6.5G AWS
Posted on 05/21/2008 10:50:16 AM PDT by roaddog727
6.5G AWS
If you shoot a moose, bear, buck, I really don't care what; and place a bad shot, a 338 won't take him down. On the other hand, a 270 will drop a black bear perfectly fine if you hit him right. With “hand guns” and in the low velocity ranges you have an excellent point. The 45 has a lot more target effect than say a 9mm, but in the realm of high velocity, things change. -IMHO
Oh man, I want a job at USSOCOM.
Why wouldn’t the barrel, mag and bolt be interchangeable? If you’re firing a larger round, wouldn’t you need a larger bore barrel?
This is only relevant in warfare against First World countries. Against our likely enemies, they are more likely to just leave their wounded for US to care for, producing stress on OUR logistics and medical facilities
What they're saying is that if you want to switch from 5.56 to 7.62, you swap the barrel, mag, and bolt for the 7.62 versions, and leave the frame, trigger, etc alone.
Gotcha
A firefight is a lot different from hunting elk. Proper shot placement isn't always an option in a firefight at night at 300 meters with iron sights. Especially when the target is hiding behind rocks and shooting back. In that case I want the biggest, badest bullet traveling at the highest velocity to create a huge wound cavity and immediate incapacitation. When I hit someone I want them to stop shooting at me immediately, not ten minutes from now.
I agree, both 6.5 and 6.8 rounds have pros and cons but both are superior to 5.56, and fit in the 5.56 envelope.
You can carry 210 rounds 223 in the weight and volume of 120 rounds of 308. The weapon weighs less (by design you can make them lighter); you basically don’t need to compensate for range from 0-300 meters because the deviation from line of sight is 2 inches up and down. Ammo is cheap; training new people is easy on a weapon that isn’t that intimidating. Recoil is low and recovery times fast, and depending on design of the weapon easy to manage on auto. All this is packed into a weapon that essentially does more damage on a human than a much more stable and slower 762x51 round.
**** “In that case I want the biggest, badest bullet traveling at the highest velocity to create a huge wound cavity and immediate incapacitation.”
223 isn’t some magical caliber, nor is it perfect for everything, but it’s a caliber that in most situations offers good all around performance. The M4 “CAN” be operated from a vehicle. 15 minutes later you “CAN” be clearing rooms, and tomorrow you might be on a roof top where you “CAN” take a 200 yard shot. It’s a weapon you “CAN” carry for long times in hill country or jungles. How good would an MP5 work at 200 meters? How good does the M107 work at CQB? How nice and light is an M14 carrying it? 223 is simply a good standard caliber that works well in most scenarios, and you can’t pick and choose what you have that second like in a computer game switching between the nine different weapons one carries there. Those stating the obvious that caliber “X” can carry further or punch through more or whatever else, are playing the game of narrowing in the scope to a small band of variables they deem important that second to make their claim. The problem is that we’re talking about an “all purpose” caliber with mutually exclusive variables at work.
Yes,
I am speaking from the perspective of “Happy-COM”
And also correct, (for now) there is no “Validated requirement” in CENTCOM, “Sad-COM” for this weapon. However, once the word gets out and folks start firing it and engaging live targets, that may well change.
True. IF you're using Ball Ammo. We're dinking around with stuff that's truly “lethal”. To the effect that if you hit the guy in the supper arm, no more arm and part of the shoulder to boot.
That's all I'll say, except that it has undergone JAG review and survived.
please take note of each of the muzzles:
the 7.62 variant is longer than the 5.56 variant. This is to prevent inadvertent “Sound suppressor” installation over the wron caliber barrel. Although you COULD screw the 7.62 suppressor over the 5.56 muzzle. But that's OK - it won't blow up in your face.
also, if you look just above the serration to the rear of the flash suppressor you'll see threading. That's where the “Noise suppressor” screw's onto the muzzle. Very sweet. You DON'T have to remove the existing flash suppressor.
We don’t need a technology driver like the OICW, and we also shouldn’t settle for some re-warmed old potatoes in a new package. What we need at this point is something feasible that brings a real advantage to the table, and nothing so far proposed fits that description.
Think: first mini-ball, semi auto, first breech loader........
What we need is something that “significantly” enhances either the capabilities or performance of the weapon. The goal isn’t to make a fashion statement, change things just for the sake of changing, or to make some guys feel special by adopting a toy for them. We don’t need any more Army black-beret nonsense, and essentially that’s what a lot of this is.
Recoil was insignificant on the SCAR-L and light on the SCAR-H. I was waering a polo shirt and have only minor stippling on my shoulder. That’s after 40 rounds of the 5.56 and 60 rounds of 7.62. With a little padding, I could fire the 7.62 all day.
“We don’t need any more Army black-beret nonsense, and essentially that’s what a lot of this is.”
Until you fire the weapon, you have nothing further to add, other than uninformed opinion.
Personally, I’d like to see a DOD wide transition to the piston action 6.8 SPC M-4.
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.