Posted on 04/06/2017 10:06:27 PM PDT by MtnClimber
For the first time since the M14 was issued in the early days of the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army is giving serious consideration to bringing the battle rifle back to war. According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.
Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.
It’s important to establish right up front that 7.62mm is not the Army’s end goal. The “Interim” component of this capability’s name relies on a plan to eventually adopt one of the 6.5mm family of intermediate calibers. Currently, elements of the Army are evaluating .260, .264 USA and .277 USA. The .260 is commercially available while .264 USA and .277 USA are developments of the Army Marksmanship Unit. Unfortunately, the US Army doesn’t plan to conduct an intermediate caliber study until the early 2020s. That’s why they want to adopt 7.62mm now. The idea is to adopt the Battle Rifle to deal with a newly identified threat with what’s available now, and transition the fleet to an intermediate caliber cartridge, once its selected.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
For me it would depend. In an urban combat environment with close shots I would take a M16/M4 type rifle for the larger magazine capacity.
If out in rural areas I would pick a M14 or 7.62 scoped bolt rifle. The rural squads need some 50 cal Barrets too.
I’ve read that the M16 would jam a lot from the dust in Vietnam and that the AK was better for that type of war.
But since I know #### about military weapons, maybe some with actual knowledge can chime in :)
Not much dust in the tropics of Vietnam.
In Iraq the a1 and a2 would getting dusted up and cause misfires. The best prevention is maintenance and putting a condom over the barrels flash suppressor.
“But since I know #### about military weapons, maybe some with actual knowledge can chime in”
==
You’re still better off than me - I didn’t know the “M” family (or modern variant) wasn’t standard issue anymore.
That's no big deal, really, now that full auto in everyone's hands is declining except for such special cases as urban warfare where the M4 is at its best. They've been talking about a caliber conversion for years, but filling the logistics pipeline with parts and ammunition for a new caliber is going to be an expensive process. If they start now they might be ready by 2020.
Vietnam was a very different battle field than the middle east. In the ME, you have longer engagement distances with 300 to 600 yards not being uncommon and marksmen/snipers being able to extend that range to 1,000 yards.
7.62 works well in that space. M-14 is a rifle already in stock, so it is a natural fit. But truth be told, any 7.62 rifle that is reliable would work.
Alternatives include:
M1 / M14 in bullpup configuration
AR10 and variants like the Remington R25
Keltec RFB
FNH FNAR
FN SCAR
FN FAL
{and others}
In our foreseeable future most of our enemies are chicken feces terrorists that hid a long way away and use IEDs and hide behind children. We don’t have face to face line battles with the Muslims, I mean terrorists. A longer reach round like the 308 might be more effective.
Not much dust in the tropics of Vietnam.
That’s right. Except on LZ’s and then not always.
me neither!!!
I’ve been using an M14 at the range and thought it was the go to weapon.
Used something called a SCAR and didn’t like it nearly as much.
I’m sure the military folk would know the reason the SCAR is used.
You might be thinking of Randy Shugart or Gary Gordon. They didn’t ‘pick up’ anything, one or both were issued M-21s, the Army sniper accurized version of the M-14 -if my memory is still working right.
Lovely rifle, by the way. It ain’t gonna happen for me, but I’d have loved to have had one.
I’m good with my M1A, CQB and as a long distance cordless drill...
You forgot the Mosin Nagant.
CC
There was plenty in the northern reaches of I Corps.
When I was in the Marine Corps we were still qualifying with the M1A/M14 even though the M16 had been in the field for a year or so. The M14 is a superb weapon.
Ed
No real problem, the AR-10 in various flavors flourishes. Easily chambered in one of the new-fangled long range cartridges.
Plus, the take down and manual of arms is the exact same at the mouse (M-16) gun. No retraining, just get used to a bit more weight, especially in ammo load.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.