viable military calibers for the trials?

[constructor]

The military trials in July with a "bring all" type of program has really stirred things up.
Some will bring the 5.56 because it is proven and easy with plenty of supply in the chain.
The DOD and a few foreign countries are testing the 6.8 heavily.
Then you have guys with all kinds of crazy stuff like the 6.8/.223, 6mm/223 which may have a place due to the fact they use plain AR mags and fit the current platform with only a barrel change.
The 7.62x39 which i don't think they will go for because it's Ivans round.
The Grendel which they stopped testing a few years ago.
Murray's new round which may be too big for a CQB rig.
And the 308, I also believe this will be too big for a CQB but who knows, it has been proven in some foreign battle rifles I sure don't think they will go back to the M14 or Knight SR25 now.
What do you guys think about platforms and cartridges?
One other thing is scary... I heard there are no accuracy requirements 4-5moa? :shock: :shock:

[marinesg1012]

I think that we will see the 556 the 6.8 and the 308 all tested. We wont use the AK round and I dont see us just shoving a bigger bullet into the same small cartridge.

I dont see how they will only require a 4-5 MOA accuracy standard. There is no way this would meet the USMC shooting spec of a man sized target at 500 meters (this can be done with a stock M4 rifle)

I honestly see them staying with the same basic platform, maybe in some form of piston upper, we will see if they try to change things up completely, From what I understand I think the HK 416 and the SCAR will be the guys to beat, I have buddies that have shot both and they liked them both, the HK is big and blocky though.

I kinda want to see the MASADA from bushmaster but who knows.

Wouldnt mind seeing the AR1 put in for testing :D

[ArtFWTx]

I would venture a guess and say the AR lower stays. The Army said they wanted a new barrel and magazine after the sand test, so that opens the door for a 6.8 upper to compete since they want new mags anyway. Or a new improved 5.56 bullet, and PMAG or similar, with a new 5.56 barrel. We'll see the piston uppers and the midlength improved DI that we keep hearing about competing for the title.

I have no say in this whatsoever, but I'm looking for paths of least resistance to change. Somehow this always plays a role.

With our deficit budgets and current spending emphasis on saving the economy, one of the newer rifles like the Masada/ACR, SCAR-L, etc would have to come in very cheap to win the nod. I'd almost count them out due to the economic situation.

[Clint]

Well your sig says it right there,
AR1 in 6.8 :twisted: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :twisted: :lol:

/rant on
I think there is a place for both 6.8SPC and 7.62x51, hell even some 12 ga. and an RPG style weapon.

Part of the problem with the .mil is its "one size fits all" mentality.
This only helps the logistics, not the effectiveness of the warfighter.
"The right tool for the job" should be factored in.

The 6.8, while great, is not the hot setup for the mountains of Afghanistan.
At the same time, who in their right mind would want to clear houses with a 50 cal?

I think a unit with mixed and flexible armament can be most effective.
The smartest way to do this from a logistics perspective is to base several capabilities on a single common platform.
This keeps training, maintenance and logistics almost as simple as a single version.

I hate to keep brining up the SCAR, but I think they've done it right.
In the same "platform" they have a light 556/6.8 flavor with short/med/long barrels and a heavy 762 also with short/med/long barrels. Add a suppressor option, 9x19 variant, and a shotgun variant, it would be Nirvana.

[constructor]

Adam,
I am with you on the SCAR and 416 but, I heard the SCAR was in trouble and the HK is well...an HK.
The whole HK company is cocky and I think the mil will just ignore HK because they are unwilling to change to suit American needs.
Didn't the XM8 win the trials a few years ago and a contract was given to FN? Now I hear they have changed the SCAR so much there are problems.
Robinson made a good showing a few years ago also but then forgot the blank firing attachment and was eliminated on the 2nd phase of testing.
What weapons have you seen there other than AKs? Tavor bullpup or anything cutting edge?
I would like to go to the trials but that is impossible.
We have been working on making the AR1 easier to produce in time and processes. I changed it to a monochassis that is very similar to the SCAR but a different operating system. If they work as well as I believe they will and I sell 100 I will consider it a successful project. I would need some better contacts to get further than civilian sales but I do have some ideas and a persistent nature.

[marinesg1012]

I have not played with the SCAR but I have heard good things form guys that have tested it for the .mil.... but that was a few years ago so maybe they did change it, and made it worse....

I dont like the HK, just becuase it is german and they are blocky (ie Heavy) and they dont sell to civi's there are a few HK's in the hands of some other companies protecting other gov agencies.. I dont know if they like them or not.

I dont have the inside knowledge that others have, I havent seen much except M4's and M16's.

I agree we cant have a do all approach for a weapon system. However I do think we need to get away from the 556. The USMC is trying to get away from the SAW, I dont agree with them but that is their prerogative I understand why they dont like it but I also dont agree with the replacement

I think if you make a decent product and can get it into the hands of some Civi's and then get certain organizations to test the upper then we will be good to go, I would try to make it so you could build it in 556 if needed but try to sell the 6.8 version.

When it is all said and done I think we will find a replacement for the 556 hopefully the 6.8 will fill that void, I disagree that the 6.8 wouldnt be good for the mountains.. it would be better then the 556 all day long. The 308 our of a carbine is junk too. If the SR's were decent then we could use those as DMR type rifles but I have heard all kinds of issues with the SR's. I think we also have to consider that the Army has already spent the money on this new 556 bullet, now I dont know how easy it would be to use the same technology in a 6.8 loading. Obviously the tooling and such would have to be updated but if you didnt have to redo all of the RandD aspect it would good.

It will be an interesting year for rifles and ammo either way...

I hope Doc stops in and gives us his 2 cents.

[T.Rexford]

Just off the top of my head the 5.56, 6.8, and .308 are all in as was stated before. I think the 5.56 has the best chance with the 6.8 a close second.

The HK is definately out. Even if we said yes lets do it HK would probably put the US gov't on a waiting list haha!

The accuracy thing actually makes sense to me. I see this as preliminary function testing. Then the ones that pass this round will move onto accuracy testing. At this phase I see it more as a competitive bid. I.E. make your rifle shoot X moa and give us the price.

The sand test was a debacle. From what little I've seen I think the ARC will win over the pmag due to the sealing lip. This would mean an AR or SCAR lower (I think the ARC was SCAR and AR adaptable if I remember).

The upper. Hmm its anybdies guess. Piston/DA?? I'm guessing piston will win this but on an AR platform? I don't know.

[Empty Brass]

I think the scar has a great shot because of ease of use, adjustability and reliability. FN also has alot of American ties since alot of Military firearms and civi firearms are made by FNMI in SC.

A scar in 6.8 would be the ultimate rifle.

[constructor]

I agree that the military likes to use the same contractors if the past experience with them was favorable. They will even throw the better design away in order to use a company that pays well :lol:
It is a shame that our military operates like it does. I know they think that by using outside companies they don't have to pay engineers to design weapons but, if the goverment funded and the military designed combat weapons we may already have the "Space Modulator 1000"
What do you think about the 6X45 or 6.8 x45? Do you think there's a snowball's chance of them looking at calibers that have not been tested because they fit the SAW or other LMGs.
Will they really just keep putting this whole thing off until someone walks in with an advanced weapon system like
caseless ammo or what?

[Empty Brass]

Will they really just keep putting this whole thing off until someone walks in with an advanced weapon system like
caseless ammo or what?

in all honesty I wouldnt doubt that. The M4,M16 work and have been moded so much there really isnt much out there that adds a big enough benifit to change it. Besides caliber and besides a gas piston what else is there that isnt the same for the most part. The basics are still there.

I myself would like them to go to offer the Scar L, M, H.

The M (medium) I just made up. That would be calibered in 6.8

[T.Rexford]

I have to say that until they have the Space Modulator 1000 that runs caseless ammo and organic bullets (new EPA standards :)) we will be using something very similar to the standard m4. Now I could see a change of an upper but a whole new system. I don't know.

I also could see an upper change only when another upper comes in for service. Saving money here IMO is going to become paramount.

[marinesg1012]

I think generals are weak and that is why they are generals get some guys that use the guns to kill people and it would be a whole different story....

[constructor]

Are you saying the military thinks men on the ground are cheaper than planes and bombs and are expendable?
I have a problem with that way of thinking.
If they think that way about people being expendable it could explain why they don't care about a better system that will cost more money unless of course it lines their pockets.
Put the Generals on point for a week or two then let them think about it.

[paulosantos]

Are you saying the military thinks men on the ground are cheaper than planes and bombs and are expendable? Exactly.
I have a problem with that way of thinking.
If they think that way about people being expendable it could explain why they don't care about a better system that will cost more money unless of course it lines their pockets.
Put the Generals on point for a week or two then let them think about it.

[marinesg1012]

Are you saying the military thinks men on the ground are cheaper than planes and bombs and are expendable?
I have a problem with that way of thinking.
If they think that way about people being expendable it could explain why they don't care about a better system that will cost more money unless of course it lines their pockets.
Put the Generals on point for a week or two then let them think about it.

Yes this is exactly what I am saying, Generals shouldnt be allowed to make any of these decisions, Generals appeal the senators and such, it should be BN level CO's/Staff NCO's that have a say in what the military needs next.

[paulosantos]

For the price of 1 F22 Raptor or something similar, you could outfit the whole Military with a whole new weapon system. So why don't they do it? The Military believes that boots on the ground don't win wars anymore. They believe technology wins wars now-a-days and they think the current M4 weapons with the 5.56 rounds are good enough. That is why I believe the 6.8 SPC or any other cartridge will not get adopted.

[gdonley308]

For the price of 1 F22 Raptor or something similar, you could outfit the whole Military with a whole new weapon system. So why don't they do it? The Military believes that boots on the ground don't win wars anymore. They believe technology wins wars now-a-days and they think the current M4 weapons with the 5.56 rounds are good enough. That is why I believe the 6.8 SPC or any other cartridge will get adopted.

Hey Paulo did you mean will not get adopted, or will get adopted?

[paulosantos]

For the price of 1 F22 Raptor or something similar, you could outfit the whole Military with a whole new weapon system. So why don't they do it? The Military believes that boots on the ground don't win wars anymore. They believe technology wins wars now-a-days and they think the current M4 weapons with the 5.56 rounds are good enough. That is why I believe the 6.8 SPC or any other cartridge will get adopted.

Hey Paulo did you mean will not get adopted, or will get adopted?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: NOT get adopted.

[Raph]

I'd say either the 6.8SPC or 7mm-08 would be a good round. Platform-wise... I think the SCAR probably will replace the AR eventually. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... d/scar.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/scar.htm)
And don't forget one of Murphy's Law's of Combat, "Your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.", so I don't see it being anything German!

[Raph]

Almost forgot... The 6.8x45mm Kramer UCC seems like it might be an option since its close to the ballistics of the 6.8SPC, yet, you don't have the expense, (and need) of swapping out the bolt and magazines...
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=1143 (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1143)

[constructor]

Almost forgot... The 6.8x45mm Kramer UCC seems like it might be an option since its close to the ballistics of the 6.8SPC, yet, you don't have the expense, (and need) of swapping out the bolt and magazines...
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... e&sid=1143 (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1143)
possibly but 200 fps isn't close in my book comparing his handloads to SSA factory loads, you are reading old data. Kramer is getting 2500 with handloads and a Krieger barrel, I am getting 2900 with handloads and my barrels if you want to compare handload to handload.

[Raph]

Ok, that's something that always kinda made me wonder. (Going to probably show some major ignorance here...) What's so important about something like 200ft/sec? Not like your going to notice that when your on the wrong side of the barrel, and if the grain of the round is heavy enough, its still going to have sufficient knock-down power. I can only see it being an issue, say in a long range shot, to keep enough a$$ behind the round for drop over distance... When I was researching ballistics for my Springfield SOCOM 16 people made this huge deal about a loss of 150 ft/sec because it had a 16" barrel instead of 18" for the .308. I never understood this... Granted I know my Rem. 700 can reach out farther than the SOCOM, but I see them as having two diferent purposes. Thanks in advance!

[constructor]

Ok, that's something that always kinda made me wonder. (Going to probably show some major ignorance here...) What's so important about something like 200ft/sec? Not like your going to notice that when your on the wrong side of the barrel, and if the grain of the round is heavy enough, its still going to have sufficient knock-down power. I can only see it being an issue, say in a long range shot, to keep enough a$$ behind the round for drop over distance... When I was researching ballistics for my Springfield SOCOM 16 people made this huge deal about a loss of 150 ft/sec because it had a 16" barrel instead of 18" for the .308. I never understood this... Granted I know my Rem. 700 can reach out farther than the SOCOM, but I see them as having two diferent purposes. Thanks in advance!
Terminal performance is rated at a velocity. Since 99% of us use expanding bullets for game lets say 1700 fps for reliable expansion. A 6.8 at 2500fps is good for roughly 300 yds one at 2700 is good to apx 400 yds. So we have increased the range of comparable terminal performance by apx 100 yds with the velocity gains we have made.
Or if you want to compare in a military way, each 4" of barrel loses apx 100 fps. The military wants short barrels, so if a 16" barrel in 2004 propelling bullets at 2500 was ok for 300 yds now a 8" barrel is propelling bullets at 2500 so it is now good for 300yds and one of the requirements is terminal performance from 0-300yds.
From what I have heard about one of the recent test, they were penetrating armor plate at 300 yards with an 8" SBR with SSAs 95gr AP round.

[remat457]

A scar in 6.8 would be the ultimate rifle.

I hear FN has a 6.8 conversion unit for the SCAR.

[st6dh]

Are you saying the military thinks men on the ground are cheaper than planes and bombs and are expendable?
I have a problem with that way of thinking.
If they think that way about people being expendable it could explain why they don't care about a better system that will cost more money unless of course it lines their pockets.
Put the Generals on point for a week or two then let them think about it.

Gents,
Sorry Im late but I think I may be able to shed some light. The military selection process is fairly sound, and will involve experienced riflemen and engineers. The Generals you talk about may approve the test results that indicate a clear winner, but if a big powerful Senator or block of senators get behind a different weapon/contractor, thats what we'll get. Do you know how many states are involved in the parts that make up an F22? even better, an aircraft carrier? Its not about what generals want, its about how many jobs for each district can be created/maintained. This is why Beretta and FN now make weapons in the good old USA...Oh by the way, if you look at the bios of guys like Petraus, he walked alot of patrols as a grunt when most of us were still in diapers...and he still will go out with the boys. During my last deployment our CG came to every Memorial, stood in Respect the whole time, and cried with the boys...heartfelt tears..I'm a grunt so i know...cant speak for the Air Force generals of course :roll: