Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Incorrigible; Long Cut; archy; Travis McGee; PoorMuttly
To replace the weapon and keep the caliber is foolish IMO. 6.5MM Grendel is an awesome caliber to consider ! If the DOD sticks with 5.56MM then at the very least go to the Black hills 77gr round and a suitable twist rate in the barrel......Mk262 I believe is the DODIC.

Stay Safe !

88 posted on 03/21/2004 11:31:48 PM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Squantos
I look at these upcoming developments with two considerations firmly in mind: if the cartridge does not happen to work out or prove suitable under the circumstances of the conditions of some future conflict, can the weapon at least be refitted or converted back to the preceding technological state of the art, in this case the 5,56mm/M855 cartridge. It looks like the XM8 has no problems in that respect.

Remember that in the 1930s when John Garand was developing America's first semiauto service rifle, he had originally intended it for a 10-shot .276 cartridge that would have probably been an improvement over the 1906 cartridge design used in the M1903 Springfield rifle, itself in its third generation of cartridge and second major modification of rifle. But the stocks of leftover WWI ammunition were huge, and the financial conditions of the Great Depression dictated that we could have the new rifle, or the new ammunition, but not both, and then Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur ordered that the new rifle be fielded in the same .30-06 ammunition as the M1903 Springfield, M1917 rifle, the B.A.R, and the .30 caliber machineguns. The war came, and MacArthur's decision proved to be a good one, and soldiers from Patton to priovate praised the Garand rifles they'd carried through that war. Half a decade later, the surprise of another war in Korea came to us, and the Garand proved still suitable in that conflict as well. And still it soldiers on today, here and there, as in Haiti, where it's recently had a part in another dictator's regime change.

If the 6,8x43 cartridge, not too dissimilar from the 7x44mm cartridge once proposed by the Danish Madsen firm proves to be more generally suitable than the 5,56mm, swell, we've again advanced the state of the art, and done a little more to give the American fighting man the best possible equipment with which to accomplish his task. If that cartridge changeover proves to be financially or technologically unsuitable, we can use the new rifle in the old cartridge chambering, maintaing the option of an eventual conversion *someday* if possible. And it's at least possible to changeover older M16/M16A1/M16A2/M4/AR15 rifles as well, should the new ammunition be an absolute success, as support and rear-area backwater troops have their capabilities enhanced, first with the new ammo, maybe eventually with the new weapons as well.

That looks like a win-win opportunity to me, well thought out and with fallback options if a part of the overall puzzle doesn't fit. My immediate respoonse has been to shop around for a few more AR15 lower receivers, at least one to be built up in the configuration with which I'm particularly familiar and fond of. The others may wind up in trim that conforms to the more recent thinking, or may not; we'll see how the Barrett and HKM4 upper receiver configurations work out in service. I'' be watching and listening carefully, but I don't at all consider myself locked into either the M16 platform or either the old 5,56mm or new 6,8mm ammunition.

96 posted on 03/22/2004 2:29:21 AM PST by archy (Concrete shoes, cyanide, TNT! Done dirt cheap! Neckties, contracts, high voltage...Done dirt cheap!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson