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

The 7.62 vs. 5.56 argument is getting a bit old, and I�m not going to get into a knock down drag out on such a tired issue. The US has decided the 5.56 is the best cartridge for the general issue needs of our forces. Nearly every modernized nation in the world has followed suit. The Russians followed our lead in 1974 when they realized that the High Velocity Small Bore was the better way to go.

Literally every major military force in the world has switched to the SBHV concept�Surely you can�t mean that they�re all wrong and you�re right?

I will agree that the 7.62 is FAR from dead. There are many roles where it�s THE cartridge of choice, but it�s not the cartridge of choice for general military issue to every solider. It has become a specialty cartridge, and it excels in that role.

So what is different about what you SAID in your first post and what you are saying now? You asked the question and now don't like the answers. I am not arguing with you except in one area and that is what caliber should be the new one and you asked our opinion and now are saying I am not entitled to it. The 7.62 didn't care if it was in the jungle, desert or anywhere in between, as you stated the 5.56 still has issues after all the years it has been around. This is also my last responce to this post.

I stand by my comments on both posts.

I apologize if it seemed as if I wasn�t allowing your opinion, just entering into some friendly debate. I�ll quietly exit the debate now so things stay friendly.

Things are friendly, if I had realized you wanted to debate these subjects my post might have been different.

What would have been wrong with trying the 6x47? Wouldn't that work in the AR15/M16 without much alterations at all? Isn't the 6x47 just the .223/5.56mm case necked up to 6mm? It seems like that the 6x47 loaded with something like the 87-90 grain bullets would have been an excellent mid point rifle, filling in the blanks between the 5.56 and the 7.62. A larger diameter heavier bullet that would carry further, have more oomph at short ranges, but still not have much greater recoil, cartridge weight, expense, etc, than the 5.56.

How about the SSK Industires 6.5 MPC...

The 6.5 MPC (Multi Purpose Cartridge) is a SSK development urged by Brian Hormberg (USMC) based on the 5.56 cartridge shortened and opened to 6.5 MM and the same OAL as the 5.56. In the M-16-AR-15 rifles it utilizes the 5.56 bolt and magazines as well as all other parts except the barrel itself. Its design adapts it to a short Close Quarter Battle rifle with a 12� barrel moving a 107 6.5 SMK at 2400 FPS with superior full auto controllability and excellent accuracy. The 12� barrel model easily puts it into the realistic 300+ yard combat category and longer barrels stretch that realistic combat range considerably further.

Factory ammunition is not yet available for the 6.5 MPC; however we are working on that. Ready to load brass and dies are in stock.

The 120 grain BT is near maximum bullet weight for good performance. 85 grain is about the least weight for good performance. Some 140 grain bullets may be used but ballistically are counterproductive.


95 SSK Solid
- - - - - - -
12"
2600 FPS

20"
2800 FPS 110 Sierra HP
- - - - - - - - - - -
12"
2480 FPS

20"
2731 FPS 120 SMK
- - - - - - - - -
12"
2220 FPS

20"
2400 FPS

What about the HK 416? From what I hear, it's been considered but not accepted because it's not enough of a technological step forward.

Squirrel,

I'd say the H&K 416 and the FN SCAR would be at the top of the list. But then again, the M16 is a hard act to follow.

I think so too...there was a recent article on the H&K 416 and it sounds like a great weapon. I like the M4...don't get me wrong, but they can be pretty darn unreliable. We were out at a range recently and were having all sorts of double-feeds and jams. Of course I doubt how well our NAVAL personnel were cleaning and caring for their weapons, but it still raises concerns in my mind. Still a good rifle, all things considered.

Looks like we should have gone with the EM-2 in the 1950's, but we foolish followed you Yanks into the 7.62Nato which then a few short years later, you ditched in favour of the 5.56 Nato..

The trouble with arms precurment, especially in the States, is that its too wrapped up in Politic's and not nearly driven enough by Soldiers actual needs...

Pete-

It was a good move to abandon the EM-2 because it probably wouldn�t have worked as designed. The locking system was unnecessarily complex and making it striker fired was a half baked idea. This isn�t to say that they couldn�t have eventually abandoned these ideas to something more reasonable, but who knows.

The FN FAL that the Brits ended up with was a first rate rifle in every way. I�ll agree that the EM�s .280 cartridge was a much better idea as was the .276 Pederson in the 1920�s, but us Yank�s have always been stuck on .30 bullets.

The current SA80 rifle has been a nightmare and has only recently become passable as a real combat weapon. Seems to me, the Brits should have followed us Yanks again and adopted the M16.

It breaks my heat to see my brethren across the pond suffering with such a horrible weapon.

Kevin,

I agree the SLR was a good weapon and I prefered it over the SA80 especially the early versions I had a chance to play with. But the SLR was far from perfect..for instance who on earth came up with the idea of mounting optics on the sliding top cover???

The SA80 was basically a bullpuped version of the AR18 and *should* have been a decent weapon...quite how Enfield managed to ruin such a promising idea so convincingly, I don't know.

The first generation of SA-80 really were horrible...there only saving grace was that they are generally very accurate..in fact its a sad state of affairs when they two major successes of your weapons system are its sling and its optic sight!

I have handled an EM-2 but never fired one...having spoken to some people who are well up on these things, they considered it to be a better design than the SA80...unusual yes, but apparently it actually performed very well in the field trials .Its a bit like saying the rear locking lugs on an SMLE were a poor design if you get my drift..

The current SA80 apparently still hasn't passed any offical sand trials but is probably as good as this particular design is going to get although it still needs to be babied somewhat in the field.

Regards,

Pete

Not disagreeing, just funny how things turn out. When the M16 first came out and well into the 80's or even 90's, you couldn't hardly open a gun rag without some article telling what a POS the rifle was and how ineffective that puny round was.

If my math is right it has been the standard service rifle for longer than anything else the military has ever used, surpassing even the 1903 Springfield. (Maybe some musket was in use longer but my knowledge of late 18th and early 19th Century military arms is rather scant.)

Jim -

Our observations mirror mine. Although I never believed the M16 was half as bad as the armchair commandos said it was back in the '80's.

Yep.

Which is why we ended up with the M16 to begin with, IMO.

There is nothing wrong per say with the M-16 other that it was not fully worked out with the Johnson Administration said you will have it and closed down Springfield Armory. They have worked out pretty much all the problems. Its a good rifle. What the next one is going to be, I haven't a clue. Maybe we should not have to fight wars anymore! Nope on that since human nature being human nature. I am wondering if the M-16 frame could house a 6.5 x 55 or something of that nature, and say a 120 to 140 gr bullet? The ordanance guys really have a tough job, when you think about it. The current M-16/ 5.56 is a hard act to follow, because what ever you end up with is going to cost a lot in both time and R+D money and we will end up with something that is not much better. My guess is shorter guns for this house to house business that we find ourselves in.

Dpms panther arms Is making a 260 rem ar-15 also a 243,204,308. check them out.

Politics is why we went to the trapdoor Springfiled. Politics = money, and Springfield Armory had the politics, and wanted the money.

Politics is why we ended up with the M 14. And probably the 03 Springfield, which is a not-so-good 98 copy. Lots of home cooking involved, a reluctance to look outside for other and possibly better ideas. All the 03 Springfields used in WW I were "low number" rifles, which were later pulled because of the low quality heat treatment used in the reciever. Springfield Armory wasn't held responsible, so far as I know, as they continued to build rifles.

There are politics involved in any decision where a lot of money is spent.

And with the exception of around 1500 rifles, the Springfield served with distinction. Of the 1500, there were a few that went ka-BOOM, but well over 90% of those went kB because someone and used the wrong ammunition. (8mm vs. .30-06) Hatcher did find a number of rifles that were deemed unsafe, but the rest were considered safe with military ammunition. Everyone these days seems to think that low number Springfield�s are unsafe, which is completely false.

You�re right that there will always be politics in arms procurement. For the most part, our soldiers have always been given world class weapons. The M16 was a world class weapon that was implemented in the most horrific way imaginable. Our troops and the reputation of the M16 suffered because of the stubbornness and stupidity of the US Army.