[chucksnee]

The Army has the M-16, for the same reason that the Army has OH-58 helicopters....

Someone has stock in the M-16 company....

[azguy]

.223, .308, 7.62x39, 5.56...... I would not want to be shot by either of them. A gunshot wound by any round can be horrific. Last I checked the Army issues 20 and 30 round magazines, an accurate .223 trumps, a powerfull 7.62x39 that might not hit the target. How many of the "5.56 NATO round does not do the job" crowd also carry a
9mm pistol for CCW, it is the same analogy.

[Darth AkSarBen]

The 5.56 NATO round does not do the job it should. I carry a .45 ACP. There are many reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and others of insurgents being shot multiple times with 5.56 and still being able to keep on fighting. 5.56 is good in HP and soft point bullets we have here for varmints, etc. They have FMJ to contend with. Also, the 5.56 won't penetrate many walls and vehicles that are used for cover. 6.5 Grendel would, and so would the 6.8 SPC II. The M16 rifle was a terrific idea and worked well. It is now time to move on to better things. Technology has changed since it's conception, and use in Viet Nam. The Piston-Drive systems of several of the arms mfgs. are amongst both the most accurate AND reliable, beating the M16 gas blow back design in spades. There is no reason to not update the arms that our soldiers carry and depend on to keep them alive.

[azguy]

Good points, but I think the Army, and NATO are looking for a better argument than just a more potent round. At the end of the day the 5.56 NATO still does a good job, and going with a more powerfull round just does not justify the expence of service wide transition.
Can you imagine the lagistics nighmare of combined forces in Afganistan for example, National Guard, and Regular Army units, some units with 5.56 NATO rifles and others with 6.8mm rifles and you need to equip both. Until you can re-equip everyone it makes more sense to keep things as they are.

[Tuna]

The 6.8 is no better then the 7.62x39. Just compare the balistics to see that so there is really no advantage to the round. There is problems with the 5.56 as used today all because of NATO requirements. If they had left the round at 3200 fps for the 55 gr. FMJ they would have been much better off. The heavy bullets do not tumble well nor do they come apart inside a target like the 55 gr rounds do. The loss of velosity with the heavy bullet as well as the shorter barrel length of the M4 make it a lot less effective then the old M193 round out to 300 yards.

[Pothole]

I dont know how true this is but I heard that the 5.56 was partially designed to wound, or kill in that order. Because in nation vs nation wars if you wound an enemy, it takes one or two guys to drag him to safety, and you have taken three out of the fight.
But in modern warfare where you are fighting groups of people with no support network, and are hopped up on drugs you need a round that puts them down in one shot, not severely wound them

[Cyrano]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darkfront

The official Army statement is that they wouldn't consider a new rifle (hence, new round) until there was a significant advancement in small arms design or technology. Rifles like the ACR/Masada and gas pistons (416, etc.) are more like combat rifle 1.5 rather than combat rifle 2.0

The Army would serve its combat soldiers far better if they reverted to Combat Rifle 0.0, the M-14, than by trying to improve the Jam-A-Matic by changing its chambering. Start by replacing the wood with a zytel stock to stop grumbling about the stock warping in wet environments (one of the excuses the Army used as to why it was vital to replace the M-14 with the synthetic stocked M-16), replace the perforated metal handguard with a handguard covered in Picatinny rails, and come up with some sort of mount to accept things like reflex sights since the Army doesn't teach soldiers how to shoot properly any more.

The Army's pompous statement when the most recent battle rifle test was discontinued, that they had not seen anything as good as the M-16 come up for trial is horse dung. The reality is that they have so much money and emotional investment in the Poodle Shooter that they can't (or, perhaps, don't want to) admit that for forty years they have been fielding a grossly inadequate and unreliable hunk of junk that is so fundamentally flawed they've spent tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, trying to fix the thing's failings. Further, they don't want to have to go through the agony of retraining everyone in the Army on a new rifle when their whole training structure is set up to deal with the M-16 "weapons system."

If Slick Willy Dickwad hadn't ordered most of the M-14s in the military's inventory destroyed, I'd say simply recall the M-16s, replace them with M-14s and that would be that. But since that anti-gun foresworn oathbreaker did do that, we ought to talk to the French and the Brits and buy up all their FN-FALs and issue those to our troops instead. But we surely need to give our soldiers a reliable weapon with lots of reach and hitting power to fight with in Iraq and Afghanistan. The M-16 in 5.56 NATO is not it.

[Darth AkSarBen]

ROFLMAO ...Cyrano, why don't you tell us how you really feel?? LOL You hit the nail squarely on the head. The 5.56 is inadequate shot out of a accurate but unreliable weapon. Surely they can do better. HK, Barrett, and others have even made rifles that "look" like the M-16 but have a whole new "drives" system internal that simply works.... clean or dirty.

The 6.8 SPC II is really not in the same class as the 7.62 x 39, ballistically. The BC (Bullet Coefficient) of the 7.62 (0.311 dia) in a 125 gr bullet is 0.274 where the 6.8 (0.277 dia) bullet has the BC of 0.496 That means it cuts through the air easier, further, flatter and is less affected by wind drift. That's it's biggest forte.

[gun monkey]

I REALLY hate to bring logic into this but if you look at the statistics for rounds fired per insurgent killed, 250,000 rds. per kill, then there is no way they would go to a more expensive round. The M16 was designed as an assault rifle, which means a shoulder fired select-fire weapon, with a 300m range. Within this envelope it is a great system, the reliablity issues have stemmed from poor maintnance and the wrong powder being used in the begining. Does it have drawbacks? YES, but so does every other weapon out there.

The argument that "it takes more than one round to stop them" is the SAME argument that snipers were using when they got the SASS. And they were shooting 7.62x51 and still had to put two and three rounds in an insurgent.

It's silly the debate over the round being used. 6.5, 6.8, 5.56, or 7.62, doesn't matter. If that was the only consideration then everyone should have a Barrett 50bmg.

Only hits count, so what if your gun can reach 1000m, if you can't hit then it really doesn't matter. You can't compensate for poor marksmanship with a more powerful gun or one with a larger magazine, rifle or pistol. You just can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

250,000 rounds per insurgent killed

As for the original question, no I haven't heard anything.

[Darth AkSarBen]

6.8 SPC II or 6.5 Grendel, even the 6.5 Creedmoor, you fire less, save money, save U.S. lives. These bullets can penetrate vehicles that insurents are behind or in. These rifles take less hits to put down the insurgent. In the long run you save both money, but most important, save American lives. What price for that?

[gun monkey]

I see that logic has no effect. Please reread my original post, then reread it once more. 7.62x51 would not stop the threat with one shot every time, thats why we now have the SASS. So if it wouldn't do it with its larger mass and penetration then what?

[SightNSqueeze]

The last "talk" among military circles (c.2006/07) that I heard was Heckler & Koch's attempt to replace all of the M16A2/A3/A4 and M4/M4A1 uppers and barrels with a gas piston upper and a 6.8mm barrel. The existing weapons inventory would have been just as accurate but with greater maximum effective range (i.e. killing range and effectiveness). The rumor is that none of it came to pass because Colt would have had to purchase the patent rights for their new rifles and Colt would not have profited from modifications to existing rifles. I suppose that modifications would have had to have been made to the rifles of all NATO countries too.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Yea..someone out to loose a buck. Pass up a superior weapon and round just for the sake of someone not making out on it. The gas system on current M-16 and M-4 are a joke. Get a gas piston system and descent chambered round and save American lives.

[TX Hog Hunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Tuna

The 6.8 is no better then the 7.62x39. Just compare the balistics to see that so there is really no advantage to the round. There is problems with the 5.56 as used today all because of NATO requirements. If they had left the round at 3200 fps for the 55 gr. FMJ they would have been much better off. The heavy bullets do not tumble well nor do they come apart inside a target like the 55 gr rounds do. The loss of velosity with the heavy bullet as well as the shorter barrel length of the M4 make it a lot less effective then the old M193 round out to 300 yards.

BS

Obviously you haven't bothered to ck out the facts..........all the military and FBI test have proven the 6.8 kills as well as a .308. After shooting over 30 hogs and 15 deer with the 6.8 I can assure you it is a VERY effective round down range!!!!

[Darth AkSarBen]

10-4 Bill !
If I were behind cover and had 3 enemy insurgents firing at me behind an automobile, I'd want the 6.8 SPC over the 5.56 NATO in my hands. there is no doubt about it. I can put some rounds through the metal and put the major hurt on the 3 behind the car, and do it a whole lot easier than with the 5.56 NATO.

Logic shouldn't come into play. It's mostly for Congressmen and other politicians. If it were logical, we CERTAINLY wouldn't want the troops outfitted with inferior weaons. You see, I don't care about dollars, I care about our soldiers lives. If you play a logicl scernario, build one less B-1B bomber and you have freed up more than enough necessary funds to equip the foot soldier right.

If a sniper has to put 2 to 3 rounds in an insurgent with a .308, then it's time to re-train the sniper or get a new sniper. Heart or head shot with the .308 will not need more than one.
Gun Monkey said,"the reliablity issues have stemmed from poor maintnance and the wrong powder being used in the begining. Does it have drawbacks? YES, but so does every other weapon out there."

The reliability issues are lessened to a bigger degree on some of the newer piston action systems out there, and to their caliber changes. The standard issue M-16 has more issues with it than a lot of hunter AR's that are being used, and shot right here in America today.

PS Shoot the insurgents with bullet tips filled with bacon grease or pig's blood, and you'll have to shoot fewer insurgents. The LAST thing an Ismalic Jihadist want's is to be defiled just before dying.

[Darth AkSarBen]

Quote:       Originally Posted by azguy

Good points, but I think the Army, and NATO are looking for a better argument than just a more potent round. At the end of the day the 5.56 NATO still does a good job, and going with a more powerfull round just does not justify the expence of service wide transition. Can you imagine the lagistics nighmare of combined forces in Afganistan for example, National Guard, and Regular Army units, some units with 5.56 NATO rifles and others with 6.8mm rifles and you need to equip both. Until you can re-equip everyone it makes more sense to keep things as they are.

Well, what do you suppose they did when they went from 7.62 NATO (M-14A) and 30-06, and .30 Carbine when they went to 5.56 NATO? They tried to replace a lot of rifles that were proven effective (except for that little .30 Carbine), with one, light weight shooter, the 5.56 NATO. They were still using the M-14 alonside the M-16 during Viet Nam, so both cartridges were in effect at the same time for a short amount of time. Hell, with newer plastic stocks, making the M-14 lighter (over wood), it would do better in that sandy dusty environment of the Middle East than the M-16.

Bill: Please do keep the idea of the short piston driven AR in mind, as I really think that it will be more and more used and sought after for it's reliability over the gas impringment system.

[Pothole]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

They tried to replace a lot of rifles that were proven effective (except for that little .30 Carbine)

actually up close where the carbine was designed to be used the .30 carbine is more lethal than the .30-06, because the faster .30-06 would fly through a target leaving a small hole while the .30 carbine would take out chunks.

that's why many other countries picked up like the French Foreign Legion

[gun monkey]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! Logic shouldn't come into play. It's mostly for Congressmen and other politicians. If it were logical, we CERTAINLY wouldn't want the troops outfitted with inferior weaons. You see, I don't care about dollars, I care about our soldiers lives. If you play a logicl scernario, build one less B-1B bomber and you have freed up more than enough necessary funds to equip the foot soldier right. If a sniper has to put 2 to 3 rounds in an insurgent with a .308, then it's time to re-train the sniper or get a new sniper. Heart or head shot with the .308 will not need more than one. Gun Monkey said,"the reliablity issues have stemmed from poor maintnance and the wrong powder being used in the begining. Does it have drawbacks? YES, but so does every other weapon out there." The reliability issues are lessened to a bigger degree on some of the newer piston action systems out there, and to their caliber changes. The standard issue M-16 has more issues with it than a lot of hunter AR's that are being used, and shot right here in America today. PS Shoot the insurgents with bullet tips filled with bacon grease or pig's blood, and you'll have to shoot fewer insurgents. The LAST thing an Ismalic Jihadist want's is to be defiled just before dying.

You make proving my point very easy, it's this type of thinking without proof or reason and without a logical brakedown of the situation as a whole that America is in the tank right now from top to bottom.

Logic shouldn't come into play? If it's mostly for "Congressmen and Politicians" then we are in deep SH#T.

You don't care about the cost? You really don't understand economics then, and you should run for office.

"If a sniper has to put 2 or 3 rounds in an insurgent with a .308, then its time to re-train the sniper or get a new sniper." You don't have a clue of what you are talking about. But armchair camandos are everywere on the net. And I am sure you have no real world experience to back up this crap.

Darth AkSarBen, you obviously have no clue about what you are talking about, and YOU proved it with your own post. Anyone that reads that can tell. Your ignorance is without bounds on just about every topic on this thread. I would suggest reading up on the subjects, like economics and the history of war through the centuries before commenting your oppinion so you could at least have an intelligent reasoning for your oppinion, not stupid comments. Your comments on retraining or replacing snipers is proof that you have no idea about combat and it would be best not to comment on the subject for obvious reasons.

I not going to argue with your ignorance anymore, there is no point. You girls can keep fighting over your oppinions and have your pissing contest, I'm done with this thread.

[ZombieHunter]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! If I were behind cover and had 3 enemy insurgents firing at me behind an automobile, I'd want the 6.8 SPC over the 5.56 NATO in my hands. there is no doubt about it. I can put some rounds through the metal and put the major hurt on the 3 behind the car, and do it a whole lot easier than with the 5.56 NATO.

Really now? You can? To be up to NATO spec, the round must be non-deformative (FMJ)...which means your 6.8 isn't going to do a whole lot more damage than a sprawling 5.56 steel-core round that will also zip right through a car door like it ain't funny.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! Logic shouldn't come into play. It's mostly for Congressmen and other politicians. If it were logical, we CERTAINLY wouldn't want the troops outfitted with inferior weaons. You see, I don't care about dollars, I care about our soldiers lives. If you play a logicl scernario, build one less B-1B bomber and you have freed up more than enough necessary funds to equip the foot soldier right.

I'm really not sure what to say here, about your unwillingness to follow basic logic.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! If a sniper has to put 2 to 3 rounds in an insurgent with a .308, then it's time to re-train the sniper or get a new sniper. Heart or head shot with the .308 will not need more than one. Gun Monkey said,"the reliablity issues have stemmed from poor maintnance and the wrong powder being used in the begining. Does it have drawbacks? YES, but so does every other weapon out there."

Ever seen a head or heart shot from a 5.56 round that wasn't an instant drop? Not too many others have, either. Using the Mk262, our boys recorded 75 kills with 77 rounds in one instance, at a distance of over several hundred meters. Yes, you read that right. 75 kills from only 77 rounds fired. Oh, did I mention that those 77 rounds can be carried in three magazines, and still have another 13 rounds in reserve? To carry that same number of 6.8 rounds, you would need NINE of those same magazines.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! The reliability issues are lessened to a bigger degree on some of the newer piston action systems out there, and to their caliber changes. The standard issue M-16 has more issues with it than a lot of hunter AR's that are being used, and shot right here in America today.

Really? How so? My AR uses a gas-operated bolt, just the same as the M16 and M4. The only differences I can see are the FCG and the barrel. My AR went through yet another 100 rounds this afternoon, just like she did yesterday. It stays in the back of my jeep, and has been in some of the harshest climates you can think of. The corrosive salt air of the Gulf Coast I live on, in the sandy grit of the East Texas piney woods, and so forth. Some CLP and a rag for the internals, a swab down the barrel, and she's good to go. Oh yeah, I practice with some of the cheapest ammo you can buy, which is Academy's Monarch brand. To date, Wolf is the only ammo that has ever given me any FTF.

Quote:       Originally Posted by Darth AkSarBen

10-4 Bill ! PS Shoot the insurgents with bullet tips filled with bacon grease or pig's blood, and you'll have to shoot fewer insurgents. The LAST thing an Ismalic Jihadist want's is to be defiled just before dying.

You're just plain warped, dude...

[gunadvocate]

Darth AkSarBen has been making outlandish claims since the beginning of the thread. Every time his points are refuted and he continues to counter with worse points (now reaching humorous levels). I don't know if he has any experience with anything he has said and I couldn't care less, although evidence of his posts points to the fact that he does not. As he pointed out- its not our job to inform those who have no clue. Let him say what he wants. If I continue to read this thread it will be out of humor so please Darth... continue to enlighten us lol