New American rifle 7.62x51mm

[The Basket]

Turning the clock back to the 1950s and the M16 didn't happen.
My view there is always a bigger is better attitude and now saying 5.56 can't penetrate body armour or the enemy is using 7.62×54mmR which is far longer ranged or that 5.56 don't kill like it should? Valid argument?
Maybe need a better 5.56mm round.

 

[Shortround6]

The 5.56 bore has a problem or two.
Yes you can use heavier bullets that have more energy and retain it better BUT you only have so much powder capacity in the cartridge case so at some point you run out of oomph for heavier bullets. heavier bullets require a faster twist rifling.
The more powder you try to use in a given size bore the worse the barrel erosion is, this tends to limit the size cartridge case (amount of powder) that is practical in a military gun.
Large powder charges also mean more noise and more muzzle flash (unless you use flash suppressants, one of the things that screwed up the early M-16s) with a given length barrel.

The 7.62 also has a few problems, weight and size of guns needed are one.
It is harder to train troops the use the larger and harder kicking rifles (at least according to modern thinking) and the 7.62 is useless in light weight automatic weapons. I would also note that using the standard 150 grain flatbase or 147 slight boattail the down range performance is not all it could be either. Sniper ammo was often 172 grain or 168 grain match ammo so don't use anecdotes of sniper engagements to justify extreme long ranges for ball ammo.

The US really missed the boat when it forced the British to give up on the .280 British as it gave decent down range performance with lighter recoil than the 7.63 X 51 although full auto fire was still pretty much a waste.

Depending on your bullet making technology in the 1950s you may be limited as to how tricky you can get with bullets/calibers.

I would also note that you better figure out what you want the bullet/cartridge to do and not try for the singing, dancing, tells jokes and washes windows requirement. (light recoil, flat trajectory, armor piercing, high lethality, light weight ammo and rifle)

Early 5.56 killed pretty good against unprotected targets (bullets tended to flip pretty easy) but then they changed the rifling twist and went to a bit heavier bullet. Bullet tended to stay point on instead of flip and wounding/killing power went down even if barrier penetration went up a bit. Heavier bullet did retain energy down range a bit better though.

 

[parsifal]

ive never been convinced about the argument that the lighter shell 5.56mm used in the M-16 was easier to train with. I always found it harder actually.

The M-16 is considered a very accurate rifle, with published effective ranges of 350-500m and an "accuracy rating" of 4.3 in at 100m. The AK-47 by comparison has a nominal effective range of 300-450m and an "accuracy rating" of 6.9in over 100m

The L1A2 in Australian Army service had a rated effective range of 600m. I don't know of an accuracy rating for the FN FAL family, undertaken with confirmed military conditions like the other two, but I have read some claims that it is accurate to 1.5" over 100m. The problem with that is that ther is no way of confirming the condition under which the tests were carried out.

My impression was that the SLR felt like a a more accurate piece of kit. It certainly was no harder to learn on than the armalite. ive never fired the AK-47.

 

[The Basket]

The Japanese went from 6.5mm to 7.7 for the same arguements ad infinitum that we can mention here.
Nothing changes! It's like fashion.
The ability to go through body armour is more type of bullet than calibre.
Although in the Carcano thread, Shortround did mention lack of range of the intermediates so again it's wether you want to go cqb and kick doors in or go for 500 metre shots? Horses for courses.

 

[Shortround6]

Without knowing the conditions of a test it is impossible to compare different test results.

In this case we have 3 different guns, each firing a different cartridge and at least two different "test" methods. which tells us something about each one but not a lot.

I would suspect the low accuracy rating of the AK-47 has as much or more to do with the rifle (and sights) than with the cartridge.

Although I have heard that most military 7.62 X 39 is rather poor stuff. I would reserve judgement until some was fired out of some sort of test gun that eliminated some of the problems with the AK-47 and clones.

The M16 has the flattest trajectory, at least over the first few hundred meters which helps eliminate range estimation errors for most combat. Long range use was problematic in that the early bullets lost power at longer ranges (being by far the lightest bullet) and was much more susceptible to cross winds. Doesn't do much good to have the least drop if you get blown sideways by a gentile breeze.

max effective range is always a bit of a judgement call and without knowing the criteria used for the judgement it is also difficult to compare weapons.

As an extreme example I once pulled pit (handled the target) for a shooter using an M1 rifle in a match. He shot very well at 800 and 900 yds but at 1000 yds he was all over the target with (if memory serves) 17 bullets out of 22 going sideways to some extent (oval holes instead of round and some showing the full side silhouette of the bullet). Now define effective? His target score was miserable yet in a theoretical combat setting he had just placed almost 20 projectiles ( a few misses) in a roughly 6 ft by 6 ft area at 1000 yds. which I would say would be rather dangerous for an enemy even if not one shot=one kill. rather obviously his rifle/bullet combination had reached it's limit and another 100yds would have seen bullets all over a hill side as bullets tumbling end over end scatter pretty quickly.

I will freely admit that this was at a known distance and that 6 X 6 ft buff (tan/off white targets) with large black bullseyes against a green background show up rather well in daylight and so don't represent combat conditions even as regards to being able to see targets let alone anything else.

When talking about a hypothetical rifle/cartridge we need to identify what we want the rifle to do. My own criteria for my first 6.5mm rifle was equal accuracy to a .308 using match bullets, less recoil, and equal trajectory and wind drift for example. a competitor at these matches was using a rifle chambered for a 6mm benchrest cartridge using very light bullets. On a calm day he and I were very close and he might have the edge. If the day was even puffy winds at just 5-10mph a few of his bullets (out of 40 per match) would go into the 9 ring and my heavier bullets stayed inside the 10 and I would win even though his gun could fire a tighter group on the calm days. My bullets weren't blown around any more than the .308 bullets at this range (300 yds).

The guys using .223/5.56 rifles were using 68 to 77 grain bullets to try to fight the wind and while some 5.56 military ammo used such bullets they were not common and in fact were non existent in the late 50s and early 60s when the M16 was adopted.

to repeat, when looking at a new rifle/cartridge identify what you want it to do, and try using numbers, not saying that it should be better than rifle/cartridge X without saying how much better.

 

[yulzari]

As ever, the first thing is to decide what you want your round to do. Then develop something that will do it. Then something that will make it do it reliably and not need a bearer to carry it for you.

Lastly the bean counters tell you that you can't afford it and you look on the market place for the nearest thing to it that you can afford and uses the old round for which, the bean counters remind you, you have millions in store. Thus the Lee in British service went from opposing single shot black powder opponents to opposing automatic rifle armed ones.

BTW the L85A1 took ten odd years to develop into production plus many more to get it right with the L85A2. The Lebel took 3 months to be ready for production from a standing start. Just don't mention the necked down Gras ammunition.

Really it is not interplanetary rocket science. The principles were worked out well before German Vicky popped her clogs and only the materials and chemistry have changed. Semi automatic rifles began a decade before WW1 and the pre WW1 6.5mm ammunition only needs adding better bullets and the case shortened a touch to benefit from modern chemistry. Like the bicycle it is a mature technology adjusted for modern materials.

 

[The Basket]

No development needed as the rifle will be off the shelf so the rifle already exists.
SCAR-H? HK 417? Or dust off some museum G3 and FALs.

 

[Shortround6]

No development needed as the rifle will be off the shelf so the rifle already exists.
SCAR-H? HK 417? Or dust off some museum G3 and FALs.

I am getting confused,

Your first post

Turning the clock back to the 1950s and the M16 didn't happen.
My view there is always a bigger is better attitude and now saying 5.56 can't penetrate body armour or the enemy is using 7.62×54mmR which is far longer ranged or that 5.56 don't kill like it should? Valid argument?
Maybe need a better 5.56mm round.

which is it, turn back the clock and discuss what the US should or should not have done in the 1950s or talk about which off the shelf rifle they should buy in 2017/18??

Part of the US problem is trying come up with a helicopter/APC friendly rifle/carbine (short) so after you take a hacksaw to the museum G3 and FALs what have you got ?????

 

[The Basket]

Choosing an off the shelf design makes sense from a view of value as no development costs and you know the rifle is ready to go. I only used the FAL as an example of what is available. Although not sure if it's still in production but if you want a full on 7.62mm rifle then the FAL does great.
A bullpup could marry short length and long barrel but I top off my head don't know any 7.62mm bullpup.
The British used the FAL for battle rifle and the Sterling as a cqb and it feels that the Americans may fall into same place if they go for a full on full fat 7.62 rifle.

 

[Shortround6]

The Americans are still stuck on the one gun (or one platform) does all. Just use different barrels to go from personnel defense weapon to sniper rifle (exaggeration but a grain of truth) and without different ammo short 7.62 barrels have a lot of blast, flash and loss of velocity.

Of course the one gun wonder takes so long that various units/special forces adopt different weapons so everything becomes a hodgepodge anyway.

 

[Torch]

I'm sorry I sold my SCAR 17 in a .308 due to the previous administration policy attempts. Please not a political post but I found that rifle to be accurate,reliable and with a couple of mods was a damn good rifle. I've had a PTR 91,a SIG 716, I'd take the SCAR any day.

 

[The Basket]

A HK 417 variant has already won a US army competition. It was for the compact semi automatic sniper system based on the German G28.
It is designated as the M110A1.
The HK 416 is in USMC service so HK certainly gaining support in US military

 

[parsifal]

How do these alternatives stack up on cost?

 

[Robert Porter]

I think an important point is being missed, with the exception of snipers, range was not and is not an issue. One thing Vietnam taught us was that 99.9999 percent of the rounds fired in combat are only loosely aimed and are more suppressive fire than aimed take down fire. Combat troops in any conflict from Vietnam forward, again with the exception of snipers, typical engagement distance is measured in tens of feet not 1000's of feet.

Your typical infantryman, British, American, whatever is NOT a marksmen. Instinctive Point of Aim is still taught to combat troops and with good reason.

Now personally I favor a larger heavier round. But the plain fact is the larger the round typically the heavier the weapon and in real terms the less ammo can be carried for the same weight. With the advent of modern body armor I do believe a better, heavier round is overdue. However the technology to create 5.56 penetrator rounds that would defeat any existing body armor, unfortunately or fortunately depending on your view point that technology is forbidden.

Years ago a company I worked for did some serious consulting with Hornady. They had developed a .22 long rifle round that went straight through top of the line body armor. It ate the crap out of a barrel, and was expensive as all get out but at ranges up to 200 feet it would punch a hole in anything that folks were able to wear. So size and weight of a round are not the only factors contributing to knock down power. They sure do make a big difference however when all other things are equal.

We sold them a very accurate timing circuit they used with laser screens to analyze ballistics and trajectory data. It was a fun project!

 

[parsifal]

That's turned out to be a very contentious issue in other threads....what emphasis is placed on aimed fire over sheer volume of fire.

In both the Australian Army and to an extent the IDF, the emphasis is less on volume of fire and more on making each shot count.

We learnt this from our experiences in the jungle in a world war and also in Vietnam. Making noise in the jungle is dangerous. Expending ammunition needlessly decreases the effectives of the unit because it decreases the ability of the unit if operating any distance at all away from the supply head. Sure the distances are not that great (though the experiences of our special forces in the middle East in the more recent conflicts does emphasise the need to hit things at range), but it has always been at the heart of the Australian Army that every soldier be well trained and this means that he needs to be above average with accuracy.

The IDF, as I understand it trains to a similar standard.

not all armies train with a primary role of volume of fire driving their training. that is a uniquely American tenet.

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that all too often the infantry got the soldiers that nobody else wanted.
That is to say that after the artillery, armor, air component and any other "technical" branches got what they needed form a levy of recruits the infantry got the rest as it was assumed that if a recruit could walk and chew gum at the same time the army could teach him to march and carry a rifle.
In actual fact the infantry rifleman is one of the most difficult jobs in the Army IF your infantry is going to fight as a disciplined/effective team without relying on outside support (artillery/air strikes) every time they are shot at.

granted the infantry did get some good troops and the other branches did get some duds.

 

[Robert Porter]

I sincerely doubt it is a unique American tenant. Based on my own discussions with servicemen it seems to be a fairly standard approach. And it is not meant as a doctrine even here. Aimed fire has its place. And some degree of training is expended on that approach. It is situationally driven of course. But the facts are undeniable in terms of raw numbers including the British in the few land engagements during the Falklands. I don't recall the specific numbers but far far more rounds were expended, than casualties incurred on the enemy.

There is something to be said about the actual emotive state of mind in an engagement. And even well trained troops will throw a wall of lead downrange when scared or startled sometimes. Less well trained troops like the civilian "security" contractors in the sandbox are not even all that concerned about where those rounds go! I cannot think of any modern conflict that did not expend 1000's of times the rounds as the casualties inflicted.

Then we have the whole terrorist approach to "spray and pray" that is so common. This is the worst example as it tends to catch non combatants but then that is most terrorist groups stated goal. Heck the only force I can think of that fights that approach is modern police forces. And even there, there are some examples of significant overkill.

 

[Shortround6]

I suspect, but could very well be wrong, that just like air to air combat, in ground combat most of the "killing/wounding" is actually done by a small percentage of the soldiers firing with the bulk of the troops just firing in general direction of the enemy and few just firing enough rounds and exposing themselves the minimum amount necessary avoid to be called out on it by their squad mates.

This makes designing or purchasing for the "average" a rather dangerous venture. You are over buying for the majority of the troops but perhaps under buying for the troops that are actually causing the majority of enemy casualties?

 

[Token]

I suspect, but could very well be wrong, that just like air to air combat, in ground combat most of the "killing/wounding" is actually done by a small percentage of the soldiers firing with the bulk of the troops just firing in general direction of the enemy and few just firing enough rounds and exposing themselves the minimum amount necessary avoid to be called out on it by their squad mates.

This makes designing or purchasing for the "average" a rather dangerous venture. You are over buying for the majority of the troops but perhaps under buying for the troops that are actually causing the majority of enemy casualties?

Designated Marksmen?

T!

 

[Shortround6]

The term "Designated Marksmen" may be new but any outfit that had seen much combat probably had a few natural leaders (regardless of actual rank) or "go to " guys the officers relied on. Trouble in green outfits was the officers didn't know which troops to trust and the troops didn't know which officers/non-coms to trust.
Performance on the range is not a guarantee of performance in combat except in the negative. Troops that can't shoot on the range will NOT miraculously become good shots in combat. Someone who posts good scores on the range may or may not freeze in combat or otherwise perform sub par.