24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Despite its reliability problems and occasional issues with stopping power, the M16 remains a very hard act to follow. The M16 is an excellent general issue service rifle and has served us very well. Even before it was adopted, it has been slated for replacement, and I can count at least 4 projects that were intended to obsolete the M16, that have been canceled because they weren�t able to top the M16.

The SPIW and AICW were both half baked ideas that anyone with any sense could have predicted what would come of those. The ACR was a program that showed real promise in the sense that their goals were fairly achievable. I was very impressed when the military cancelled the project because the felt that none of the weapons were a significant improvement over the M16�US Government and common sense, now there�s a new one.

The XM8 has many merits to the design, but it has a lot of bugs to work out. At one time it was slated to begin replacing M16�s in service in the summer of 2005. I knew it wouldn�t be ready then and I sincerely doubted it would be ready by 2007. I�m thankful the military didn�t do another mid-war rifle change. Although actual combat is the best place to de-bug a weapon, it�s a bit hard on the troops.

So, what will be our next service rifle? Well, it could be the XM8, but my money�s on the FN SCAR. I think the concept behind the SCAR was generally sound. I like the caliber changing idea because I don�t feel that one cartridge is going to work everywhere in the world. The 5.56 was just right or the jungles of Vietnam, but it�s had a hard time in the sandbox. If we ever found ourselves pitted against a first class army, I think the 5.56 would come up wanting even more.

The FN SCAR will need to be de-bugged just like any other military rifle, but thus far, it looks promising.

I like the 6.8SPC cartridge and I think there�s a place for it in our military.

So, what say you??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPIW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Individual_Combat_Weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

BP-B2

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
I don't see a place for the 6.8 SPC in the arsenal. It's been over-hyped, the velocities are not as published, and there have been problems with accuracy, according to Remington as published in Rifle magazine.

There's always a problem with trying to fit a larger bullet into the same size magazine, supply-wise. I doubt the 6.8 would chamber in a 5.56, but I'm not so sure a 5.56 wouldn't chamber in a 6.8 and cause problems. I suppose this problem could be over come, broomhandle Mausers switched over to 9mm had a large, red number "9" engraved on the grips. But a magazine that's not instantly recognizable could cause problems, both in supply and in the field.

I agree the M 16 is hard to follow. I don't see anything out there now that's significantly better than it is. Some a shorter, some are more compact, but I think there will have to be a major paradigm shift before the rifle as a weapon is vastly improved.

Without a new super-special round, or a new super-efficient loading system, I just don't see a change in store. Could be wrong, though.

I also think the problems that exist now with the M 16 are the same as always...the round. That "penetrator" round is reportedly inaccurate and it doesn't yaw or tumble because the core is steel. For me, I'd go back to a 55 gr. bullet that does some damage when it hits and forget relying on the doubtful penetration power of so light a round. At least until the enemy starts wearing body armor.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,740
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,740
I don't see the 6.8 replacing the 5.56. If anything I could see the Army going back to the 7.62, both are proven. Re-tooling for a new calibre, nope ain't gonna happen.


A government is the most dangerous threat to man�s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Where I envision the 6.8SPC is exactly as the name implies�The Special Purpose Cartridge. For longer range where people are wearing heavier clothing, the 6.8 might (key word there), be a good alternative. I also see nothing wrong with the 7.62x39mm, but anything it can do, the 6.8 should be able to do better.

I think the 7.62 NATO will always have a place in our military (as far as I can see). As soon as it�s issued for general service, marksmanship scores plumit, but in the hands of a soldier who knows how to use one, there�s nothing better.

I�m with you Gene�I just don�t see a replacement for the M16 on the horizon. I wouldn�t mind seeing some sort of gas piston conversion. There was one in the �80�s that came and went fast that really showed promise. It was called the Rhino conversion and it made the AR gas system about 50% AR18 and 50% AK. What�s more, you could �dial in� your full auto cyclic rate�Pretty slick.

There are a few such conversions floating around now that would be worth investigating. We could also take a look at the modular lowers that allow you to switch magazine housings to accommodate different calibers and magazines (7.62x39mm with AK magazine). This lower is a slick idea, but any ammunition fired in an AR rifle needs to be made for the AR or it will quickly foul up the rifle.

I think they could simply develop the M16 further and perhaps end up with the perfect service rifle. What�s more, it could all be done with existing, off the shelf solutions.

To me, this holds much more promise than things like the XM8

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
A smaller-diameter bullet should penetrate heavy clothing more easily than a larger, although I don't think the small difference in diameter would be that affecting. At any rate, the current penetrator round, which needs work, will penetrate a Kevlar helmet at 500 yards or so, so penetration doesn't seem to be a problem.

The "SPC" was supposedly designed for "special operators." It was the idea, maybe, of someone who had done spec ops, but the AMU developed the round, along with Remington. I guess Remington had invested in the developement, and tried desperately to sell the concept through a bevy of magazine articles. None of them I read reported how the weapon did on full auto, which was a concern of mine.

And the Lt. Col. head of the AMU said compared to all the people using the M 16, the "Spec Ops" guys may number in a few hundred or a few thousand at most, and to introduce a round for them with all the ammo companies now operating a full capacity, 24-7, to make current ammo requirements, just not the time to introduce a new round. Anyway, the 7.62 NATO is a better round for penetration, and on an AR platform performs well with available stores.

Personally, I feel the 6.8 was a snow job which Remington tried to market, but for the most part, failed.

I fired one of the piston-type gas systems, I believe a FN type adapted to an AR. It had a considerable amount more recoil than I expected. Not that it had a LOT, just quite a bit more than I expected.

I don't have as much issue with the current system for the M 16, which does blow gas out, but blows most of it where it can be removed easily. It's a far less ammo-sensitive mode than a piston system is, although the piston system certainly works well, apparently.

Pistons don't eliminate grime, they just confine it. An M-14 dirty piston would freeze the gun up, and if the Inspecting Officer couldn't hear that piston move when he turned the rifle upside down, you got gigged for it. Blanks were the worst offenders.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

IC B2

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Actually, the 6.8SPC was not developed by the AMU, rather it was developed by some members of the Special Forces. I�ll have to look over my notes, but specifically it there were a couple of NCO�s that lead the project (I have their names somewhere). They may have been associated with the AMU, but they were most certainly Spec-Ops soldiers and remarkably adept at wildcat cartridge development. The round was tested extensively in Afghanistan and the performance was pretty good. It�s not a bad round at all, but the prevailing thought is that it�s not a performance increase enough to justify a change.

Remington�s participation has been a reluctant one from the beginning. They were never convinced it would see mass military service, but the Spec Ops guys talked them into it. Now Remington is aggressively marketing the round so as not to loose all of their backside on this project.

I disagree with your assessment; I think it�s a good round. However; I also agree that it�s not �better� enough to warrant a transition. I agree with you that if you�re going to go large, might as well just use the 7.62 NATO.

The M16 gas system has been the Achilles Heel of the M16 since inception. Couple the fact it dumps gas and un-burnt powder directly into the receiver, with the tight tolerances inside that receiver and that spells problems. Those problems are further enhanced by having two radically different metals bearing against each other (aluminum receiver & steel bolt carrier). For the most part, the system works, but I believe there is room for improvement.

You�re right about the increased recoil. Increase the bolt mass and the recoil most certainly increases. Regardless, reliability remains an issue with the M16 and I think it�s an issue that can be addressed without too much trouble.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
5th SF Group!

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
Not according the the head of the AMU. It may have been conceptualized by some operator, but the round was developed by the AMU...and this is from the Source.

The other tales about its developement are rumor.

The head of the AMU didn't know who, why, or what prompted the development of the round. He knew they developed it, tested it, and so far as they're concerned, it's history.

I've told this tale before. I heard it at a Ga. firearms trainers conference from the Lt. Col. who was then head of the AMU. He's a Korean-American, a former Spec Ops himself, and a shooter in service rifle military competition. Some of you no doubt know his name, but I have a terrible memory for names.

He also said at the same time, two years ago, the services were going back to the .45 caliber, and that the green-tip ammo was inaccurate.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Regardless of who developed it, (I've heard the story a different way) I think it's a good round. The real question is: is it good enough to warrant changing? As it sets, I'd have to say no, but as we have seen with the 5.56, cartridges can be developed quite a bit.

The H&K 416 showed some hope for the future but Colt has tied them up in court. Also, Colt apparently submitted their own version of the 416 for the SCAR program and it was the number two finisher. I'm sure Colt will contest the award to FN (they contest the sun rising, so why not this).

I'm not opposed to the idea of modifying the M16 to a gas system that makes more sense. The direct gas system solved some problems that were high on our list of priorities 40+ years ago, but it created a whole new set of problems.

In today's world, there's no reason you can't have accuracy and reliability. You shouldn't have to choose between the two.

(again, I'm not saying the M16 is unreliable, just that it has much room for improvement in that department).

I'm encouraged that in the US programs, that a premium is placed on reliability. Anything considered should clearly out-perform the M16 or we're just wasting our money...Again, I think the M16 is an awfully hard act to follow.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Gene,

According to my notes, we�re both right on the 6.8SPC. (please understand that for me to remember conversations that are two years old, is a big stretch, mentally challenged as I am.)

The 6.8SPC came out of the SCAR project when it was realized that the 7.62x39 offered better penetration through barriers and better stopping power in close quarters battle*. At the direction of the 5th Special Forces Group, �they� were to investigate a cartridge that would out perform both the 7.62x39 and the 5.56 (ERC � Enhanced Rifle Cartridge), which is how we ended up with the 6.8SPC.

The people in charge of the development were:

M/Sgt Steve Holland (5th SFG)
Cris Murray (R&D Gunsmith AMU)
Troy Lawton (Chief Ballistics Technician � AMU)

Accuracy, excessive port pressures, and pre-mature wear were problems encountered with the 6.8SPC, but those problems have been dealt with. One must understand that this is a cartridge in its absolute infancy and, for the most part, it does improve upon the performance of the 7.62x39 and 5.56. But I keep coming back to the same question; is it enough better?

I like the cartridge because I think it�s a step in the right direction. We should have been using a true assault rifle cartridge years ago. I think the cartridge has merit and could use further development. Unfortunately, I�m quite certain that it is dead as a door nail at this point.

*not to imply the 6.8SPC is a CQB cartridge only. It was developed to provide enhanced rifle performance out to 600 yards.

IC B3

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
My problem is with the rifle in full-auto, which is the role for an assault rifle.

I don't think it's controllable, but I haven't heard any reports on it in full auto. And that's how troops use their rifles, for the most part, when in contact.

I would also point out that those major powers using "true assault rifle rounds" quit using them almost three decades ago. Probably for the same reasons...hard to control on automatic fire, and weight.

There's no substitute for aimed fire, if you have time and opportunity for aimed fire. But given that most people won't expose themselves long enough to get a good sight picture under stress, the next best thing is putting lead in the air. THat tends to spoil the aim of the guy shooting at you.

As I have often pointed out, Custer's last stand is the classic example of accurate, heavy bullets vs. short-range high-volume, less-accurate bullets. The lead in the air wins every time.

If war was a battle between marksmen, we could all do better than the 6.8 or the 5.56, but war as I know it isn't that way. That's only one component of war, and not a main component.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463
How ' bout we save all the money in development and adopt the 7.62x39 and Valmet assualt rifle and save gazillions of dollars in development of something that just does'nt quite cut it. Good effective round, reliable and high quality rifle... both proven effective over history.

Put a designated marksman on a squad level patrol with an M14 and we're covered...

Just like WWII...we'll have two .30 cal. weapons (gotta save money on cleaning patches and such) except the smaller round and rifle will have the broader application instead the other way around as in WWII.

The question is, is the Valmet/AK design adaptable to all of the electronic and optical devices that are used by our troops now days? Does the average trooper need them or should these specialized devices be saved for the marksman?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Gene,

You have a point on the Full Auto thing. As much as I hate to admit it, FA is a mode that�s used quite often, unfortunately, rarely is it really effective. On the bright side, the difference shouldn�t be too big. We�re currently using bullets in the 75 grain range and the 6.8 is 115 grain. I haven�t shot one so I really don�t know. The heavier the cartridge and the lighter the weapon (M4 vs. M16), the more you need burst control devices.

Dan,

I�d have a warm fuzzy about using the Valmet in combat, but I don�t think all that many agree with me; certainly not here in the US.

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,430
W
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
W
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,430
Well, I'm not sure that I should admit to this, but on more than one occasion the only cover I had was to lie on my back behind a rice paddy dike that was only about one foot high.

In those instances, the preferred method of returning fire was to prop your rifle on the dike above your chest and head and to spray whatever was in front of you. There were even crazier things than that done in an ambush and friendly fire was a constant threat.

Discipline is reinforced through good training and I can't say that we always had that. One of the worst things about Vietnam was the 12 month rotation. There was no cohesive structure to the unit I was in. By the time someone was there long enough to learn the ropes and really be effective, he was gone and replaced by some new dingleberry.


MacDonald
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
That's not an unusual way of returning fire. We did it when I was in Viet Nam. The chances of seeing an enemy, getting a sight picture, and squeezing off a shot is pretty slim in a fire-fight. Good chance in an ambush, though...if it's you who's initiatiing the ambush. Close ambush, you need that first aimed round, but after that, it's pretty well spray and pray, unless you've got someone in front of you who doesn't shoot back and doesn't take cover.

Full auto is the what defines an assualt rifle. Is it used too much? Can't say, as I never thought I used it too much.

All of this discussion is irrelevant if you're ensconced in a bullet-proof position with great vision and plenty of time to aim and fire without drawing opposing fire.

The .30 caliber in an assault round is as dead as Pontious Pilate. ARMOR piercing...body armor. We all know that's the wave of the future, and the 7.62 x 39, a.k.a. the 30-30 minus, ain't the way to do it.

Last edited by Gene L; 11/14/06.

Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Vietnam was a bit unique because of the density of the jungle. You could have someone inside of 10 yards in front of you and never see them. In those situations, spray and pray is a legitimate tactic for suppressing your attacker. Fire volume was a legitimate tactic in Vietnam, in fact, it was one of the hard learned lessons to come out of Vietnam, and we�re re-learning it in The Sandbox�

When ambushed, 9 times out of 10, if you try to escape the ambush, everyone will die. But if you press the attack with a high volume of fire (preferably effective fire), then you have a chance. In those instances, the ability to control your weapon is very important, and it�s one area where the M16 has a clear edge on the AK47. Although there�s much press about ambushes in The Sandbox, most engagements are at longer ranges and our forces have prevailed using deliberate aimed fire, while the enemy was using the spray and pray technique.

Good points Gene.

Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,463
You are the experts...I am merely an "armchair warrior" and a study of history and bow to your REAL experience...Although I am married to a B.A.M. (Broad Assed Marine)

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
The only way to escape an ambush is, as they taught us in Ranger School, to get out of the kill zone, immediately.

Whether that's forward, backward, or through the ambush, that's the only way. Near or far ambush, the answer is still the same. The kill zone is prepared and all weapons are zeroed in on it. So, get out. Return fire if you can, run away if you can't.

That simplifies the subject as well as I've ever seen. We initiated ambushes when I led the Recon platoon, at distances typically of six, ten, twelve feet. Overpowering firpower with the initiation means fewer people are going to get away.

I was never ambushed, by God's will. Except in a LCM riverboat, and they missed with the RPGs. All shot high.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,735
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,735
I see no need to replace the current rifle, or caliber.


"If what I say offends you, you should hear what I don't say."
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Caliber is a subject that could be debated. As for the rifle, there have been plans to replace it from day one, but like I said, it's a hard act to follow.

The military has never been happy with the reliability of the M16. Not that its unreliable, just that there are many rifles out there that are more reliable. With todays CNC manufacturing, I see no reason why we can't have our cake and eat it to. We should be able to come up with a rifle that's nearly as accurate as the M16 and nearly as reliable as the AK. I believe the FN SCAR has accomplished this, but again, only time will tell.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
118 members (257 mag, 160user, 35, 6mmbrfan, 10Glocks, 16 invisible), 1,747 guests, and 807 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,728
Posts18,400,776
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.123s Queries: 14 (0.002s) Memory: 0.9025 MB (Peak: 1.0821 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 09:37:04 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS