I always thought the little .250 Savage loaded to 21st Century pressures would make a great AR round....
Posted on 11/15/2005 2:32:39 AM PST by holymoly
November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army’s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. It’s much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can.
Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.
In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
The other big complaint about the M16 is it’s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the “dust sensitivity” problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.
A decision on the army’s new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue.
Personally I think the future of the gun will be rocket power. Besides nuclear power, it is the best we have.
Recoil could be controlled via a vent out the back of the stock, a much smaller hole then the barrel since it would not be pushing any weight.
Heavy bullets (depleted uranium for instance) could be used for destruction and for withstanding the extreme velocities obtainable. Use your imagination.
I really don't know why this has not been tried. I came up with this idea several years ago.
As for conventional cartridges, there is nothing new under the sun. I think it's time to move on.
Maybe the Dardick will make a comeback. I don't think I have ever seen a "tround".
Been there, done that, shot 72 grain and hit target at 600 yards/meters. Amazing!
Wondering what your take on this discussion might be? The M-16 and its 5.56 round are taking some hits on this thread, but with no real consensus on what makes a good replacement.
I use an old AR-15 in 5.56, or sometimes a mini 14 for a boat gun, mainly because I thought they look intimidating, and I didn't really want to take my .270 out to sea either. Plus, I like the idea of 30 round clips.
Damn,
So now they've raised the weight of that anemic man killer to near the weight of a proven man killer...
Further -- if a two or three tap is required to drop the enemy, the weight/mass advantage of the the M16 ammo over the M14 ammo is lost.
What the hell are they thinking?
Semper Fi
I don't really care for 5.56... there are better options with 6.5 x .308, 6.5 PPC, 6.8 SPC...
There are plenty of M-14 variants out today, and 7.62x51 is a proven performer...
I say it's time to move on from 5.56...
I was not even going to mention the 72s :-) .
POF just has too many things to choose from :-).
.308 Winchester
When I was a kid I saw a rocket car at the local drag strip. No, not a jet car, (though I've seen those as well) a rocket car. It had three stainless cylinders. One large one, and two smaller ones. They lined it up against a Top fuel car (Funny Car).
The rocket car went by and I said wow, that was quick. I thought the funny car had broke, but when I looked back towards the starting line here it came. That rocket car set new track records for ET and MPH on that pass. I can't recall the figures but it just crazy fast.
A few years later a guy had a smaller version on a motorcycle. I read about it in some magazine. The problem was he couldn't hang onto it. These rocket vehicles seem to be limited by the human factor. I don't think they burn fuel but for about half the track, but it is one heck of a shove!
Whether this sort of thing could be minaturized down to something you could use in a rifle, I don't know. But if it could it would be interesting.
Here's a record set back in 1977, by a girl no less.
"1977 was the year... Kitty O'Neil was the driver...Ky Michaelson was the mastermind...Space Age Racing was the team... a record in the quarter-mile was the goal. Not only did the team reach their goal, they smashed it! Kitty ran the quarter-mile in 3.22 seconds at a speed of 412 mph."
http://www.the-rocketman.com/space-age-racing.html
Thanks. Any particular recommendations for boat guns in those calibers? Bearing in mind that its primary purpose would be general self defense in a marine environment, including against pirates?
As reliable a killer as the M14 was -- there were problems.
It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth.
It was too heavy.
The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy.
Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.
"The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards.
At that range, Charlie's AK47 was a spray and pray piece."
But the issue at hand is Iraq and Afghanistan.
From what I have read, the service is reissuing M14s with composite stocks to reduce weight.
Umm, the Soviets went to the 5.45x39 from the 7.62x39, in order to gain the same perceived benefits of our 5.56. They stayed with the x39 so that they could use the same basic weapon design. Kalashnikov himself never approved of the change. He felt they got it right the first time.
I seriously doubt it will EVER happen, but I hope on day it will...
I always thought the little .250 Savage loaded to 21st Century pressures would make a great AR round....
Ever fired an AR-10? That's the same style in 7.62N.
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.