Posted on 11/17/2005 7:52:28 PM PST by strategofr
I did 16 months in the 4th Inf. and 1st Cav as a rifle platoon leader and later in Recon. Started with an M16 with several magazines of tracer round for spotting fire. In my opinion that was about all it was good for. Next carried a Car15 that was very useful because of its compactness, but you really couldn't say it was useful at anything over 50 yards because of the short barrel and sight radiuss.
Went to an M79 next and used WP to again spot fire. Man did I develop a new respect for grenadiers. The ammo was a heavy load.
Finally, I found in supply 6 M14's that were in virtually new condition and had been previously used for ceremonial purposes. I talked the old Sarge out of the best one and started carrying it. What a shooter. Sure the weight of the ammo was a problem but the reliability and ability to chop brush, not to mention its reliability again, gave me a weapon I felt served all my needs in the field.
When I got sent to the Cav I managed to take it with me. I took it to the sniper school at Bien Hoa and the gunsmiths there accurized it for me. Talk about a tack driver when used with the match ammo they gave me.
I even tried a Thompson (heavy) and an M3 (ditto) but they had nothing to say after about 50 yards. Up close they were something else. But so was the M14.
The M14 was probably the last of the classic battle rifles.
I think something along its lines but in the 7mm range would be an ideal combination of bullet weight and range. Then, again, there's nothing wrong with 7.62 NATO except the weight of the ammo.
bfl
...and what if the cases were made of indestructible, molded plastic instead of heavy brass? Just wait. Stay tuned.
Memo to Self:
Don't get shot today
This reminds me of Wyatt Earp's advice for success in a gun fight, "The key to a gun fight is taking your time real fast."
"Whatever we decide, I think we should get the opinion of combat infantry veterans, asking them how much power they need in an infantry rifle vs. how much weight they are willing to carry. We should consider how important it is for one shot to reliably knock down a bad guy. I have this feeling that from 1898 until today, the military bureaucrats haven't always asked the grunts for advice. (I can't resist a political comment: I never liked Robert Strange McNamera.)"
Thanks much. In my opinion, your post is good enough to serve as a vanity post on FR. I also think you should submit it to be an article on Strategy Page (they provide a small compensation). It may be rejected on Strategy Page on the grounds of redundancy, but I would split it anyway. Thanks again.
"If you can see me at all...you are DEAD! Please stand up and make this easier on all of us. It's not guaranteed painless if you hide."
LOL!
Never been a fan of small bullets, even the M16 round is too small. 1 Shot, 1 Kill.. if a torso shot unprotected doesn't take them out of the fight, the calibre is too small.
"1. Lightweight ammunition... and it was judged that the 5.56mm round would be sufficient at such ranges."
Thanks. Very good points. What if we redefined the question from "What is the best single bullet/gun," to "What are the best two bullets/guns?"
Might we not have a better chance of pleasing almost everyone? Would our modern manufacturing/supply capabilities be able to effectively handle two basic weapons and their ammunition (in combat conditions)?
""The key to a gun fight is taking your time real fast.""
I like it!
The magazines contributed to much of this weight. An effective reduction could be achieved with a material other than the steel that was used.
Can't wait for plastic cases.
The .308 is used in the AR-10 not the AR-15.
As others have indicated, I wouldn't want to get hit with even a .22LR. However, if I had to choose what to get hit with, I'd choose the smallest caliber bullet possible.
In any case, I think that our armed forces need a cartridge with more first-round kill/incapacitate capability than the 5.56mm, and also with less weight than the 7.62mm (because more rounds is generally better, and weight is clearly a limiting factor there). The 6.8SPC has been discussed on this thread, and endlessly hyped by many, but the new 6.5 Grendel is actually better. Short range (i.e. under 150-200 yards), the 6.8 and the 6.5 are within a few percent of each other (when similar weight bullets are used), and both are quite a bit better than the 5.56mm. However, beyond that range the vastly superior ballistic coefficient (i.e. ease of going through the air) of the 6.5 makes it a far better choice.
The 6.5 Grendel is short enough to fit into an AR-15/M16/M4 mag well, though it needs different mags (big deal, the armed forces don't pay more than about $5 per - so 25 million of them is less expensive than 1 new fighter). It can be used much more effectively than the 5.56mm, and roughly as effectively as the 6.8 SPC at close range. It can function very well as a sniper round (it actually delivers more energy than the 7.62mm rounds past roughly 500 yards, and is at least as accurate - just ask those with Swedish Mausers), and can also be used for the SAW. In short, the 6.5 can do it all.
Anyone can read all about the 6.5 Grendel at http://www.65grendel.com/ More info is available by pushing the "Articles" button at the top of the screen.
By the way, I have no financial interest in the success of the 6.5 Grendel. I just think that it is a better round than all other alternatives (5.56, 6.8 SPC or 7.62).
Here's a great article from the 6.5 Grendel website that is right on point: http://www.65grendel.com/65g_unifiedmilitaryround.htm "The 6.5 Grendel as a Unified Military Round." It talks about using a handgun round, the 6.5 for basic rifle, sniper and light MG duty, and the .50BMG as a heavy weapon. This is just what we did in WW2, except that now we use the 9mm instead of the .45, and we used the .30-06 instead of the Grendel. This offers VASTLY simplified logistics, which will save both money and (more importantly) lives - on our side, that is.
Maybe not even tomorrow!
" In short, the 6.5 can do it all. "
Cool post, thanks.
amoung other things, when initially test firing the xm8 for the us army, it blew up in the designers face.. he lost an eye, and i think some fingers..
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.