Army planning on a new rifle

[xXped0thugXx]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.


edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.


edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

Where did you see 16.5 lbs? The unloaded weight is nearly a third that.

 

[Beattie]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Beattie
That thing looks like it's made of plastic. I dont know how I would feel going into combat with a plastic gun.

Any armed forces people here have experience with this weapon?

Have you looked at the M16 and M4? Of course, if you make the plastic black it looks better. But then Diane Feinstein will want to ban it.

Actually, I'm not sure if the XM8's stock is made of the same material as the M16/M4. That is an interesting question.

I thought just the front piece and the handle on the m16 was plastic and the receiver and the rest of it was metal. This thing looks like the whole casing is plastic. I mean, I am sure there's metal under there, but I would rather have a metal body keeping dirt out than some plastic thing that will break if it hits something hard. Then again, I have never handled a gun, so I wouldnt know.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx
i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.

edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

Can you provide a link to this proposed 6.62mm? I've heard talk of the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel, but not a 6.62mm.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Horus
ARRRGHHH...By "hitting power" I mean the projectile has more velocity. 5.56 has an AMAZING amount of penetration. THAT'S why it's used! I've seen 5.56NATO rounds blow through a 1/8" steel plate, THEN through a combat kevlar helmet! If the cops at the Hollywood Bank shootout had used AR15's, 2 or 3 rounds would have put a guy down.

And a good soldier always puts 3 into an enemy. Most of the time a single round isn't gonna put someone down, unless it's really, REALLY big. 7.62 won't put someone down for good with a single hit.

5.56 has jack for penetration compared to 7.62 The problem is, those penetration tests were using strengthened core 5.56 rounds vs .30 ball ammo. Now, make it an equal playing field where both calibers are using AP rounds and the 7.62 will make a mockery of 5.56

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Horus
Oh, and 5.56NATO is more used than 7.62NATO because it's lighter, it has more hitting power, cheaper, and doesn't leave such big holes in the enemy. 7.62NATO will blow a rather large hole in Ivan Ivanovitch, Ahab the camel-jockey...whoever you wanna kill.

The 5.56 has more hitting power than the 7.62? Pass me some of whatever you are smoking.

Oh, and it might just be me, but if you are shooting someone, putting a bigger hole in them is almost always a good thing.

its called kenetic energy. the army went with the 5.56 because it is smaller and traveled a hell of a lot faster than the 7.62. It causes more damage.

With all due respect... Check your facts before posting. A 147 grain 7.62x51 round has approx TWICE the energy of a 55 grain 5.56 round.

Let me clarify what i meant. One of the many reasons the Army switched to the M-16 was because of Vietnam. The 5.56 round in a short distance fight (250 yards and less) is a faster round. The 5.56 bullet causes much more collateral tissue damage to a human body than the bigger rounds.

Edit: Just so that you are aware i am very familar with the performance of the 5.56 and 7.62 rounds. I carried an M-16 for 10 years and graduated from the M-60 machine-gun school at Camp Bullis Tx.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Citrix
its called kenetic energy. the army went with the 5.56 because it is smaller and traveled a hell of a lot faster than the 7.62. It causes more damage.

With all due respect... Check your facts before posting. A 147 grain 7.62x51 round has approx TWICE the energy of a 55 grain 5.56 round.

Let me clarify what i meant. One of the many reasons the Army switched to the M-16 was because of Vietnam. The 5.56 round in a short distance fight (250 yards and less) is a faster round. The 5.56 bullet causes much more collateral tissue damage to a human body than the bigger rounds.

IIRC, West German manufactured 7.62NATO had a thinner jacket near the cannelure and exhibited fragmentation similar, but on a greater scale than, M193 or M855. You can make a bullet is just about any chambering fragment, if you build it to do so. Neither the M855 nor the M193 are moving at 2600 fps at 200 yards, and I believe they are both under 2600fps by 150 yards. 2600fps is generally considered the minimum velocity at impact for either of them to frament well. W/o fragmentation, the 5.56mm isn't worth crap, unless you are shooting very small animals (ie, what it was designed for).

 

[xXped0thugXx]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.


edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

Where did you see 16.5 lbs? The unloaded weight is nearly a third that.

someone posted it on a previous page.

6.62mm was just word of mouth from my Company Gunnery Sgt. as well as a 1st. Lt. We were watching video on different tested weapons, M16A2, AK, M203, 50 Cal, SAW machinegun, etc. and what they could cut through, brick, plywood, concrete. We then started to discuss other possibilities for the 5.56mm and the 1st Lt. said that while in Iraq they were considering changing because the 5.56mm would not be effective so he told us in the future it *may* be something to look forward to. again, just word of mouth through my company.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Citrix
its called kenetic energy. the army went with the 5.56 because it is smaller and traveled a hell of a lot faster than the 7.62. It causes more damage.

With all due respect... Check your facts before posting. A 147 grain 7.62x51 round has approx TWICE the energy of a 55 grain 5.56 round.

Let me clarify what i meant. One of the many reasons the Army switched to the M-16 was because of Vietnam. The 5.56 round in a short distance fight (250 yards and less) is a faster round. The 5.56 bullet causes much more collateral tissue damage to a human body than the bigger rounds.

IIRC, West German manufactured 7.62NATO had a thinner jacket near the cannelure and exhibited fragmentation similar, but on a greater scale than, M193 or M855. You can make a bullet is just about any chambering fragment, if you build it to do so. Neither the M855 nor the M193 are moving at 2600 fps at 200 yards, and I believe they are both under 2600fps by 150 yards. 2600fps is generally considered the minimum velocity at impact for either of them to frament well. W/o fragmentation, the 5.56mm isn't worth crap, unless you are shooting very small animals (ie, what it was designed for).

Dont simplify it Mookow. You forgot to add the 5.56's horrid brush cuttin ability compared to the 7.62, you forgot to add that correct frag speed of 5.56 ammo is HEAVILY influenced by barrel length, and most short barreled M16's arent worth a squat past about 50 yards.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.


edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

Where did you see 16.5 lbs? The unloaded weight is nearly a third that.

someone posted it on a previous page.

6.62mm was just word of mouth from my Company Gunnery Sgt. as well as a 1st. Lt. We were watching video on different tested weapons, M16A2, AK, M203, 50 Cal, SAW machinegun, etc. and what they could cut through, brick, plywood, concrete. We then started to discuss other possibilities for the 5.56mm and the 1st Lt. said that while in Iraq they were considering changing because the 5.56mm would not be effective so he told us in the future it *may* be something to look forward to. again, just word of mouth through my company.

The 16.5lbs is for the OICW system, not the XM8.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Dont simplify it Mookow. You forgot to add the 5.56's horrid brush cuttin ability compared to the 7.62, you forgot to add that correct frag speed of 5.56 ammo is HEAVILY influenced by barrel length, and most short barreled M16's arent worth a squat past about 50 yards.

Hey, I'm typing all I can between Nessus scans.

 

[Trente]

Looks like a toy.

 

[xXped0thugXx]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: xXped0thugXx

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: cablegod
They've been thinking about ditching the 5.56mm (.223 Rem) for a while, and it's about time. I wish they'd go with something on par with a .260 Rem or go back to the trusty 7.62NATO.

That would require a hell of a lot more money... 5.56 is pretty universal, and widely available. If they switched to something else, it'd only make sense that they'd have to rechamber the M249, along with other weapons that use 5.56... interchangability of ammo is a big plus.

However, I remember hearing somewhere that the XM8 has interchangeable barrels/receivers which allows rechambering pretty easily. I might be mistaken though.

i know the marine corps is thinking about switching up the 5.56 in the M16 to a 6.62mm. I know the 5.56mm is kind of weak especially compared to the 7.62mm that is used in the AK's. Its been said that often at a range of 300m or so it often takes 2 rounds to kill unless its a head shot.


edit: just saw that its 16.5lbs loaded, thats crazy, the M16A2 is 8.8lbs loaded IIRC, 7.3lbs empty. Twice the weight? NO THANKS.

Where did you see 16.5 lbs? The unloaded weight is nearly a third that.

someone posted it on a previous page.

6.62mm was just word of mouth from my Company Gunnery Sgt. as well as a 1st. Lt. We were watching video on different tested weapons, M16A2, AK, M203, 50 Cal, SAW machinegun, etc. and what they could cut through, brick, plywood, concrete. We then started to discuss other possibilities for the 5.56mm and the 1st Lt. said that while in Iraq they were considering changing because the 5.56mm would not be effective so he told us in the future it *may* be something to look forward to. again, just word of mouth through my company.

The 16.5lbs is for the OICW system, not the XM8.

see thats what happens when you just skim and had a few of these

:beer:

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Munchies
Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

Ignoring the the fact that the US armed services never used ".30 AP Ball" as their standard round and thus could not go back to it, why would you want to go back to the 30-06?

Are you serious??
Two widely used weapins in ww2 used it, please, let the crack pipe cool off before re-using.
Browning BAR .30 ball
m1 Garand .30 ball ap as standard issue ( I have a a full bandolier of i think 6 clips of vintage lake city manf AP .30 ball)

 

[BadNewsBears]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Munchies
Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

Ignoring the the fact that the US armed services never used ".30 AP Ball" as their standard round and thus could not go back to it, why would you want to go back to the 30-06?

Are you serious??
Two widely used weapins in ww2 used it, please, let the crack pipe cool off before re-using.
Browning BAR .30 ball
m1 Garand .30 ball ap as standard issue ( I have a a full bandolier of i think 6 clips of vintage lake city manf AP .30 ball)

Infact, just to prove my point im going to take a picture tonight of my bandoiler that reads ".30 AP Ball" with an M-**** classification, i forgot the numbers though. I will post tonight

 

[FiberoN]

Looks like a paintball gun...

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Munchies
Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

Ignoring the the fact that the US armed services never used ".30 AP Ball" as their standard round and thus could not go back to it, why would you want to go back to the 30-06?

Are you serious??
Two widely used weapins in ww2 used it, please, let the crack pipe cool off before re-using.
Browning BAR .30 ball
m1 Garand .30 ball ap as standard issue ( I have a a full bandolier of i think 6 clips of vintage lake city manf AP .30 ball)

Infact, just to prove my point im going to take a picture tonight of my bandoiler that reads ".30 AP Ball" with an M-**** classification, i forgot the numbers though. I will post tonight

35 results for: "AP ball" BAR
Two results for: "AP ball" garand
Please find me the Mxxx number.

And, btw, why would you want to go back to the 30-06 as the standard round of the US military?

 

[K1052]

Awaiting pic......

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: Munchies

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Munchies
Go back to .30 AP ball if you ask me. (.30-06 Armor Piercing Ball)

Ignoring the the fact that the US armed services never used ".30 AP Ball" as their standard round and thus could not go back to it, why would you want to go back to the 30-06?

Are you serious??
Two widely used weapins in ww2 used it, please, let the crack pipe cool off before re-using.
Browning BAR .30 ball
m1 Garand .30 ball ap as standard issue ( I have a a full bandolier of i think 6 clips of vintage lake city manf AP .30 ball)

Infact, just to prove my point im going to take a picture tonight of my bandoiler that reads ".30 AP Ball" with an M-**** classification, i forgot the numbers though. I will post tonight

35 results for: "AP ball" BAR
Two results for: "AP ball" garand
Please find me the Mxxx number.

And, btw, why would you want to go back to the 30-06 as the standard round of the US military?

Most of the results have nothing to do with ammunition from the looks of it. Those that do are not talking about features of the same round.

 

[Shockwave]

You'll notice its listed as AP/BALL, not AP BALL, thus referring to two different types of ammo. You can call it AP Ball ammo, but its not an accurate term.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven

Originally posted by: Mookow
35 results for: "AP ball" BAR
Two results for: "AP ball" garand
Please find me the Mxxx number.

And, btw, why would you want to go back to the 30-06 as the standard round of the US military?

Most of the results have nothing to do with ammunition from the looks of it. Those that do are not talking about features of the same round.

I know most of the results are not at all valid. That's why I'm awaiting him to say what M-designation his bandolier has printed on it. I know a lot of people who think they own AP rounds... but I know a much smaller number of people who do, in fact, own AP rounds. You can make a lot of money with a can of black spray paint and a case of M855

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Mookow
I know most of the results are not at all valid. That's why I'm awaiting him to say what M-designation his bandolier has printed on it. I know a lot of people who think they own AP rounds... but I know a much smaller number of people who do, in fact, own AP rounds. You can make a lot of money with a can of black spray paint and a case of M855

You can make alot more money with a good bench lathe, tungsten carbide rod, some plastic sabots and a reloading press.......

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Dont simplify it Mookow. You forgot to add the 5.56's horrid brush cuttin ability compared to the 7.62, you forgot to add that correct frag speed of 5.56 ammo is HEAVILY influenced by barrel length, and most short barreled M16's arent worth a squat past about 50 yards.

That was something I never quite figured out regarding the OICW. Why even make a carbine to fire 5.56mm FMJ out of a ten and a half inch barrel?

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Dont simplify it Mookow. You forgot to add the 5.56's horrid brush cuttin ability compared to the 7.62, you forgot to add that correct frag speed of 5.56 ammo is HEAVILY influenced by barrel length, and most short barreled M16's arent worth a squat past about 50 yards.

That was something I never quite figured out regarding the OICW. Why even make a carbine to fire 5.56mm FMJ out of a ten and a half inch barrel?

Easy. The ones that sign off on weapons budgets and approvals arent the ones getting their asses shot of and using half assed weaponry in the field.

 

[Mookow]

Hey Munchies, we are awaiting pics and/or an M-xxx designation.