The Definitive Military Service Calibre and Rifle For the 21st Century - Part 1

Naval & Military History Page ^ | Unknown | Mike Staples

[ghostcat]

An intersting article I ran across. Very well reasoned.

[headstamp]

Nice article.

"However, this can be overcome quite simply by the introduction of a new .270 cartridge using the 7.62x51 (.308 Winchester) case."


I see we are back to the 7mm Mauser.(grin) or it's modern incarnation, the 7mm/08.

[Hank Rearden]

Whatever is chosen, lube it with bacon grease and make sure the world knows it.

[Khurkris]

.270 is a fine round...however, if ya like it...look at the .280. Its even better.


My money goes for the .308 or the '06.

[MedicalMess]

I agree with the conclusion of the 6.85 x 51mm round as a good ideal projectile. However, some rifle redesign needs to take place to be able to hold on target under auto fire. Something like the roller blowback delay of the HK-G3/91, plus top gas tube piston compensation and a rifle barrel compensator combination will need to be introduced.

[The KG9 Kid]

In short, the author is saying there's a need for a new 7mm cartridge based on the .308 Winchester case.

That's basically the antiquated French 7.5mm MAS loaded with modern propellant. We'd need an entirely new rifle system that would suspiciously end up looking just like our old rifle system that was uniformly abandoned by every participating NATO member.

I've heard this baloney before. The modern trend for accuracy is a shorter and wider case that provides for a fast flame wall using a 6.5mm projectile. We already have better (and equally archaic) 7mm cartridges than what the author proposes, and if you're going to base it on the .308 Winchester case, stop screwing around and just go with the existing 7.62 NATO round so we can all pretend it's 1956 again.

What? We're going to bring back FALs and M14s? I have serious reservations about both designs. Ask Eaker to show you pics of his old M1A.

What's needed is something along the lines of the Steyr AUG-A2 in 6.5mm PPC with an updated accurized trigger system. End of discussion.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... However, some rifle redesign needs to take place to be able to hold on target under auto fire. Something like the roller blowback delay of the HK-G3/91, plus top gas tube piston compensation and a rifle barrel compensator combination will need to be introduced."

I have an Hk G3. Violent recoil and uncontrollable on rapid fire thanks to the delayed roller system.

[nightdriver]

"I have personally experimented with my Omark single shot, heavy barrel target rifle, which has a Weaver 8 power scope fitted. Using 150 grain Sierra MatchKing HPBTs, IMR-4064 powder...."

What caliber were you using? .308? 30-06? 300 mag?

I'm thinking it was a 30-06. The .308 was brought out to provide a shorter throw in the action which reduced the weight, but 30-06 equivalent ballistics are not possible with IMR 4064, due to the smaller powder capacity of the .308.

The .308's ballistics required the use of the more dense filling made possible by using the ball powders, which can be a little tricky up in the maximun load range.

[ghostcat]

Yep. funny how history seems to repeat itself. If I remember correctly the U.S. Military had planned to go with a 270 caliber sometime after WWI but weren't able too because of the cost and the huge stockpile of 30-06 left in inventory at the close of WWI. In fact according to Julian Hatcher, the M1 rifle was originally designed for that caliber.

[ghostcat]

wish I could answer that but I'm not the author, just the poster ;^)

[GSlob]

Well, the projectile weight is a more or less given, out of modern propellants one have already squeezed about everything possible, thus the only place to look at to get lighter rounds for carry purposes would be the caseless ammo. And these developments are in the experimental stage.

[ghostcat]

You anticipated the Authors next article. He advocates the FAL.
6.5 ppc would work for me. Though I'm still rather fond of the M-14 design, albeit updated.

[de Buillion]

Thanks for posting this!

[Hugin]

Why they ever abandoned these powerful cartridges, exchanging them for the .223 (5.56mm) "squib" used in the M16 Armalite rifle, is anybody's guess. (The official reasons included reducing recoil and facilitating fully automatic fire. -Ed.)

I believe the ability for a soldier to be able to carry about three times as much ammo was a major factor also.

[ghostcat]

I think his argument is based on the idea that you wouldn't need to carry as many rounds if the rounds were more effective. A lot of the troops coming back from combat are complaining about the effectiveness of the 5.56, especially compared to the 7.62x39. The same complaint was expressed by my brothers coming back from Vietnam.

[de Buillion]

"What's needed is something along the lines of the Steyr AUG-A2 in 6.5mm PPC with an updated accurized trigger system. End of discussion. "

Amen to that, or one of the new WSSM's, pick your caliber-( what's a calibre? sarcasm)

[nightdriver]

"....out of modern propellants one have already squeezed about everything possible...."

Maybe not. About 15 years ago, I saw a German tank in a firepower demonstration firing its cannon. There was nothing but heat waves coming out of the barrel behind the projectile, none of that redish smoke that typifies the cordite-based powders we have used for years.

I sure wish I knew what that German powder was.

[GSlob]

One could easily stabilize the automatic rifle to acceptable levels by symmetrizing the moving masses around the barrel axis - in the case of a familiar AK design it would mean having a redesigned bolt carrier with TWO gas pistons, one on the left and another on the right side of the barrel, instead of the present one on top. But that would mean heavier, more complex and expensive rifle. The requrement to ammo is: powerful, precise, reliable, cheap to produce in quantity and light weight. The requirement to the rifle are the same.

[GarySpFc]

I am a Nam Special Forces veteran, and I have lugged both the M-14 and the M-16 many miles with ammo and a full combat pack. There are advantages with the M-14, however lots of ammo is extremely important, and when in the brush that is a MAJOR problem with the 7.62. I will take the M-16 any day of the week over the M-14.

[lentulusgracchus]

My money goes for the .308 or the '06.

Concur.

With a billion rounds and hundreds of millions of weapons produced and still in armories in these calibers, practicality dictates continued use of these calibers.

The .308 and .30-06 are close enough in ballistic terms that we are at "pick 'em". Prior engagements and logistical realities should decide the matter in favor of the .308 NATO round -- with allowances made for older .30-06 arsenal queens still in the possession of The People.