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 ...
I qualified with the M-14 in 1969 and the M-16 in 1970. Hated the latter for the rest of my Army days & since.
PS Magazine said in 2009 there still existed arsenal stocks of M-14s and that these were being issued to our troops still in Iraq. What’s past is prologue.
Years ago I bought a pre-89 M1A/M-14A semi auto. Most enjoyable to fire rifle I’ve ever owned. It was designed to improve on the M-1 Garand and that’s still the case.
The answer already exists. It’s the 6.5 Grendel from Alexander Arms, The round is so ballistically efficient, it has more legality at 600 meters than even the 7.62x51 / 7.62 NATO / .308 NATO) !
With the addition of the 6.5 Grendel to the product line-up at Alexander Arms® in 2004, the history of no compromise design, engineering, and innovation continues. The 6.5 Grendel provides an extreme range capability for tactical applications. These ranges are far beyond those previously achievable with the AR-15 style weapon. The 6.5 Grendel has the flexibility to move from lightweight varmint bullets in the 90-grain class, which offer superb accuracy for competition and small game shooting, to mid-weight, 108- to 120-grain competition bullets, and then on to 130- and 140-grain bullets, ideal for longer range, tactical shooting.
The origin of the 6.5 Grendel may be traced back to the Soviet 7.62x39. This was modified for European competition, being necked down to form the 220 Russian. From here, Dr. Lou Palmisano and Ferris Pindel took the case and blew out the shoulder to create the 22 PPC and the 6mm PPC, which currently dominate bench rest competitions. In designing the 6.5 Grendel, the starting position was the PPC design, but it quickly became apparent that the caliber of the PPC was not as flexible as was needed. Early research with a wildcat 6.5 PPC also showed that the case lacked powder capacity, which, in turn, created pressure problems. The final 6.5 Grendel design draws on the PPC, but it is very much its own cartridge. The internal capacity was expanded by shifting the shoulder forward and the wall thicknesses in the neck and shoulder were increased to provide a more robust case capable of being fed within a semi-automatic rifle. Finally, the external taper of the case was adjusted for reliable feed in the magazine.
The 6.5 Grendel is challenging the status quo in military and law enforcement units around the world. First unveiled in May 2003 at the Blackwater Training facility in North Carolina, the 6.5 Grendel out-shot the 7.62 NATO at range with half the recoil. Still supersonic at 1,200 yards, the 6.5 Grendel delivered superior external ballistics to the 7.62 NATO. Utter reliability, superior external and terminal ballistics than the current state of the art, outstanding accuracy in a lightweight M16/AR-15 platform it is what appears to be the pinnacle for what may be achieved in the M16/AR-15 chassis. The 6.5 Grendel is not a series of compromises, but rather the perfect marriage of mechanical function, internal, external and terminal ballistics all working in harmony.
Shooting a 123-grain Lapua Scenar with a ballistic coefficient of .547 and a muzzle velocity of 2,600 FPS delivers outstanding accuracy out to 1,200 yards. At 600 yards, tennis ball size targets are no match for this flat-shooting round. For extreme accuracy, formidable terminal ballistics and long range applications, the 6.5 Grendel from Alexander Arms is unbeatable.
Compared to the 5.56 NATO, the 6.5 Grendel, with roughly twice the lead mass, gives you the potential for twice the mass of fragments. If maximum fragmentation is coincident with maximum temporary cavity, the terminal ballistics are quite convincing, all in a package that shoots flatter with 50% less felt recoil than 7.62 NATO M80 ball.
“How much recoil you willing to absorb?”
With a compensator and recoil piston you might get down to 7 lbs and carry an additional 2.5 lbs ammo.
Or maybe a polymer Garand in 7.62x39?
I hear a lot of people say that an FN FAL isn’t very accurate but my DSA FAL shoots 3/4” groups at 100 yards with an optic. I just wish it had better iron sights and didn’t have the stupid AWB era muzzle brake so I could thread on a suppressor. I’m looking at just replacing the barrel with a medium weight threaded barrel.
IIRC, DOD has been doing precisely that since Afghanistan - first with the Knights Armament M110 and later the H&K G28 (HK417 variant). It's referred to as the "Semi-Automatic Sniper System".
Take a look at the Beretta BM series of improved garands that include box magazines. My favorite is the shortened BM62.
You kidding me? A 50 cal combat rifle? Did I hear you right?
I think you have the power of the NATO and 308 flipped? NATO uses high pressures than 308. Do not shoot NATO in non-NATO capable 308 rifle.
Steyr-marked barrel? Yeah, those are amazing. Some of the bores I've seen on those look new from the factory - must've had a bunch of unissued rifles, or maybe the Austrians just marched around with them (but not to the practice range).
What optic and mount did you use? My eyes aren't 66 yet, but getting there fast.
Chainmail wrote: “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.”
And, he tends to stay under cover. It doesn’t matter how accurate your weapon is or how far it will reach if you can’t see the target.
That’s one of the reasons we adopted the 5.56 round. There simply aren’t any engageable targets at 700 yards.
You kidding me? A 50 cal combat rifle? Did I hear you right?
No Kidding.
http://www.alexanderarms.com/products/50-beowulf
It’s a great entry rifle that will put a guy in plate armor down for the count from momentum alone even if it does not penetrate the armor.
When it puts guys down, they stay down.
HK91
I was a decent shot, but didn't even rank compared to the Southern boys...those redneck, tobaccy chewing SOBs could put a round up a gnats ass at 500 yards against a 45 mile an hour cross wind {OK, maybe a slight, little white lie}.
Is a white lie raciss???
The M-1 was a heavy rifle, but one of most reliable, semi-automatic weapons ever developed.
Carrying that rifle on a 5/10/15/20 mile trek along with a 50+ pound back pack would bring strong, young men to test their inner strength (we had no women back then and if we did, only one out of 200 could have kept up the pace).
I will say that if we had a woman in our group, we would have carried her and her stuff on those walks into the wild.
I hope you'll discuss this.
I've read a hundred articles and talked to dozens of shooters, and either get opposing answers or shrugs.
Contrary to my intuition and to what you say, my operating premise has been that the newer .308 will take the NATO round, but that the gas/neck situation of the .308 round is not advisable on OLDER 7.62s....?
FALs are more accurate than their reputation and FAL irons are excellent battle sights, especially for snap shooting and for tracking moving targets.
If your FAL is shooting .75 MOA, do not even touch that barrel much less remove the brake or change the barrel.
Medium weight barrels do not shoot 0.75 MOA.
Buy another FAL to suppress and keep this one as it is and never get rid of it.
In fact, consider being buried with it when you pass away.
You don’t want to make a .308 or .3006 rifle lighter. Recoil becomes unmanageable and punishing. Unless maybe you magnaport it or do something to compensate. If you ever tried to fire an M14 on full auto you would know what I mean.
Just double checked.
Seems the rounds are near identical in pressure and performance.
What’s different is that the head space is different. And round construction
Seems opinions are that both rounds can be in a .308
But not visa versa.
OR
BETTER YET
Shoot the correct round for the gun.
The Nato round is a better, more consistant, better constructed round. (thus why it’s military)
http://how-i-did-it.org/762vs308/chamber.html
http://www.fulton-armory.com/%5Cfaqs%5CM14-FAQs%5C308.htm
My first CETME was made from a well worn kit, and it would shoot commercial .308 all day, even though the chamber was fluted. It bought a second one made from a new kit, and the commercial .308 hung up in the chamber. It shot thick walled NATO brass rounds just fine.
True. But the military doesn’t change small arms and basic infantry weapons very often. This is true for most countries.
Head space on the 308 is a touch longer.
The older gun might have had enough slop worked in the allow the 308 to “fit”. The new gun was too tight for the slightly longer 308.
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.