Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military The next US Service Rifle???

I'll be happy when they come out with something that's about as accurate at 300m as an M-16, has a 30rd capacity but a larger caliber, and doesn't have a @#$%*&^ star chamber!!

I don't know why they simply don't switch to either the .243, the 260Rem or the 7-08....The 260Rm would be my gut feeling.

As for the replacement rifle...It needs to be short, perhaps a bull pup, but must be capable of firing from either shoulder. It should have a 20" oe 22" barrel and be capable of taking a bayonet.
I would like to see extensive use of SS (blacked of course) to help limit corrosion. All those things would be pretty easy to achieve...

Lastly I would like to see some sort of effective muzzle break or other device to control it on full auto...Its this last item which would be difficult to develop as it tends to defy physics....

Why not just put a larger caliber boolit in place of the 5.56?

Then you obviously never had need to use either...

The 16 is a good rifle, but picky as hell about being dirty.

The 5.56 with the Hague mandated FMJs simply sucks azz as a combat round.

Wait... the fella who deems all sub-.30 caliber rounds as inadequate for deer or game other than small varmints sees no need for a larger than .223 round for warfighting... WTF am I missing, 'cause I am right damned confused... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

While the 16 has some design problems, the major problem is that soldiers are not being trained adequately to use their personal weapons regardless of what they might be...the cartridges keep getting smaller and smaller due to the unaimed fire of our soldiers....57k rounds per enemy casuality in Nam...Not a good thing...go back to semi auto and a real military sized round....308...teach them to really shoot and it should be ok...

none of my comrades complained about their 5.56 weapons systems in iraq, or afghanistan. Training and experience mean you'll have the good shot placement under stress.

My wants as a current soldier for the next rifle....something without a star chamber!! Something less finicky about dirt. A larger caliber...not neccesarily .308, but maybe a .243 or .270 or something...a good flat shooter, but bigger than the 5.56.....and something about the size of the current M4, that's a great size. Having used them and M16's, the M16 feels too long for the sort of stuff that is currently being done. And of course something with a bayonet lug...I don't know why most soldiers don't carry one right now, but if my time to go to the sandbox ever comes, you can bet I'll be carrying one.

3 combat deployments, 2 to afghanistan, 1 to iraq.

never had any issues with any of my issued weapons systems, from my pistol to heavy machine guns.

All operated as designed, functioned properly when required, and if someone actually pays attention to their weapons system, they'll do fine regardless of the caliber. Shot placement is paramount to a round doing what you want.

Cleaning a star chamber is easy, especially if you have a star chamber cleaner. We had 1 per squad in the squad cleaning kit. Earplug in the muzzle and close YOUR DUST COVER.

Oh yeah, all those deployments were during my 6 year stint in 3rd Ranger BN.

Bayonets are great, but if you have a LMG, or a M203 you're out of luck.. and we had 1 M249 and 2 M203's per fire team.

I try to keep up on the latest stuff but never heard the term "star chamber".

Know what a chamber is and have cleaned an M-16 or two in my day <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />, but could someone please provide a short definition of "star chamber"?

TIA

The front of the chamber, adjacent to the base of the barrel. You know that funky star shaped component that you have to stick your pinky in and twist it around to get all the gunk and crud out? It interlocks with the extractor end of the bolt, which is shaped roughly like a star.

PITA to clean. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Okey-dokey - just the regular bolt lug recesses. Wasn't sure if maybe they'd recently changed the actual chamber to be fluted or something like an HK.

Nah, it's something that's been a feature of the weapon all the way from the M16A1 to the latest M4 model.

I wonder if what this country needs isn't so much a new rifle as a new rifleman. If eighty or ninety percent of those putting on the uniform came from a background where they were shooting from the time they were kids and were familiar and comfortable with firearms right from the get-go we'd be further ahead. I suspect that many of today's recruits never handle a rifle until they get to boot camp. My son qualified expert pistol and expert rifle on his first attempts. When I questioned him about it he said it was easy, "I could hear your voice over my shoulder Dad." He recently returned safely from Afghanistan, his third, and final, middle east deployment.

I think when they tried to fix that which wasn't broken (replacing the M1A/M14) they screwed up.

US riflemen are more effective with the M16 than any other small arm ever fielded. The M14 may not have been broken, but there was room for improvement. Hits with a 5.56 are much more effective than misses with the 7.62

Misses to hits interesting comparison. How about hits from the 5.56 compared to hits by the 7.62? How about stopping power for both out to lets say 500 yds.? Maybe shooting thru a piece of .25 in. of steel? I have fired both and if I were carring an M16 in a combat zone and, found an M14 and all the ammo I could carry I would sling the M16 kick the dirt of the M14 load it and carry as my primary weapon.

That�s you, and that may work for you. But the US Military isn�t really made up of riflemen. It�s made up of snot-nosed kids that often times haven�t fired a weapon before entering the military. Even in experienced hands, people score higher scores with the M16 vs the M14 because of its superior accuracy and nearly non-existent recoil.

Inside of 200 yards, the 5.56 has superior wounding over the 7.62 (not my opinion, backed up by military science). Past 200 yards, the 7.62 is much more effective than the 5.56.

The vast majority of military engagements are at 35 yards or less. It makes sense to arm your troops with the right tool for the job. With the M16, you are more likely to hit, can carry more ammunition and will create a more severe wound for the vast majority of military encounters. For all the rest, while the M14 may be superior at longer ranges, the M16 is capable.

The M16 is just simply a better solution for GENERAL military issuance.

Now ask yourself: How many special ops teams are using M14�s? Not very many. If given the choice between an M14 or an M16 with MK262 ammunition for long range engagements, which do you think they will choose?

So what you are saying is it is time to stop teaching these kids to spray & hope, and to start teaching them to shoot. The close engagements would not be necessary if these "snot-nosed kids" had the fire power and knew how to use it. Recoil is no issue, in the field when someone is shooting at you or when the big buck stops in front of you the last thing on your mind is recoil. Hell my wife shot a .308, 30-06, and she is 4,10" tall and weighs 135lbs. When these guys are up against the AK-47's, Droganov's and bad guys hiding behind doors or corners of building that the 5.56 can't hope to shoot thru they need the 7.62 to punch a hole in that bad guy thru the door.

21st Century Developments: The first decade: Shorter barrels, bigger bullets, more energy

Example of alternate cartridge rifle (GCS)A renaissance of 7.62 mm weapons has begun to occur recently. To some degree in Iraq, but particularly in Afghanistan, soldiers are beginning to use modernized M14s, M21s, M24 SWSs, and AR10s (the 7.62x51 mm predecessor of the AR15). With a longer effective range, the 7.62x51 mm is proving useful at fighting at long ranges. The 7.62x51 NATO round has also shown its usefulness against enemies who have been seen to take several hits from 5.56 mm bullets and not be incapacitated, killed, or on occasion, even deterred.[1] That unpleasant surprise is attributed to long-range ballistic deficiencies of the 5.56 bullet. Similar stopping-power problems against unusually-tenacious opponents were noticed in Somalia in 1993 against militia fighters high on khat.[1]

In the United States there have been developments of new cartridges. Two have developed some notability as possible replacements for the venerable 5.56, the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8mm SPC. Remington has developed the 6.8 mm Remington SPC cartridge, which has the same cartridge overall length (COAL) as the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge but fires the larger .270 caliber bullets. Likewise, Alexander Arms at Radford Arsenal developed the 6.5 Grendel cartridge, which combines long range accuracy with close range stopping power similar to the 6.8 SPC. With both bullets, by matching the 5.56's COAL, conversion of existing AR-15, M4 and M16 rifles requires only replacement of uppers and magazines. Other cartridges have been developed for the AR-15 platform such as the .50 Beowulf and the .458 Socom - but these cartridges are much heavier and relegated to a specialty role rather than as a pure assault rifle cartridge.

I'm not sure I want to see them go back to the 7.62....but I'm kinda intrigued by the 6.8. I think a happy medium is needed between 7.62 and 5.56...something heavier, but that still meets the Army's requirements.


http://www.gunsandammomag.com/ammunition/rem117_071305

A Serviceable Alternative
Remington's 6.8mm SPC was designed with the M16 in mind. And it could be our next military cartridge.
By Dan Johnson

Remington recently began loading a new rifle cartridge, the 6.8x43mm SPC. It was designed for military use, but Remington will also offer a variety of commercial loads under the headstamp "6.8mm Remington SPC." A 6.8mm cartridge may seem an oddball caliber, but it translates to .277 in good old American decimals, the same bullet diameter as the venerable .270 Winchester.

The cartridge is based on a modified .30 Remington case, a rimless version of the .30-30 introduced by Remington in 1906 for use in its Model 8 autoloader. The use of this case for the 6.8mm SPC was not nepotism on Remington's part. The original designers of the cartridge simply found the dimensions ideal for their purposes and purchased cases from Remington some time before the company was brought onboard with the project. Remington has since strengthened the case head and increased the neck thickness to enhance performance.

Perhaps the most important story here is not the technical aspects of the cartridge but rather therealities that prompted a few soldiers to develop what they feel is a better cartridge for the changing face of warfare.

Their motives are unquestionable: Friends and fellow soldiers were dying, and they still are. Most of these guys will tell you the 5.56mm NATO cartridge is a competent round for open warfare. You can pack a lot of ammo for long trips afield and deliver a sweltering barrage of firepower to keep the enemy's head down while big guns are called in. But as we have all seen, open warfare doesn't take long when the full might of the U.S. military is brought to bear. Once the bombing stops and the dust settles, the dirty work begins. Then the action is up-close and personal. Whether it's door-to-door searches or a roadblock in hostile territory, every second a bad guy stays on his feet is a second in which American soldiers may die.

The 6.8mm SPC was developed by members of the 5th Special Forces Group and the Army Marksmanship Unit for use in the M4 and Mk12 combat rifles. It's important to understand that this cartridge is not in existence due to a directive from military brass or some high-ranking government official. It did not come from the top down as do most military cartridges. Rather, its development came from the bottom up.

It was conceived, designed and tested by the men in the field, men who have been there, done that and likely will have to go do it again. To illustrate what I mean, the man who spearheaded the development of the cartridge--who walked into a local gun shop and bought the first 100-count bag of .30 Remington brass with his own cash to begin the initial loading and testing--holds the rank of Master Sergeant.

Remington was contacted in October 2001 with a request to formalize the cartridge and help in final development. It was a risky venture, considering the multiheaded beast the military is and the fact that none of the top brass had yet signed off on the project. There was no guarantee the cartridge would ever see use, and, even if it did, there was certainly no guarantee Remington would get a government contract to supply the ammo. But some of the grunts involved took a trip to the 2002 SHOT Show and had a sit-down with the guys in green, and the deal was made. Remington decided to invest considerable funds to see this grassroots cartridge become a reality.

The SPC designation stands for "Special Purpose Cartridge." The round is not intended to replace the 5.56mm as standard-issue, nor was it conceived as a long-range sniper round. It was designed to make the bad guys fall down in the firefight scenarios often engaged in by Special Forces and other soldiers conducting dangerous clean-up operations. Look at it this way: The 9mm is the standard-issue military handgun round, but Special Forces often uses the .45 ACP for enhanced stopping power. The 6.8mm was developed for the same purpose, to provide increased stopping power during hazardous operations.

A primary goal in developing this new medium-bore cartridge was that it operate in the M16 family of rifles and carbines by simply switching uppers and magazines. Magazine capacity is reduced only slightly. Magazines with the same external dimensions of the 30-round 5.56mm will hold 26 rounds of 6.8mm SPC. Otherwise, operation and handling characteristics of the converted rifles remain the same. Except, of course, for recoil. The heavier 6.8mm bullet naturally generates more kick than the 5.56mm but not a lot more, and, reportedly, it's still very controllable in full-auto burst with a good muzzlebrake.

Hands-On Evaluation
Precision Reflex Inc. (www.pri-mounts.com) has been closely involved with the development of 6.8mm SPC and was kind enough to loan me three different upper assemblies and magazines for test purposes. The uppers included a 16.5-inch-barreled lightweight model with carbon-fiber forearm, a 16.5-inch with a much beefier and heavier skeletonized forearm and an 18.5-inch-barrel model with carbon-fiber forearm and full-length Picatinny rail that allows optics to be mounted anywhere from the cocking handle to the end of the forearm.

All units were equipped with OPS muzzlebrakes. I mated the uppers to a Wilson Tactical Custom lower. This unit has a superb match trigger, and with the addition of a Leupold 4.5-14X Tactical scope, I knew there would be no excuses for poor accuracy.

Remington will initially offer three loadings in 6.8mm SPC: a 115-grain Metal Case, a 115-grain Open Tip Match and a premium load with Sierra's 115-grain MatchKing BTHP bullet. It might surprise some shooters that the FMJ is not the bullet the military is interested in. Testing and development have shown the 115-grain Open Tip Match manufactured by Hornady offers the best terminal performance in a bullet sanctioned for combat use.

Dispatching terrorists and thugs does not require our guys to limit themselves to FMJ bullets. Special Forces have used various hollowpoint match bullets in certain situations since the mid-'80s, and the Judge Advocate General has specifically approved the 115-grain Hornady OTM bullet for use in the 6.8mm SPC.

Remington sent me some of these 115-grain OTM loads so I could get a feel for this cartridge. Factory loads were not in production at the time, so these were prototype loads produced prior to some final and very minor tweaking of the case-neck thickness. I was informed in advance these loads were a bit mild. They clocked right at 100 fps slower than the final specs call for, which is 2,650 fps out of a 16-inch barrel and 2,800 fps in a sporter-length, 24-inch tube

Accuracy was up to spec, with all three uppers clustering five-shot, 100-yard groups right at an inch and a respectable percentage of them measuring significantly less. Recoil was milder than I expected given the power level of this cartridge. The OPS muzzlebrake was effective in keeping the muzzle down, even when I cut loose with extended rapid-fire bursts. There were zero malfunctions to report.

Beyond The Battlefield
The future of the 6.8mm as a military cartridge is still open to speculation; rumor mills already list the cartridge as missing in action.

But that's not the case. Remington is committed, and some military brass is coming onboard. Of course, the military is vast and complex, and there are those who, for one reason or another, do not want to see the cartridge approved. Some genuinely believe there are better options, and many factions that traditionally feed at the government trough are against it simply because they don't have a piece of the action.

There are not billions of dollars involved here or even millions. Remington has the cartridge in production, and the cost of retrofitting a quantity of M4 lowers so Special Forces could field this cartridge amounts to pocket change compared to most military expenditures. It's difficult to say exactly how this will play out. The cartridge has certainly been tested thoroughly in both the military and private sectors as well as by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. The 6.8 SPC has come through with flying colors. But firearm historians are well aware of a number of worthy military rounds that almost made it but didn't for one reason or another. Often that reason was pure politics.

As to the civilian market, several companies are planning to offer uppers and magazines to switch over the many AR-15 variants in citizen's hands, and the cartridge may find favor with hunters as well. The 6.8mm SPC is a unique cartridge among commercial rounds and may offer an optimum balance between mild recoil and sufficient terminal performance on medium game.

There are no true "game bullets" offered in Remington's initial loadings, but the company has an excellent option waiting in the wings. A newly developed 115-grain .277 bullet for use in Remington's new Managed Recoil .270 loading is specifically designed to expand at lower velocities. The .270 Managed Recoil factory load will have a muzzle velocity of 2,710 fps--right where the 6.8mm SPC should clock in a 20- to 22-inch sporter barrel.

I have not yet heard of any definite plans to offer a new rifle in this chambering, but the Remington Model Seven would be a dandy platform. Another interesting civilian application would be in the Thompson/Center Contender handgun. J.D. Jones at SSK Industries is already gearing up to produce aftermarket barrels in this caliber for both Contenders and Encores. Since the cartridge was designed for short barrels, a 14-inch handgun should give up little performance-wise.

We are only in the first chapter of the 6.8mm SPC story, and it's a cliffhanger. Will the military--or perhaps even Congress--step in and see that troops on the ground get what they need and want to finish the job, or will the cartridge die in its infancy? Regardless, the story is unique. I can't recall another military cartridge in history that was conceived and developed by guys on the front line, a cartridge where the men in the field said, "This is what we need" rather than the brass saying, "This is what you get." Whatever fate awaits the 6.8x43mm, there is something to be said for letting soldiers in the field develop military armament. When a new military cartridge comes from the top down, the costs can run into the millions. Initial costs to the government in developing the 6.8mm SPC was about the price of a good used car.