U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan

[gstewart44]

The 6.8 was developed by and for our Special Forces who saw the shortcomings of the 5.56 without the weight of the 7.62.   I think we should listen to them.

[myronman3]

a friend has a 6.8 that i have shot side by side with my 223.   recoil is almost identical, if you were not shooting them side by side you could not tell the difference.    it is very nice.   that being said, if i were the man making the call, the 6.5 grendel would get the nod as it has the edge in long distance shooting, and that is very important with what our guys are facing. 

[williamlayton]

Someone show some pictures of the 6.8 and 6.5 and explain the differences in range and velocities.
Does the ball ammo make a difference in the two calibers?
What about knock down----whallop?
Are there nay/many negatives to the calibers suggested?
I like where this is going.
Blessings
 

[myronman3]

truthfully, up to 200 yards the 6.8 and the 6.5 are pretty much the same.   it is beyond the 200 yard mark that the 6.5 starts to show it's advantage.  i will disclose right now that i have never shot a 6.5; but being a reloader and rifleman i like the ballistics of the 6.5.   i say give our men the best caliber we can; and if that means picking fly $H*! out of pepper, then we pick fly $#*! out of pepper!  lol.    if i had to pick a caliber to fit into the ar platform that i was going to take into combat and i had the choice between the 6.8, 6.5, or the 5.56; i would take the 6.5 without a seconds hesitation.  
  here is a comparison.  i am sure if you searched, you will find more.  
http://feraljundi.com/2008/07/14/weapons-stuff-the-68-spc-versus-the-65-grendel/
future weapons fleshout on the 6.5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwtMo5-NU1A  
" " the 6.8   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5OmYhA_PS4

[Dee]

I read all this, and have commented on it, and in some ways have agreed, but the real crux in my opinion is not so much as the round used, as it is the BULLET used. I have tried to understand the lack of logic military leaders have in what was once the art of WINNNING a fight. The use of ball ammunition in adverse to a more efficient expanding bullet makes to me little sense, and never has. It is like the leadership is saying: It's ok to shoot your enemy but, try not to hurt him real bad, so shoot him with this bullet. It won't expand and tear his vital organs up so bad.
Having been in a couple of serious fights, and seeing the results of countless ones up close, I have always been of the opinion that if a man is worth shootin, he's worth killin too. A simple expanding bullet such as the Remington bulk 55 grain soft point totally changes the characteristics of the wound at 300 or even 600 yards in regards of the 223's killing ability. AND, the theology of wounding a soldier on the battle field which cause two more soldiers being tied up, or slowed down to try and get him off the battle field. Shoot one, tie up three.
I suspect, after giving it some thought, that this newer rifle we have discussed when issued in mass numbers to the combat theater will have some issues that have not yet surfaced, and could well be worse that what we have. One never knows.
I have also read much on HEAVIER BULLETS being used in long range matches that have resulted in the M16-AR15 rifles to excel in competition against 30 caliber rifles at such places as Camp Perry. Would not a heavier bullet cause the gases to push harder, in cycling the bolt? Of course it would. This is easily noticeable in shooting field loads in a gas operated shotgun, and then shooting magnum, or heavier loads in the same shotgun. The ejection process is far more forceful.
I tend to think bullet weight, and bullet configuration (ball ammo) are the retardant in the case of the 223. JMO

[myronman3]

no doubt about any of that dee.  but i think the 6.5 still has a big power advantage over the 5.56 even with heavier bullets.   what i would really like to see is a gun like the ruger sr556; in a 6.5 grendel... of course it would have to  be called something other than an sr556.   THAT would be the cat's @$$.    

[Hooker]

Any thing in a 6.5 puts a smile on my face

Pat

[billy_56081]

What you say is very true Dan, I don't think the US has signed the Hague convention treaty that bans expanding bullets. I remember hear about blackwater using varmint grenade bullets with awesome results even on marginal hits. I am all for killing as effectivness. Varmint grenades or any other varmint  bullet would do the trick.

[myronman3]

well, they certainly are vermin. 

[Dee]

I don't disagree in a way myron, but why go up in carry weight and bulk with a larger round, when an expanding bullet will do the trick with a few grains of weight added to that? I just don't understand their logic. They blow our guys up, we blow their guys up, and we shoot each other with fmj bullets. Where's the logic in that?
It's like saying it's alright to run over the guy with a hummer, buy not with a tank. And while I'm on that subject, there is no such thing as knock down power. If there was it would knock the shootee, AND the shooter down. A hummer or a tank will knock you down however. Messin up internal organs can be done with a rail road spike or an ice pick, but the results are the same.

[ironglow]

  A couple cardinal points;
  When the m16 came out the DOD(McNamara)did it's reputation much harm by refusing to chrome plate the chamber as Stoner recomended. No wonder they had jams in the steamy jungles ! Added to that, the Army was stubborn enough to insist on using ball powder; again going against Stoner's advice.
   Now the Army is about to give a good gun a  bad reputation ..by misusing the weapon. The M4 is as they said, for close combat (house to house, room to room)..I found through postings here, that Dee's son & my grandson both did that kind of work regularly, and each preferred the Mossy 500.
     In any case, an 8" barrelled rifle is NOT a sniping rifle...it's closer to a machine pistol. Put a .243, .270 or .308 through an 8" barrel and see how much effectiveness you lose with any of them..can't begin to burn all the powder before the bullet exits.
   Surely the Army knows better than to equip a whole squad with only M4s !  It is silly not to have the better shots equipped with accurate rifles for long range counter-sniper action./
  My grandson is a Marine armorer, and if an M16 comes in with malfunction complaints, first thing he checks is the obvious level of cleaning & maintenance, most often the answer is found there.
   Someone suggested that "choice' in weapons would not be good, because everybody would opt for the lightest weapon.  My grandson as armorer, issued weapons for each mission. He told me that the biggest demand was for the M249 SAW....hardly the lightest. He and one other man were designated snipers for their unit, so he tried lots of assemblies at the range and picking the best of each portion, built an M16 with 24" barrel, suppressor/flash hider, Acog, monopod & other "goodies"..
   I carried both the M1 and the M14...I preferred the M14. For me, the M14 just handled and shot better, while the twenty round clips provided more versatility and firepower than the 8 round "throwaway" clip ofthe M1.

     BTW; I never had to carry the BAR..during those years I was built like Mr america..and the BAR was, it seems....usually issued to the smallest guy in the squad...

[williamlayton]

Myron
Thanks for the links. I gained.
Expanding bullets.
I like the idea if you are shooting at one target in the open.
I don't like the loss of energy because it passes thru another mass--be it a door/body/or off a richochet.
Weight is good but if it looses energy down range before it can contact the target is not a good thing.
I do know that iron sights are good to 300 yds--and not just in the hands of a sniper.
The .416 sniper rifle has made abeliever of me when it comes to better designed bullets that carry more energy at supersonic, at long ranges.
It out performs the .50--and carries that speed 1/2 again as far.
Flatter is better in the long run--with kinetic energy.
I like the better designed bullet. I like the 6.5 and would like a better designed 6.8.
I agree too the 6.5 arguements.
Blessings  

[williamlayton]

The M4 is a good platform but the sand plays havoc with it.
The AK is not a better platform but the tolerances make it more reliable.
There are a couple of platforms--already developed--that seem too marry the reliability and accuracy into good platforms,
I am not crazy about the bullpup platforms but there have been some very good reports on them.
Blessings

[ironglow]

   ...I wonder how those bullpups work with a bayonet ?

[saddlebum]

Sounds like they want a do everything gun. Urban assault and sniper rifle in one package. Sounds tricky. Maybe a good 6.5 round in an M4 with a gas piston setup would come a little closer. Still, having a rifle good for everything from 10ft to 800yds? Is that realilistic with full auto ta-boot?

My dad packed a BAR around in Africa, France and Germany. He was a tough SOG. He told me that the guys he was with used to trade their M1s with him to give him a brake on long marches. The M1 ain't exactly light. They helped carry the ammo too. Don't want your cover fire to run dry.

I been thinking alot about him and the men of those days this weekend.

[BBF]

I guess it is OK then for the other side to start using expanding bullets as well. This should reduce the number of walking wounded and add to the carry dead types in a hurry

[Dee]

I guess it is OK then for the other side to start using expanding bullets as well. This should reduce the number of walking wounded and add to the carry dead types in a hurry

No BBF. I think it is UNFAIR that they blow our troops up with IEDs. Their not playing fair. I'm sure you would fight a much more CIVILIZED war.

[Victor3]

   ...I wonder how those bullpups work with a bayonet ?

 They'll work fine, considering that bayonets are just for show nowadays.

 Even during the CW (with much longer rifles and the occasional Napoleonic-style mass charge), only a small percentage of casualties resulted from their use.

[ironglow]

  yes, I know the use of the mounted bayonet is rare now, but with the continued use of hardball ammo, perhaps still needed.
   Truly, if they are so outmoded, why does the military still issue them   especially with the close tolerances the military demands ?

[williamlayton]

Well, lots of good thoughts here.
War IS hell--and the combatants could give a hang about rules in a up close and personal confrontation--either side.
You are sometimes asking for rules that favor "I WIN".
Expanding bullets are not the answer too this question.
The BAR is a good issue and gives insight too answers.
The Marines of WWII are known too allow whole squads to carry BAR's--matter of fact, they looked the other way on squad choices of armement questions.
There is no doubt that the BAR was a good weapon--from this arose the SAW.
It is also not a question that it was too heavy and ammo resupply took a mule train. Bad logistics.
The 6.5/6.8 answers many of these problems.
It can be issued as squad weapons and solve the concern of the SAW--carry more ammo--have more firepower--the weapon is pratical for any adult male (controlable--if understood properly).
It adds simplicity too Logistics.
Blessings

[ironglow]

  I still think the Army's problem with the M4 is simply misapplication. The power and accuracy of the 8" barrel is fine for "close quarters work", esp at full auto. ...But it is sheer foolishness to attempt to employ it as a sniper rifle. Any necked down rifle cartridge is going to suffer from an 8" barrel compromise..even a straight cased round like a .44 mag, .357 mag or 45/70 would lose much cutting a 20" barrel back to 8".
   Just contemplate the venerable .308 from an 8" barrel, would it still be hitting 2700 fps ? Half the powder would still be burning as the bullet left the barrel, so is it wise to employ a sniper rifle with  a huge muzzle flash ?   Would an 8".... 'pistol barrel' provide the same accuracy as the standard barrel of an M14 ?
  
        Surely the Army is not equipping whole squads with M4s, expecting them to be do-all guns...or are they?
              Old Custer was still carrying trap door Springfields, while many of the Indians had Henrys...

[Victor3]

   Truly, if they are so outmoded, why does the military still issue them   especially with the close tolerances the military demands ?

 I suspect they still use them simply for the intimidation factor. Can't see any other weapon-related reason.  I rekun they're good for harvesting bananas or roasting hot dogs though. 

[williamlayton]

A Bullpup witha 16" barrel is the answer many will give.
Blessings

[Cheesehead]

The 6.8 SPC has a design feature not found in the 5.56 or maybe the 6.5 Grendel. The case is tapered to allow better functioning in a dirty chamber.

Cheese

[ironglow]

Proper cleaning and maintenance is still a problem with some factions.
Perhaps the 6.5 grendel or the 6.8 Rem would be some improvement, but is  it worth a wholesale change of weapons for all services ?
  ..And suppose they changed all the weapons next year and a newer, more promising round came out..change again ? Weapons should have some "shelf-life", and there is great investment in various systems for the platform we already have. Not an easy  decision to make, especially since each of the 5 branches is on a budget and have many other things which may be in more imminent need of upgrades.
  
   Yes, the govt could provide the military with more money..but that may short-change midnight basketball, the endowment for the arts and ACORN...can't let that happen.

[billy_56081]

If I were designing a bullet for combat. I would design a hollow point jacketed bullet with a tungsten core in the rear of the bullet. The hollow point would expand and fragment causing severe trauma, while the core would penetrate hard targets. I am thinking that the US did not sign the Hague convention, but follows it. It is time to fight dirty, always fight dirty.

[subdjoe]

Interesting that the brand new wonder child is a weird shaped knock off of a round developed in 1891.  The 6.5 is a time tested, reliable, and accurate projectile. 

[Dee]

I really can't see the need to change platforms. Change uppers, and loosen the tolerance if need be on the design at the same time you increase the caliber. There's nothing wrong with the lowers on the M4, the alleged problems is in the upper.

[nomosendero]

I don't disagree in a way myron, but why go up in carry weight and bulk with a larger round, when an expanding bullet will do the trick with a few grains of weight added to that? I just don't understand their logic. They blow our guys up, we blow their guys up, and we shoot each other with fmj bullets. Where's the logic in that?
It's like saying it's alright to run over the guy with a hummer, buy not with a tank. And while I'm on that subject, there is no such thing as knock down power. If there was it would knock the shootee, AND the shooter down. A hummer or a tank will knock you down however. Messin up internal organs can be done with a rail road spike or an ice pick, but the results are the same.

All of that is true concerning the bullet, the 223 needs vel. plus the right bullet for good effect. And in addition to the bullet, the short barrel reduces the range that the load is effective, it shows up a good deal after 250 yds., which happens alot in the sandbox & yes I am aware of the reason of the stub tube. So, if you keep the short barrel & same bullets, the only thing you can do is increase caliber.

[ironglow]

I guess it is OK then for the other side to start using expanding bullets as well. This should reduce the number of walking wounded and add to the carry dead types in a hurry

No BBF. I think it is UNFAIR that they blow our troops up with IEDs. Their not playing fair. I'm sure you would fight a much more CIVILIZED war.

     ...And of course, we know the jihadists are too decent of folk to use expanding bullets, even if they did have them..

   Anyone interested in some ocean front land in Nebraska ?