wanted lethality at 600 meters against an enemy wearing body armor. Doesn’t 7.62x51 already give them that, and don’t we already have that in our arsenal?
"Rich," the Old Man said dreamily, "is a little whiskey to drink and some food to eat and a roof over your head and a fish pole and a boat and a gun and a dollar for a box of shells." Robert Ruark
Already discussed here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....e-in-7-62-NATO
The short answer is the weight penalty, increased recoil and reduced round count make it an impractical choice.
https://primaryandsecondary.com/army...-battle-rifle/
Last edited by HCM; 10-22-2018 at 12:45 AM.
If the Army wants lethality out to 600M then they should be spending whatever “new shinies” money on training and ammo so they can actually HIT at 600M. Buying stuff that they still can’t hit anything with at 600M isn’t going to do anyone any good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely marksmanship is much of the problem. The fact is that anything that'll neutralize armor ('soft' or 'hard') is always going to involve some sort of 'penalty' in terms of the physics underlying its performance. Defeating armor at range (whatever range that might be) carries with it a requirement that the round produce a certain amount of kinetic energy (defeating armor is strictly an energy v. Bernoulli pressure as it relates to erosion of both the target and the penetrator) at any given engagement range to generate those forces (pressures) needed; TANSTAAFL.
One need only look at the Alekseevskii-Tate (1967) equation, which describes armor penetration events as an equilibrium or balance of Bernoulli pressures between both the armor and the penetrator; 1/2ρ(V-U)2 + Yp = 1/2ρU2 + Rt . The manipulation of this seemingly simple model is unexpectedly complex due to the the penetrator's erosion rate (V-U) over time (t).
Last edited by the Schwartz; 10-22-2018 at 09:42 AM.
''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein
Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.
...which doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if you can’t bloody well hit the target at the intended range in the first place.
So if you miss the target by 1.265 feet, congratulations, you were able to sufficiently defeat the body armor of...a tree maybe?
If my kid can’t drive a 4-cylinder compact hatchback around town without hitting other cars or keeping it under the posted speed limit, why on earth would I give them a brand new Chevy Camaro?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote