I agree with kodiak, they are adapting and we are as well. The M110 is an excellent response to this. Much more accurate than anything they are firing at us with and if every squad has one their tactics of firing so far away with old WW2 rifles will be ineffective once they start receiving fire from a highly accurate semi auto .308. Now if the army started using the heavier 5.56 rounds that the Marines adopted it might increase the effective range to 4 or 500 meters.
Stars And Stripes Article
- Thread starter 10-96
- Start date
Come and take it.
New member
Why not give our soldiers 308 carbines based on AR-10 style platform and 1 designated rifleman with a m-110 per fire team. Than all ammo would be common except for m249s which should be replaced by m240s.
Seven High
New member
There are a lot of surplus FN Fals floating around in the used gun market. I think that they would do very well in A-stan.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
I also think they should switch back to .308 either in a AR 10, M14, FN FAL or G3 platform. But they will probably just switch to the M468 with the 6.8SPC round, i personally think this round is a waste of time and the may as well just go right up to .308, it kick is going to be a problem a muzzle break or suppressor will fix it.
I think the biggest disadvantage of having the .308 as the main battle rifle cartridge is 2 things. First, weight. Trying to carry 200 rounds of .308 is a pain in the bum Plus the weight of the rifles that would be chambered in .308 tend to be heavier than those in .223 or 6.8. and 2nd, the recoil for a fully automatic firing is impractical. Even a full auto AK-47 is pretty much useless after the second shot on full auto and that is a much more controllable round than the .308. I think the 6.8 is an excellent solution to give the military more power, range, while not increasing recoil or weight very much. Or even a much better bullet in .223, the 75+ grain bullets show a lot of potential.
ursavus.elemensis
New member
I agree. The M4 is not suitable for the military. I suggest that the government collect all of the military M4's and deliver them to me for proper handling into the secondary markets. Now, let's get that modernization process rolling!
So they're trying to talk the M16 to death again. What's new? I find it ironic that they modified the A2 by shortening the barrel to make the M4 so they are more maneuverable getting in and out of vehicles, and then complain that they can't make longer-range hits any more. Yeah, and????? Accuracy in combat still stands in the way of bullet lethality. You can't kill 'em if you don't hit 'em. The 5.56 is actually very lethal, and creates awful wounds. If you were never there tp see what one does to a person, don't be shooting your mouth off and using weasel words like "everybody says" and "I read that". Trust me on this one.
The DMRs are M14s. As far as the M14s being returned to combat, they are used in special applications and as DMRs. Other than that, you will never see M14s being a general-issue weapon ever again. Those of you that actually saw or carried it, relish the memory and treasure it, because you saw the shortest-lived service rifle in US history in use. If they had taken the M14 and put a 14" barrel on it, people would have complained about it not having enough knockdown.
One of the problem they're facing in Afghanistan is that the enemy often has a height advantage. When haj is shooting from 300 meters up his range is drastically extended and ours is radically reduced. To make it worse, the M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel. That makes the already marginal long range performance of the 5.56 even less.
The M110 is basically an improved AR10, and is a fine rifle. As a designated marksmen rifle it will do alot of good once it's fully fielded. But lets not pretend that it should be issued to every soldier. Most soldiers don't have the skills to effectively use it and it would only be a hinderence to the mission instead of a help.
the weight difference is a big consideration. When I roll out on missions I have my body armor with 4 plates in it, 7 magazines, and an M4 with ACOG and PEQ15. That crap is heavy, and when you're toting it around in 120 degree heat, every pound counts.
The M110 is basically an improved AR10, and is a fine rifle. As a designated marksmen rifle it will do alot of good once it's fully fielded. But lets not pretend that it should be issued to every soldier. Most soldiers don't have the skills to effectively use it and it would only be a hinderence to the mission instead of a help.
the weight difference is a big consideration. When I roll out on missions I have my body armor with 4 plates in it, 7 magazines, and an M4 with ACOG and PEQ15. That crap is heavy, and when you're toting it around in 120 degree heat, every pound counts.
Tangentabacus
New member
I kind of always liked the idea of the 6.8. More effective at dropping targets at range, and close. Not a huge amount more heavy, unlike the .308. And there isn't too much recoil issues.
I have to say, though, that the fragmentation of ammunition in our nation's military is kind of silly. The .308 round is a good all around cartridge, and it is already implemented in some of our nations finest arms. Would make sense to me to try and put more effort into usable, durable, accurate, and light weight .308 firearms. Just to start a little somethin': I think that fully automatic weapons are a waste. When you can just get a mag of 30 rounds and yank em off as fast as possible, it doesn't make sense to have that 30 finger twitches automated. Unless we are talking about cover fire. You could make the argument that every man should be adaptable, and the only way to do that is to make their weapons adaptable.
Not to mention the .308 is also a fantastic hunting round. More .308 use in the military would mean better R&D for .308 firearms to us civis. I would love to see better hunting arms with military flare in the hands of the average hunter.
All this debate over which cartridge makes me kind of giggle. It also makes me wonder why our military even uses the M4 at all. Such a great gun for hunting and recreation, but really not so good as a weapon. On the other hand, a FAL or G3 are perfect weapons. Strong, durable, accurate, reliable, and generally very useful in combat, just a tad too heavy. Oh well...
I have to say, though, that the fragmentation of ammunition in our nation's military is kind of silly. The .308 round is a good all around cartridge, and it is already implemented in some of our nations finest arms. Would make sense to me to try and put more effort into usable, durable, accurate, and light weight .308 firearms. Just to start a little somethin': I think that fully automatic weapons are a waste. When you can just get a mag of 30 rounds and yank em off as fast as possible, it doesn't make sense to have that 30 finger twitches automated. Unless we are talking about cover fire. You could make the argument that every man should be adaptable, and the only way to do that is to make their weapons adaptable.
Not to mention the .308 is also a fantastic hunting round. More .308 use in the military would mean better R&D for .308 firearms to us civis. I would love to see better hunting arms with military flare in the hands of the average hunter.
All this debate over which cartridge makes me kind of giggle. It also makes me wonder why our military even uses the M4 at all. Such a great gun for hunting and recreation, but really not so good as a weapon. On the other hand, a FAL or G3 are perfect weapons. Strong, durable, accurate, reliable, and generally very useful in combat, just a tad too heavy. Oh well...
What do you mean by "fragmentation of ammunition?" Too many different cartridges? And there's another vote for no machine guns, too.
I see no reason why everyone in a rifle platoon or company has to have the same weapon, which is what many seem to imply. There seem to be enough different tactical requirements for more than one, even in the same environment. And here I assume that the army won't be spending all its time in bare mountains forever, though I don't know where the next jungle fight will happen. And here I also assume that the army will assign the most capable man to the most suitable weapon. Probably only 20 percent of the men will make 80% of the hits anyway, maybe 10%/90%.
The full power intermediate caliber round keeps trying to make a comeback. It might be interesting to note that all armies that used such things in combat, and they all gots lots of experiences under their belts with them, changed to larger calibers or tried to. And yet some that had only used full rifle caliber cartridges introduced either the "new" intermediate cartridges or submachine guns broadly issued. It is so hard to make sense with such a history. I'd have to say the 7.62 NATO is "good enough."
But I think the M4 is "good enough," too. I've never fired one but I had a chance to examine one closely (believe it or not, we had one at work for a while). It was surprisingly heavy compared with the AR-15 I had, presumably because of the rail-type handguard. But it sure was handy. It looked like it would be a lot more practical than any submachine gun. I'd have been happy with one.
And finally, after also closely examining both FN FALs and G3s as well as M1s and FN 49s, I fail to see the attraction of any of them over an M14 other than novelty. And I never thought the M14 had much of a kick. Maybe it helps to have done a lot of shooting with a .45-70, kick being a subjective thing.
I see no reason why everyone in a rifle platoon or company has to have the same weapon, which is what many seem to imply. There seem to be enough different tactical requirements for more than one, even in the same environment. And here I assume that the army won't be spending all its time in bare mountains forever, though I don't know where the next jungle fight will happen. And here I also assume that the army will assign the most capable man to the most suitable weapon. Probably only 20 percent of the men will make 80% of the hits anyway, maybe 10%/90%.
The full power intermediate caliber round keeps trying to make a comeback. It might be interesting to note that all armies that used such things in combat, and they all gots lots of experiences under their belts with them, changed to larger calibers or tried to. And yet some that had only used full rifle caliber cartridges introduced either the "new" intermediate cartridges or submachine guns broadly issued. It is so hard to make sense with such a history. I'd have to say the 7.62 NATO is "good enough."
But I think the M4 is "good enough," too. I've never fired one but I had a chance to examine one closely (believe it or not, we had one at work for a while). It was surprisingly heavy compared with the AR-15 I had, presumably because of the rail-type handguard. But it sure was handy. It looked like it would be a lot more practical than any submachine gun. I'd have been happy with one.
And finally, after also closely examining both FN FALs and G3s as well as M1s and FN 49s, I fail to see the attraction of any of them over an M14 other than novelty. And I never thought the M14 had much of a kick. Maybe it helps to have done a lot of shooting with a .45-70, kick being a subjective thing.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
A few guys hiding in the rocks at 400 or 600 yards are gonna be a problem of sorts, no matter how wondrous a weapon you are carrying. From what I've read, serious fighting has been fairly much up close and personal.
And, as usual, there ain't no "One size fits all." Never has been. Never will be.
And, as usual, there ain't no "One size fits all." Never has been. Never will be.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The only REAL cartridge is the 45-70 !!"
Fuh.
That's a wimpy weenie wanna be cartridge.
The .50-70 is a MAN'S ROUND!
Fuh.
That's a wimpy weenie wanna be cartridge.
The .50-70 is a MAN'S ROUND!
Come and take it.
New member
did eugene stoner live long enough to see the 308 stoner action adopted in the military? He died in 1997 didnt he?
Come and take it. said:
Um, as a matter of fact, the AR-10 was developed for the Army Contract prior to the move to the 5.56 Nato round. It was not chosen for that particular contract. The M-14 won that contract. Stoner adapted the AR-10 designs for 5.56 Nato round in the AR-15 which won the later contract from the Military.
The need for fully automatic MG in a squad is extremely necessary for the application of US Military infantry tactics. Cover fire for maneuvering into position is one of the key elements of any basic attack, without full on automatic fire, the enemy may not get down and any movement done by the individual team within the squad could be detected or receive fire from the enemy. Check out FM 7-8. While the new COIN FM is a little different, the basic tactics in 7-8 are still taught and used. At least I am required to know it for ROTC and LDAC this summer.
Don't know about all units but designated rifle for army units is the M16A4 and for the marines is the M14. That's the problem with blanket statements, to many exceptions.
Being Navy we never had the M14, we went from M1 Garand to M16. I love the M1 but have a love hate with the pentagon over their bastardization of a perfectly good rifle by refusing to let it be a magazine fed rifle with 10 or more rounds and stuck us with the 8 round en bloc clip. It also could have been .276 but again senior staff, namely MacArthur put the kibosh on that. I shot the 7.62x51 version at 1000 yard matches and did fairly respectable with it for a new shooter, (1971), so it was obvious we didn[t really need the 30-06 to wring out the long range usefulness of the rifle.
I could accept the 6.8 but I'd even be happy with the 6.5 Grendel with the 123 or 129 gr bullet. I don't understand why that round isn't given more press time as a serious replacement round for the 5.56.
But what do I know, its just my dos centavos.