• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Re-enter the Battle Rifle?

Wot? No bay'net lug?  ;D

We've got it backwards I'm afraid: this should be our main weapon in the section. Keep a couple of guys armed with 5.56mm to lead the 'room clearing', delicate shorter range shooting stuff IMHO....
 
The Battle Rifle for all is a non-starter.

However the CF is ahead of a lot of other armies as it is doing its own "Arms Room Concept" albiet somewhat differently and not really intentionally.

5.56mm is here to stay - and its a good round, however it does lack something that 7.62NATO does better at the section/squad and Pl levels.

Kevin's Arms Room Concept for the CF
5.56mm with collapsible stock
11.5" Upper with CCO (Close Combat Optic)
16" upper with GP Optic (General Purpose - ACOG)
20" upper with SP Optic (Semi-Precision - think Leupold 1.1-8x)

7.62mm with collapsible stock (see Magpul ACS or VLTOR EMOD, as the ones with the standard M4 collapsible the latch suck for prone shooting off a bipod or rest)
16" upper with SP Optic
20" upper with Precision Optic (S&B 3-12/4-16 or Leupold new 3-18 not displayed yet)

5.56mm LMG
16" barrel x2
20" barrel x2
7.62mm LMG
16" barrel x1
20" barrel x2

12gauge Shotgun 14" breaching

40mm Stand Alone Grenade Launcher - with FreeFloat Weapon mounting ability

Pistol 9mm

The 16" 5.56mm would be common to all, with varying amounts of other items be altered by unit and mission and deployment.
 
What?  Task-tailored sections and platoons, changing loadout to best meet their objectives?

But where is the uniformity?  The mind-numbing duplication and repetition?


Where are the painted rocks, dammit?????
 
Thank you for those links. I greatly enjoyed reading through the articles and they inspired me to go double check the cleanliness of my own rifle!
 
Infidel-6 said:
... "Arms Room Concept" ...

A lot of your specs are good but I am personally against short-barreled MGs for any purpose because they are IMO going down a path to extinction.

Originally conceived as better mobility in confined spaces, CQB MGs were almost immediately neutralized by CQB doctrine that focuses on knowing where every round is going.  The only time they fire auto on the Urban Ops course is a "stance check" to make sure you're squared off properly.

Personally, I remain a huge proponent of the longest-barreled 5.56mm weapons possible because of the aforementioned Fackler Velocity that I treat as gospel.  Once that round gets below 875m/sec my lethality goes down, so why would I give myself a barrel that is skimming that velocity to begin with?

The role of an MG was at its inception and continues to be a weapon of mass destruction over a large kill zone, and in my assessment a shorter barrel MG is counter-productive because it makes the gunner less accurate and less lethal. 

Everything else on your wish list is moving along nicely.  At the Ex Bayonet infantry conference last week the M203's deficiencies were noted at the Gen+ rank level.
 
Of the two of you, Kevin has had a far greater personal stake in what is more lethal or less lethal than you ever will.

His personal experience trumps your Pams and Fackler velocities and gospels by a wide margin as far as I'm concerned.

Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (a Soviet term that has unfortunately become a tired cliche in the Western media). Small arms are not.
 
I honestly only have one thing to add to this conversation and that is 6.8mm

Probably in my mind the best of both worlds.
 
A lot of rounds have been optimized for Short Barrels
The 62gr SOST round and the 70gr Black-Hills "Brown-Tip" are the notable 5.56mm rounds, and they are JAG approved for issue, with the USMC being the most notabel non  SOF adopters of the SOST round in 5.56mm

7.62mm the 130gr SOST round and the 155gr Hornady 8087C "TSWG" round.

I am generally of the mind to carry the longest stick you can, however very few operations occur outside 'complex terrain' and even dismounting a helo or vehicle, the shorter barrel MG's fill a role.

The newer rounds turn the previous velocity thresholds on their head...


6.8 is dead - it was a Steve Holland/5th SFG ideal, and outside very limited usage it has all but died in the SOF circles, it has some uses, but unless NATO goes head over heels for it (and they are not) SOF specific calibers are okay for some things (niche items and even handguns) but for general issue small arms, the comonality with supporting forces goes along way.

 
You are right I6 I was not looking at comminality. It is though well documented that we require a change if not in caliber then as you said in grain for maximum penetration and lethality.

6.8 may be great for the NATO SOF community but the average rifleman is likely not needing this round.
 
I'm not big on 6.8 for SOF, as historically SOF specific rounds are never availble when you really need.
  I saw some 5th Gp 6.8 guns collecting dust, since the team could not guarantee any supporting elements could/would have ammo to replenish them.

If your element say has G22's in .40S&W, but Hk416's in 5.56mm, worst case is the secondary weapon cannot get bombed up if your stuck in situ and a conventional unit needs to roll to your aid.

If your running 6.8, and you go winchester, well your screwed with running captured Ak's or weapons from downed conventional guys who where bailing you out.

If your running some 16" 7.62mm goodness, well worst case is when you run out of a specific ammo, you can use de-linked ammo from the beltfeds.

My view of SOF specific stuff is more geared towards 'other' operations.

 
Are 'red dot' style laser indicators also a a thing of the past?  Seemed to be a very hot topic a few years back but havent heard much new about it...
 
What do you mean by Red-Dot style laser indicators?
The PEQ-2A/CLAD and PAC-4C/LAD are IR lasers (well okay the PEQ's are IR laser/Illuminators as they also have a IR flood).

The newer PEQ's (15,16,18 etc) have vis lasers as well, which have their uses especially for intimidation or tgt indications for non NV people

 
Petamocto said:
Originally conceived as better mobility in confined spaces, CQB MGs were almost immediately neutralized by CQB doctrine that focuses on knowing where every round is going.  The only time they fire auto on the Urban Ops course is a "stance check" to make sure you're squared off properly.

Who says that doctrine has any value - Fallujah is a good example of CQB; infact, the agricultrual areas of Kandahar are also good examples.  It seems silly to build doctrine off the assumption that cowering civilians will be in every battlefield - they're pretty good at getting out of dodge.

I've seen pretty good stuff pointing out that our CQB doctrine is junk, but that's for another thread.
 
Infidel-6 said:
What do you mean by Red-Dot style laser indicators?
The PEQ-2A/CLAD and PAC-4C/LAD are IR lasers (well okay the PEQ's are IR laser/Illuminators as they also have a IR flood).

The newer PEQ's (15,16,18 etc) have vis lasers as well, which have their uses especially for intimidation or tgt indications for non NV people

Im thinking more of any sighting device that produces a visible targeting aid (i.e. a red dot); in your experience are they still proven to be useful in field conditions?
 
As in Eotech or Aimpoint Dots or the Dot in a Short Dot or Leupold CQBSS, yes totally in a shorter range engagement.



 
6.8 and 6.5 are interesting as thought experiments, but I doubt the performance gains are so earth shattering that entire logistics infrastructures will be overturned to issue them. The EM-2 used a .280 "ideal" round, but the Americans had about a zillion Winchester .308 already on hand for their NATO allies, so no EM-2 for Tommy.

I also recall reading (although I no longer remember the source) that a 6mm (or something in that size range) provided superior performance in a LMG compared to 5.56, but the advantages of logistics trumped ballistic considerations.

We will see performance improved 5.56 for a very long time to come, until something far better comes along (either earth-shattering ballistic performance, or radically cheaper with equal performance). Based on current understanding of physics and technology, I suspect the eventual replacement won't even be a "rifle" the way we understand it.

As for the end user, I would appreciate something a bit shorter, a rugged sight (certainly anything with a better sight mount than the C-79), and the ability to pick up a sight picture quickly like a reflex sight. (Maybe a contradictory set of requirements, but that's the nature of the beast). A section or platoon sharpshooter should not attract attention, so I am with Kevin on a weapon that resembles the service rifle (which limits the pool of possible choices somewhat).

Really, so many other factors outside of ballistics or optics are in play that much of this discussion really is theoretical.
 
Thucydides said:
Really, so many other factors outside of ballistics or optics are in play that much of this discussion really is theoretical.

Especially where 5.56mm is backed up by 25mm, and a 60mm MOR and a couple of GMPGs in the Wpns Det, of course....
 
daftandbarmy said:
Especially where 5.56mm is backed up by 25mm, and a 60mm MOR and a couple of GMPGs in the Wpns Det, of course....
There is no need for Mortars in the Contemporary Operating Environment.  Please, carry on.
 
Infidel-6 said:
The newer rounds turn the previous velocity thresholds on their head...

Ack, but at a cost of more recoil which may be more acceptable in a sniper role but not the best thing for a sharpshooter who may have to fire rapid rate.

Don't get the wrong idea here, I still agree with 99% of what you're saying  ;D
 
Reproduced from the CTV.CA website...all normal provisions apply....

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100521/us-rifles-afghanistan-100521/20100521?hub=World

It seemed to be....related....to the current discussion.

I've not entered an opinion in here because I'm "just a range guy."  My input is....well....perhaps not as operationally experienced or oriented as that of others here whom I will defer to as local experts.

NS


The Associated Press

Date: Friday May. 21, 2010 6:27 AM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan — The U.S. military's workhorse rifle -- used in battle for the last 40 years -- is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.

As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.

The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.

But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 300 metres to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 600-800 metres apart.

Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.

Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the Second World War-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.

"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.

The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 800 metres.

At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.

"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.

He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.

In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.

Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.

The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."

The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.

"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 metres, the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."

The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.

The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 300 metres, where the M-4 performs well.

U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.

Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.

"When the Taliban get past 300 metres with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.

Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.

"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."
 
Back
Top