Posted on 04/07/2017 7:37:17 AM PDT by C19fan
On the heels of the Marine Corps' desire for a new rifle for its infantrymen, the U.S. Army now says it is contemplating a dramatic switch in rifles. The service is considering going back to battle rifles—heavier rifles that can hit targets at longer ranges. The last time the Army fielded such a rifle was in the 1960s.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
If you’re going New then go New , don’t just add features to the Old M16 ,D’oh
The democrats would claim a “heavier” weapon would be an unfair option to the women they feel should be in combat roles and are as capable as the men.........Oops...
How light do you think they could make a Garand?
How about the technology that made smart bombs, smart. Videos show Taya Kyle hit 100% of shots with no training. Dead center shots at 800+ meters.
Shoulda stuck with the .45-70.
The civilian world is flooded with 7.62NATO caliber Stoner-pattern rifles. Perhaps that’s where they should start looking ...
A simple solution would be just use a piston driven upper chambered for a 223 necked up to 6.5. Then you can use the same lowers and magazines. The US military absolutely needs to adopt an AR-10 platform to replace the m-14 for snipers and designated marksmen
Depends on how long you’re willing to have your head and shoulders above cover while you’re aiming.
The enemy tends to shoot back.
I knew nothing about guns and weaponry as a 17 year old city kid and really, didn't learn much more in the immediate years following discharge, but as I've aged and experienced, I prefer the 7.62 caliber and though I haven't fired one since my mid sixties Army days ... I did like the feel of my M14.
My two cents' worth.
A lighter Garand? How much recoil you willing to absorb?
If you’re serious about fighting, 9.5 pounds aren’t a problem.
FN SCAR H all day, every day.
Swap in an 18 inch barrel and you are good out to the range of the 7.62 NATO cartridge with accuracy slightly less than a dedicated sniper rifle.
Luv my Springfield M1A
I tend to agree on the Stoner based rifles. One thing missing from the discussion is the impact that new sighting systems have had on the battlefield. Our soldiers are far more accurate and lethal today thanks to these sighting systems. This erases the need to carry as much ammunition into battle and that was one of the main reasons we selected the lighter 5.56mm round over the .308 and 30-06.
The 5.56mm is a decent round in the open, but in urban combat the disadvantages of the round in penetrating even light cover have been proven. In open desert and mountains the shorter range has also proven a disadvantage because the average soldier can score hits with the new sights far beyond the effective range of the 5.56mm. The heavier rounds are far more suitable for shooting at far distances. This issue is reviewed continually by men who base these opinions on experience.
We already have the round - the .308. There are already solid rifles and platforms available that use this round.
Our special forces actually used a modernized version of .45-70 in a specially chambered M-4 system for close quarters entry applications and blowing doors off their hinges.
They call it the Alexander Arms Beowulf .50
They loved it when it worked but it was unreliable in full auto in the M-4 so they moved on.
IIRC the M14 was widely panned in Vietnam due to weight of weapon and ammo, plus the generally short range of engagements there.
Perhaps the conditions in Vietnam were too specific to serve as a guide for a standard design that would have to be used in a broad range of environments around the world.
However, it may be that the current change may also be in reaction to specific conditions, in Afghanistan, that are unlikely to be the case in the next place US infantry is deployed. In extended urban combat say.
The ideal would be to have a stockpile of different weapons and their ammo that can be issued as local requirements dictate. That could get very expensive, not just in purchasing all that stuff, but moreso in training everyone.
Take away the wood and replace it with some sort of plastic, like the M16.
I have an AR in 6.5 Grendel. You can change the barrel, bolt carrier and magazines on an existing AR and you have a rifle that has an effective range of 800 plus yards. It pretty much equals the overall ballistics of the 7.62 NATO at that distance. You sacrifice little in magazine capacity and the recoil is much lighter than the 7.62. Accuracy is excellent. It is an good round for hunting deer size game so it will drop a enemy soldier in his tracks.
The M-14 is a great rifle.
My pastor was a Marine and was greatly disappointed when they took his and gave him an M-16.
FWIW, .30 cal battle rifles all seem to weigh about 8-10lb.
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.