Army opens competition for 7.62 rifle to replace M4

[mac1911]

Ridiculous? No way. You need energy to defeat armor. 5.56 is lacking compared to 7.62.

Nice to see the mil looking at other options besides 'pussy guns' (old armorer quote, not mine). Perhaps 5.56 has run its course.

Maybe sir garand was on to something when he wanted a .276 cal on the M1? Little of both worlds.

 

[mac1911]

Randy Shughart was the sniper who was carrying an M14. He was overrun and killed after running out of ammo at the super 6-4 crash site.

I guess we should all take mark bowden's word as gospel, instead of the 20 years of combat experience during gwot where 5.56 platforms have been out killing the **** out of tens of thousands of people worldwide while M14s sit in piles of junk on the floor of armories.

Theres also a passage in BHD where an M60 gunner putting rounds on a guy and he didnt immediately die. This is because surprise, unless you make a CNS hit, bullets dont usually kill people immediately. Thats why its common practice to shoot them to the ground, and then shoot them in the head if they need the extra killing.

Theres no magic bullet that is man portable and cost effective for training. Best to carry more ammo, and put alot of rounds in them when they need it.

M855A1 is supposedly a nasty round thats doing an outstandingly good job of killing bad guys, this 762 bullshit is coming from the Afghanistan war because guys want rifles to shoot back at dudes lobbing rounds at them with PKMs and DSHKs from extreme distance, when what they really should be doing is calling in air to actually effectively kill them. I get, it but these guys are forgetting the Iraq war where light weight and more ammo was the way to go.

762 really solves neither of these issues effectively, it will just make civilian book authors, internet commandos, and generals who sit in air conditioning watching the fight on a drone feed feel better about their big dick man-bullets, but the reality is its hits, and soldier's ability to maneuver on the enemythat count, not caliber size.

You really want the U.S. military to fight a war the way it should be.
My great uncle said we "won" WWII in two ways.
Men with balls big enough to go head to head with the bastards and bombing the shit out of them.
My uncle said to defeat your enemy you need to take life and property to they no longer exists.
Also his reason why we lost Vietnam. The US was bombing the shit out of them until we stopped.
As far as what weapons and ammo one needs in combat. Well I don't know. Never been to war.
I do know that those around me growing up said the brass behind the decisions on what GI get has not much to do with need. It will be one thing for sure. "G"ood "I"nuff .
My great uncle once told me a will of a man to survive and fight for what he believes does amazing things and until the blood complete runs out of their bodies the they will not stop.
My dad's generation (Vietnam) would tell stories of just how tough the jungle fighters where. Both mind and spirit. The battle amongst themselves over M14,M16 better/worse was as strong now as was then. I have Spoken with 4 armourers 2 of which where in for the M14-M16 both have their quirks ups and downs.
I only know 3 people who actually have been in combat since 9/11. The general agreement is the more ammo the better.

 

[endus]

Theres no magic bullet that is man portable and cost effective for training. Best to carry more ammo, and put alot of rounds in them when they need it.

M855A1 is supposedly a nasty round thats doing an outstandingly good job of killing bad guys, this 762 bullshit is coming from the Afghanistan war because guys want rifles to shoot back at dudes lobbing rounds at them with PKMs and DSHKs from extreme distance, when what they really should be doing is calling in air to actually effectively kill them. I get, it but these guys are forgetting the Iraq war where light weight and more ammo was the way to go.

It seems like a bad idea to put too much emphasis on the wars we're fighting today because who knows where we're going to end up fighting in the future. By the time anything gets through the procurement process we'll be on to some other scenario where the change no longer makes sense.

I have NO experience whatsoever, but I feel like I would want to be carrying as many rounds as possible. Better to have enough ammo to wound whoever needs wounding than more stopping power you run out of, seems to me.

What about the M4 overall? Do you think it needs to be replaced, maybe with something that needs less cleaning?

 

[Varmint]

I've no doubt today's combat troops would rise to the occasion like their grandfathers did, given the opportunity.

 

[Picton]

It seems like a bad idea to put too much emphasis on the wars we're fighting today because who knows where we're going to end up fighting in the future. By the time anything gets through the procurement process we'll be on to some other scenario where the change no longer makes sense.

I have NO experience whatsoever, but I feel like I would want to be carrying as many rounds as possible. Better to have enough ammo to wound whoever needs wounding than more stopping power you run out of, seems to me.

What about the M4 overall? Do you think it needs to be replaced, maybe with something that needs less cleaning?

With what?

Our country has sold its soul to the "AR platform." We're all in. There's no realistic hope of it going anywhere anytime soon.

So if the only functional alternative to the DI "AR platform" is pistons, and the only real choices there are the AK74 or the Galil or something like that, then no. And from what I've read and heard, the M4 seems to do the job well enough.

Note, I'm not endorsing that. When I was in, I hated the M16/M4 cleaning ritual and over-lube-ness so much that, when I got out, I never wanted to touch another one. I bought a WASR and a FAL and I'm much, much happier.

Plus, aesthetics matter to me if I'm buying the firearm myself. I know I'm getting a bit long in the tooth, but I've got no use for any 5.56 weapon without a fixed carrying handle and nice, sexy triangular handguards. Today's lego guns do nothing for me.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

the M4 seems to do the job well enough.

This is what gets lost in these mental circle jerks about what .mil SHOULD do. The M4 and 5.56 is good enough, and good enough is where the military lives.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

This is what gets lost in these mental circle jerks about what .mil SHOULD do. The M4 and 5.56 is good enough, and good enough is where the military lives.

This fallacy omits the fact that there are already different rifles fielded for different 'jobs'. The 7.62 is a short/medium-range sniper round for precision shooting at distances between 500-1,000 yards. It also has a reputation of being a 'brush-gun' compared to the 5.56. Precision shooting is single-shot, hit-to-kill. It isn't intended for full-auto suppression fire for close-in urban combat, unless you're rocking a belt-fed M60. Anyone who thinks 5.56 is 'good enough' for 500-1,000 yards isn't looking at ballistic data for current MILSPEC cartridges and 16" barrels. I've seen that data - 5.56 sucks at those ranges. 5.56 can 'reach' 1,000 yards - with a 24" free-floating match barrel and match-grade ammo and a stationary paper target. B.F.D.

Anyone who thinks snipers or precision-shooters go into the field with 300+ rounds of ammo might want to re-think things....do people who are issued Barretts leave with 300 rounds of .50 every patrol? If every long-range engagement involves the tactic of full-auto, 'spray-and-pray' from the troops while they call-in the A-10 airstrike, I can see why Irag/Afghanistan cost $1TRILLION to fight. Methinks a few 7.62 rifles with proper rifling and quality optics 'might' be a cheaper, and equally-effective tactical option? If the troops can't hit anything, even with 5.56 rifles they already-have, that's not a weapon-caliber issue - that's a training issue.

 

[Picton]

This fallacy omits the fact that there are already different rifles fielded for different 'jobs'. The 7.62 is a short/medium-range sniper round for precision shooting at distances between 500-1,000 yards. It also has a reputation of being a 'brush-gun' compared to the 5.56. Precision shooting is single-shot, hit-to-kill. It isn't intended for full-auto suppression fire for close-in urban combat, unless you're rocking a belt-fed M60. Anyone who thinks 5.56 is 'good enough' for 500-1,000 yards isn't looking at ballistic data for current MILSPEC cartridges and 16" barrels. I've seen that data - 5.56 sucks at those ranges. 5.56 can 'reach' 1,000 yards - with a 24" free-floating match barrel and match-grade ammo and a stationary paper target. B.F.D.

Anyone who thinks snipers or precision-shooters go into the field with 300+ rounds of ammo might want to re-think things....do people who are issued Barretts leave with 300 rounds of .50 every patrol? If every long-range engagement involves the tactic of full-auto, 'spray-and-pray' from the troops while they call-in the A-10 airstrike, I can see why Irag/Afghanistan cost $1TRILLION to fight. Methinks a few 7.62 rifles with proper rifling and quality optics 'might' be a cheaper, and equally-effective tactical option? If the troops can't hit anything, even with 5.56 rifles they already-have, that's not a weapon-caliber issue - that's a training issue.

Name me a conventional Army infantry unit, or even a Marine unit, that expects its soldiers to achieve first-round kills past 500m with its small arms.

I'll wait.

Doctrinally, the US doesn't fight that way with small arms. So why do you think it matters to the Army what 5.56 can do at that range? It just doesn't factor into their planning. That's why Joe hauls a radio, to get mortars and arty.

I'll be diplomatic and say that your assessment of current US doctrine, as bolded, does not match with my training or experience.

The push, such as it is, for the Army to increase its 7.62 capabilities has more to do with defeating armor, as I understand it, than with increasing range.

 

[GlockJock]

Mattis should order and import them from Russia...(to REALLY piss off the Liberals)...

Just sayin' [emoji6]

 

[goodlife30]

This fallacy omits the fact that there are already different rifles fielded for different 'jobs'. The 7.62 is a short/medium-range sniper round for precision shooting at distances between 500-1,000 yards. It also has a reputation of being a 'brush-gun' compared to the 5.56. Precision shooting is single-shot, hit-to-kill. It isn't intended for full-auto suppression fire for close-in urban combat, unless you're rocking a belt-fed M60. Anyone who thinks 5.56 is 'good enough' for 500-1,000 yards isn't looking at ballistic data for current MILSPEC cartridges and 16" barrels. I've seen that data - 5.56 sucks at those ranges. 5.56 can 'reach' 1,000 yards - with a 24" free-floating match barrel and match-grade ammo and a stationary paper target. B.F.D.

Anyone who thinks snipers or precision-shooters go into the field with 300+ rounds of ammo might want to re-think things....do people who are issued Barretts leave with 300 rounds of .50 every patrol? If every long-range engagement involves the tactic of full-auto, 'spray-and-pray' from the troops while they call-in the A-10 airstrike, I can see why Irag/Afghanistan cost $1TRILLION to fight. Methinks a few 7.62 rifles with proper rifling and quality optics 'might' be a cheaper, and equally-effective tactical option? If the troops can't hit anything, even with 5.56 rifles they already-have, that's not a weapon-caliber issue - that's a training issue.

What army did you serve with? I don't even know where to start with this.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

This fallacy omits the fact that there are already different rifles fielded for different 'jobs'. The 7.62 is a short/medium-range sniper round for precision shooting at distances between 500-1,000 yards. It also has a reputation of being a 'brush-gun' compared to the 5.56. Precision shooting is single-shot, hit-to-kill. It isn't intended for full-auto suppression fire for close-in urban combat, unless you're rocking a belt-fed M60. Anyone who thinks 5.56 is 'good enough' for 500-1,000 yards isn't looking at ballistic data for current MILSPEC cartridges and 16" barrels. I've seen that data - 5.56 sucks at those ranges. 5.56 can 'reach' 1,000 yards - with a 24" free-floating match barrel and match-grade ammo and a stationary paper target. B.F.D.

Anyone who thinks snipers or precision-shooters go into the field with 300+ rounds of ammo might want to re-think things....do people who are issued Barretts leave with 300 rounds of .50 every patrol? If every long-range engagement involves the tactic of full-auto, 'spray-and-pray' from the troops while they call-in the A-10 airstrike, I can see why Irag/Afghanistan cost $1TRILLION to fight. Methinks a few 7.62 rifles with proper rifling and quality optics 'might' be a cheaper, and equally-effective tactical option? If the troops can't hit anything, even with 5.56 rifles they already-have, that's not a weapon-caliber issue - that's a training issue.

u wot?

 

[whacko]

Name me a conventional Army infantry unit, or even a Marine unit, that expects its soldiers to achieve first-round kills past 500m with its small arms.

I'll wait.

Doctrinally, the US doesn't fight that way with small arms. So why do you think it matters to the Army what 5.56 can do at that range? It just doesn't factor into their planning. That's why Joe hauls a radio, to get mortars and arty.

I'll be diplomatic and say that your assessment of current US doctrine, as bolded, does not match with my training or experience.

The push, such as it is, for the Army to increase its 7.62 capabilities has more to do with defeating armor, as I understand it, than with increasing range.

Problem is that there are too many "never served" folks think a 600 known distance range means marines can "shoot em in the face" with an m16 at that distance! Not t even expected.

The bullseye alone is 20 inches wide.....a "hit" is the size of a sheet of plywood. That distance is "area target" to keep their heads down while you call for a fire mission

 

[ggboy]

What about rechambering the M4, for the Russian 556?
ggboy

 

[AllaSnackbah]

Now that i did some research on the 5.56's ballistic shortcomings at 1000 meters, i think we might actually need everybody to carry M14s, they also can carry Barret M107s for engagements past 1000, and they can carry FNP90s for ranges of 500 and in.

Problem solved.

 

[Varmint]

Going to 7.62 to defeat armor doesn't make sense, they just need a new 5.56 round.

I still think this is about lining someone's pockets.

 

[drgrant]

You guys talking about the money are hilarious... basically the cost to re equip every trigger puller with whatever is mouse farts compared to other dod programs like F35 etc that are all grossly overpriced vs payoff. Small arms are cheap part of the budget. Not saying they should switch but yapping about money is silly when its peanuts compared to the rest of the cash they burn.

 

[drgrant]

Of course none of this matters because theres an 80% chance this rfp will never be filled lol

 

[whacko]

Of course none of this matters because theres an 80% chance this rfp will never be filled lol

Yeah that's what we all said about the modular pistol......another epic waste of my tax dollars.

 

[Picton]

Yeah that's what we all said about the modular pistol......another epic waste of my tax dollars.

Preach on, my brother, preach on.

 

[Varmint]

You guys talking about the money are hilarious... basically the cost to re equip every trigger puller with whatever is mouse farts compared to other dod programs like F35 etc that are all grossly overpriced vs payoff. Small arms are cheap part of the budget. Not saying they should switch but yapping about money is silly when its peanuts compared to the rest of the cash they burn.

Gun makers have been lobbying like crazy for this, and a 7.62 contract would likely be a proprietary rifle, unlike the M4, and net one company hundreds of millions of dollars. More than enough to pay off a few politicians or generals.

 

[AmeriKHAN]

I said it once and i'll say it again; You do not need to change rifles. You need to change bullet composition. It needs to be tipped, jacketed, and/or cored with a material harder than the body armor in question. Most of the people here talking about 7.62 and m14s have never had to lug an 80lb combat load up a mountain with a 10 pound rifle.

 

[mark056]

This whole thread makes me laugh. When we went to the 30-06 to the 7.62 it was gloom and doom because the 7.62 wasn't as powerful as the ought-six (by a few hundred fps less) then when we went to 5.56 blasphemy because it was just a damn .22 on steroids. I think it was important to note that the USAF adopted the M16 because the 5.56 round was easier for semi-trained AF personnel to use. Army thought it was a good round for CQB type jungle warfare and then expanded it Army wife (most probably because it is easier to train combat service support and combat support troops on)

In all probability something in the 6mm range would work best. Greater distances are going to require the ability to "reach out and touch someone" It's simple. We'll have to take a wait and see attitude and see how this plays out.

 

[oldguy68]

I think it's great that they are looking at the latest cartridges for improved ballistics at longer ranges.
But we what rifle produced here is a good choice for military service?
Weight is an issue. So how do you counter that?

As had been said if more snipers or marksmen are deployed then they are likely the first taken out.

What optic are you going to use to see better at longer ranges or are they just going with iron sights on all rifles.

Seems like use of air support is the best answer.

Or just gtfo of Afghanistan and leave the middle east to their own demise...

 

[mark056]

Or just gtfo of Afghanistan and leave the middle east to their own demise...

If it were only that simple. What about Korea and the possibility of a new emerging Russian threat? Who knows what and where the Chinese will stir something up? New wars possibly fought over diminishing natural resources, an unmanageable world population, a demographic shift caused by mass immigration (legal or otherwise, for example 51 percent of London has ethnic roots that are not to be found in the British Isles) which will bring about paradigm shifts in world view and cultural values. Now you might say HTF does this relate to a new caliber or rifle for our military? Well after WW2 strategic air power and nuclear weapons would win all future wars. Well that didn't happen. The Infantry still had to take the hill and we still need boots on the ground just like all wars for thousands of years. So maybe we need an MBR (that's Main Battle Rifle not an Assault Rife) in the inventory. Oh, sure we're going to have battle robots and maybe even cyborg soldiers probably sooner than later but Joe Snuffy infantrymen is still going to be the on the battlefield and the US is going to be the biggest kid on the block for some time.

Not every handheld weapon system is the right one for all theaters of operation. Let's look at the M1 Carbine. Designed to be a replacement for the pistol, it was a light shoulder fired weapon that pushed a .32 ACP on steroids, and was effective out to 15 yards. (traditional pistol distances) and it was popular because it was lightweight and not used much by those who carried them. It was ideal for CQB jungle fighting in the Pacific. In Europe the M1 Garand, the MBR, reigned supreme.

Problem was, the Army respected the M1 Garand and adored the M1 Carbine and the gun that was supposed to be the pistol substitute became in many instances an MBR where it didn't do so well against the Chinese in Korea. There was even a sniper version !

So selection of a new rifle and caliber is really about wars yet to be fought. Since we cannot follow a policy of neo-isolationism simply because of our standing in the world and our penchant for foreign military adventurism we need weapon systems that can operate effectively in all environments with an appropriate caliber. It doesn't matter when we leave Afghanistan because we will get sucked into some other war in some other place and who knows what we will need an M4/16 or an M1/M14 Main Battle Rifle.

Better to plan for it now than later.

 

[namedpipes]

If it were only that simple. What about Korea and the possibility of a new emerging Russian threat? Who knows what and where the Chinese will stir something up? New wars possibly fought over diminishing natural resources, an unmanageable world population, a demographic shift caused by mass immigration (legal or otherwise, for example 51 percent of London has ethnic roots that are not to be found in the British Isles) which will bring about paradigm shifts in world view and cultural values. ...

You and I get to sit back and watch the youngsters duke it out. Chances are it'll all work out in the end. Maybe 1000 years from now?

 

[mac1911]

It seems like a bad idea to put too much emphasis on the wars we're fighting today because who knows where we're going to end up fighting in the future. By the time anything gets through the procurement process we'll be on to some other scenario where the change no longer makes sense.

I have NO experience whatsoever, but I feel like I would want to be carrying as many rounds as possible. Better to have enough ammo to wound whoever needs wounding than more stopping power you run out of, seems to me.

What about the M4 overall? Do you think it needs to be replaced, maybe with something that needs less cleaning?

Does the M4 really need a lot of cleaning. I understand maintaining your weapon but how far does one think the M4 can be pushed with out cleaning.,
I ran my POS M4gery with steel cased garbage even 1000+ rounds of Norinco silver box to just under 5k with out cleaning...think I had 4-8 jams.
?

 

[mac1911]

This is what gets lost in these mental circle jerks about what .mil SHOULD do. The M4 and 5.56 is good enough, and good enough is where the military lives.

Absolutely .... my dad/uncle and family friends that where in military always said that.
If they could find a cheaper replacement for bodies they would.

 

[mac1911]

That all depends on the environment its being used in

wet/muddy jungle vs arid sandy desert vs range......

Correct I get that...
Funny little thing I remember about my great uncle on a the rare ocassions he would talk about "combat"
He was once asked what weapon he liked best.
We all knew he trained on many being 10th mountain.
"I like the garand and the 1911 about the only 2 pieces of equipment we used that can run lubed with blood and sand"

 

[Al-Jim19]

For those referring to weight, one of the main reasons the M14 was ditched in favor of the AR15 (and not the AR10) was the ability for soldiers to carry a lot more ammo for the same weight. Can't recall the exact count but it's somewhere around 2000 (20,000 maybe?) rounds on average before an infantryman connects on his intended target.

I wrote a paper in college on the history of the AR15. He did sign ups in class for topics and when I picked the AR he got psyched and told me to look into the "man card" ad for bushmaster. He was disappointed when my paper pretty much explained the history and why it's so popular now and treated it in a positive light. A-, I'll take it.

 

[Picton]

Does the M4 really need a lot of cleaning. I understand maintaining your weapon but how far does one think the M4 can be pushed with out cleaning.,
I ran my POS M4gery with steel cased garbage even 1000+ rounds of Norinco silver box to just under 5k with out cleaning...think I had 4-8 jams.
?

It needs cleaning when your 1SG says it does, to the standard that your PSG expects. I.e., very clean. Probably overclean, but then if you squirt enough CLP into it, it won't matter.

I wish I was joking.

The M16 suffered for a long time from the residue of its rollout, when it got boatloads of bad press due to the failure of the mythical "self-cleaning" label. The Army has a long memory, and for decades first-line supervisors went too far the other way.

Who knows if it needs extensive cleaning? But the Army says it does, and that's good enough.