Military Is Looking For 50,000 New .30 Rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.
The "infighting" with this issue must consume wicked amounts of tax dollars while they duke it out...

It keeps coming up over and over and over and over...

The truth is, most "special teams" can order whatever they want.
and always, always, always pick the weapons off your dead enemies.
 
It's called a joke. There is absolutely nothing political about my comments.

Why does somebody always have to claim politics to lock a thread. Are people that touchy about their chosen ideology? In case you haven't noticed DC is quite amusing.
 
By always, I guess that you are stating that you aren't that much of a newbie, but have been previously banned.

Do the mods a favour, and state outright which banned account you were, so hopefully Bill's thread keeps motoring.
 
This means a 50% rise in ammo prices? Whatever they find they going to take it off the consumer market.
 
Originally Posted By: NateDN10
What happened to 6.8 SPC?


It's not a NATO cartridge. The military always looks for standardization with it's NATO allies. It's the main reason we dropped the .45 ACP in favor of the 9 MM back in 1985. While the 6.8 SPC can be considered a ballistically effective cartridge, it is an oddball. The 7.62 X 51 MM, (.308), has been around forever. And the military already has tons of ammunition stockpiled in that caliber. And it offers a huge ballistic improvement over the .22. So it isn't surprising that's the cartridge they want to run with.
 
Originally Posted By: Claud
No good coming up with a great gun without great soldiers properly trained in its use.

Claud.


We do have those great soldiers.

Are you suggesting otherwise?
 
Originally Posted By: DdDd
It's called a joke. There is absolutely nothing political about my comments.

Why does somebody always have to claim politics to lock a thread. Are people that touchy about their chosen ideology? In case you haven't noticed DC is quite amusing.


It was inherently political.

Are you unable to see that?
 
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
This means a 50% rise in ammo prices? Whatever they find they going to take it off the consumer market.


I would say just the opposite. The more the military invests in a cartridge, the cheaper the ammo becomes. Look at .223 / 5.56 MM compared to .222, or .22-250. It can be had for less than half of what the ballistically competitive commercial cartridges go for. Same with the .308 / 7.62-51 MM. Cabela's has it on sale for just $10.99 a box, (20 rounds). Again, compare that to similar size and power commercial calibers. Same deal with 9 MM compared to .38 Special.

The best example is the .50 BMG. You can buy it all day long for $2.50 a round if you shop around. Compare it to any of the Weatherby Magnum, Rigby, or H&H Magnum cartridges. It is many times cheaper per round. While at the same time contains over twice the brass, powder, and lead of the others. And has far more power. Military standardization is the reason why.
 
I read something I couldn't believe but appears to be true. There is something like a ratio of 50,000 shots fired per each enemy combatant killed. not counting snipers.

Just a crazy high number. Does it really matter that much about ballistics?

Them bigger bullets weigh more and not all soldiers want to lug around the heavier rifle and ammo.

Regardless, let the military decide what they esn't and they feel is most effective. They should have this sorted out by 2037.
 
Originally Posted By: Leo99
I read something I couldn't believe but appears to be true. There is something like a ratio of 50,000 shots fired per each enemy combatant killed. not counting snipers.


That argument actually supports this decision. When the military went to the .223 in the M-16, it was the birth of the, "spray and pray" tactics learned in the jungles of Vietnam. Marksmanship became less important than, "volume of fire". Which basically translated into more ammo being pumped into the dirt and surrounding hillsides. This was supported by the .223, because it allowed soldiers to carry more ammunition, due to the fact the .223 round was smaller and lighter than the .308, M-14 round. It was also more controllable under full auto fire. That didn't seem to matter because the rounds fired to kill ratio went off the chart. Carrying a lot of ammo accounts for little when you can't hit anything with it. Also the rapid fire Vulcan Mini Guns did nothing to help manage those numbers either.
 
This is the usual back-and-forth. When we have combat in rural/mountainous terrains, we need a larger caliber (read: 30) rifle with longer range. When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).

What we have now is an unhappy compromise, a very heavy bullet (for caliber) in the 5.56mm. Thus all the small procurement 7.62mm rifles like the M110.

There is a single solution, something about 6.5mm. Or, just issue both 5.56mm and 7.62mm, it's not like we can't handle the logistics of providing both.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).


That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
 
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol. Today we've got 30 shot .22's and 15 round 9 MM's, and we can't seem to actually win anything. But back then we trained marksman, not spray and pray tactics.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol. Today we've got 30 shot .22's and 15 round 9 MM's, and we can't seem to actually win anything. But back then we trained marksman, not spray and pray tactics.


The nation's willingness to accept casualties has gone greatly down since WW2. Also, there are no despots trying to take over the world like there was in WW2.

The world is a lot more complicated today in a lot of ways.
 
Most of the posts here are almost entirely based on logical fallacies.

Marine shot/kill ratio increased 250% from WW2 to Vietnam. Army shot/kill ratio increased 800%. This was because of a difference of tactics not cartridge lethality. In fact, studies of after action reports d-demonstrated that the 5.56mm cartridge had increased lethality over the 7.62mm at ranges inside 200 yards.

There have been two independent changes to the M-16 that when combined have significantly reduced lethality. Changing from the 55 gr. M193 to the 62 gr. M855 and reducing the M4 barrel to 14.5". It is ironic that the one of the reasons for the bullet change was to increase long range performance and the shortening of the barrel was for CQB. Only the Pentagon could screwed things up this bad.

So in two recent posts HangFire gets it exactly right and let's just say billt406 is clue challenged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top