It sounds like an old folks home for retired armchair generals.
Military Is Looking For 50,000 New .30 Rifles
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol.
This is a wrong perception. Roy Dunlap was a gunsmith through WWII and wrote a book about it. He wrote how the M1 Carbine (you left out) was highly popular in jungle combat and the Garand more so in open terrain. His company commander kept a more than sufficient supply of weapons so his troops could load out as desired for the mission at hand.
Also war hero Audy Murphy loved firepower and loaded up a Jeep with all kind of full auto weapons including German MG's (because of the higher rate of fire). He wasn't exactly ineffective in combat.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).
That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
It's not one or another. Tough house to house combat is won with SMG's and snipers (and explosives, but let's stick to small arms). GPMG's are nearly useless except on vehicles to command streets.
Jungle warfare is won with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are nearly useless at long distances and open terrain. Rifles and GPMG's are the weapons of choice.
Trying to reduce one side of the argument to "spray and pray" is just a straw man. Disciplined use of Full Auto has its place in modern combat.
No, it's not a, "wrong perception". You're only reading what you want to read..... I said we had many other weapons in our inventory then, just as we do now. It doesn't change the fact our main battle rifle throughout WW II WAS the 8 shot, semi auto M1 Garand. And our service pistol was the 7 shot 1911. Today it's the M-4. And they are looking to change that, because of a never ending plethora of problems that have risen ever since it's been deployed in Vietnam. While It's been all but "improved" to death, they're still looking for ways to get rid of it. While the M1 has been described as, "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised", by one of the greatest Generals who ever lived.
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol.
This is a wrong perception. Roy Dunlap was a gunsmith through WWII and wrote a book about it. He wrote how the M1 Carbine (you left out) was highly popular in jungle combat and the Garand more so in open terrain. His company commander kept a more than sufficient supply of weapons so his troops could load out as desired for the mission at hand.
Also war hero Audy Murphy loved firepower and loaded up a Jeep with all kind of full auto weapons including German MG's (because of the higher rate of fire). He wasn't exactly ineffective in combat.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).
That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
It's not one or another. Tough house to house combat is won with SMG's and snipers (and explosives, but let's stick to small arms). GPMG's are nearly useless except on vehicles to command streets.
Jungle warfare is won with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are nearly useless at long distances and open terrain. Rifles and GPMG's are the weapons of choice.
Trying to reduce one side of the argument to "spray and pray" is just a straw man. Disciplined use of Full Auto has its place in modern combat.
No, it's not a, "wrong perception". You're only reading what you want to read..... I said we had many other weapons in our inventory then, just as we do now. It doesn't change the fact our main battle rifle throughout WW II WAS the 8 shot, semi auto M1 Garand. And our service pistol was the 7 shot 1911. Today it's the M-4. And they are looking to change that, because of a never ending plethora of problems that have risen ever since it's been deployed in Vietnam. While It's been all but "improved" to death, they're still looking for ways to get rid of it. While the M1 has been described as, "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised", by one of the greatest Generals who ever lived.
Originally Posted By: userfriendly
It sounds like an old folks home for retired armchair generals.
The only problem with your analogy is it's not, "old armchair generals" trying to rid our military of this dog with fleas.... It is the current crop of leaders who heads it.
It sounds like an old folks home for retired armchair generals.
The only problem with your analogy is it's not, "old armchair generals" trying to rid our military of this dog with fleas.... It is the current crop of leaders who heads it.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol.
This is a wrong perception. Roy Dunlap was a gunsmith through WWII and wrote a book about it. He wrote how the M1 Carbine (you left out) was highly popular in jungle combat and the Garand more so in open terrain. His company commander kept a more than sufficient supply of weapons so his troops could load out as desired for the mission at hand.
Also war hero Audy Murphy loved firepower and loaded up a Jeep with all kind of full auto weapons including German MG's (because of the higher rate of fire). He wasn't exactly ineffective in combat.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).
That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
It's not one or another. Tough house to house combat is won with SMG's and snipers (and explosives, but let's stick to small arms). GPMG's are nearly useless except on vehicles to command streets.
Jungle warfare is won with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are nearly useless at long distances and open terrain. Rifles and GPMG's are the weapons of choice.
Trying to reduce one side of the argument to "spray and pray" is just a straw man. Disciplined use of Full Auto has its place in modern combat.
No, it's not a, "wrong perception". You're only reading what you want to read..... I said we had many other weapons in our inventory then, just as we do now. It doesn't change the fact our main battle rifle throughout WW II WAS the 8 shot, semi auto M1 Garand. And our service pistol was the 7 shot 1911. Today it's the M-4. And they are looking to change that, because of a never ending plethora of problems that have risen ever since it's been deployed in Vietnam. While It's been all but "improved" to death, they're still looking for ways to get rid of it. While the M1 has been described as, "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised", by one of the greatest Generals who ever lived.
small arms don't win wars
but they do dictate doctrine. The German and Japanese standard bolt action rifles coupled with proper machine gun placement and use proved to be pretty darn effective.
If we are talking purely about the weapons side of things and ignore the economic, geographic and production advantage something like the invention of a functioning and effective proximity fuse used on land and sea based artillery made a much bigger difference.
Radar aimed naval guns were also a pretty big advantage during the war.
imo
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol.
This is a wrong perception. Roy Dunlap was a gunsmith through WWII and wrote a book about it. He wrote how the M1 Carbine (you left out) was highly popular in jungle combat and the Garand more so in open terrain. His company commander kept a more than sufficient supply of weapons so his troops could load out as desired for the mission at hand.
Also war hero Audy Murphy loved firepower and loaded up a Jeep with all kind of full auto weapons including German MG's (because of the higher rate of fire). He wasn't exactly ineffective in combat.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HangFire
When in jungle or urban combat, we need higher volume of fire, lower load weights and range is not as important (read: 5.56).
That's exactly the vicious circle we managed to get ourselves into that has created a lot of this. There is no advantage to a, "high volume of fire", regardless of the caliber you're trying to accomplish it with. Especially if it creates a condition that requires a 50,000+ round count to kill anyone. That's insane.
It's not one or another. Tough house to house combat is won with SMG's and snipers (and explosives, but let's stick to small arms). GPMG's are nearly useless except on vehicles to command streets.
Jungle warfare is won with assault rifles.
Assault rifles are nearly useless at long distances and open terrain. Rifles and GPMG's are the weapons of choice.
Trying to reduce one side of the argument to "spray and pray" is just a straw man. Disciplined use of Full Auto has its place in modern combat.
No, it's not a, "wrong perception". You're only reading what you want to read..... I said we had many other weapons in our inventory then, just as we do now. It doesn't change the fact our main battle rifle throughout WW II WAS the 8 shot, semi auto M1 Garand. And our service pistol was the 7 shot 1911. Today it's the M-4. And they are looking to change that, because of a never ending plethora of problems that have risen ever since it's been deployed in Vietnam. While It's been all but "improved" to death, they're still looking for ways to get rid of it. While the M1 has been described as, "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever Devised", by one of the greatest Generals who ever lived.
small arms don't win wars
but they do dictate doctrine. The German and Japanese standard bolt action rifles coupled with proper machine gun placement and use proved to be pretty darn effective.
If we are talking purely about the weapons side of things and ignore the economic, geographic and production advantage something like the invention of a functioning and effective proximity fuse used on land and sea based artillery made a much bigger difference.
Radar aimed naval guns were also a pretty big advantage during the war.
imo
Originally Posted By: brave sir robin
......small arms don't win wars....... If we are talking purely about the weapons side of things and ignore the economic, geographic and production advantage something like the invention of a functioning and effective proximity fuse used on land and sea based artillery made a much bigger difference. Radar aimed naval guns were also a pretty big advantage during the war.
Yeah, and flame throwers helped clear the tunnels on Iwo Jima. However this thread is about replacing current .22 caliber battle rifles with more effective .30's.
......small arms don't win wars....... If we are talking purely about the weapons side of things and ignore the economic, geographic and production advantage something like the invention of a functioning and effective proximity fuse used on land and sea based artillery made a much bigger difference. Radar aimed naval guns were also a pretty big advantage during the war.
Yeah, and flame throwers helped clear the tunnels on Iwo Jima. However this thread is about replacing current .22 caliber battle rifles with more effective .30's.
Originally Posted By: wkcars
They can convert m16/m4 to 300 AAC blackout fairly easily and will probably be much cheaper.
.300 BLK would be a terrible general issue round. It is used by special forces. With suppressors on their rifles. That round has a very limited military value. The 5.56 is superior for general issue troops.
They can convert m16/m4 to 300 AAC blackout fairly easily and will probably be much cheaper.
.300 BLK would be a terrible general issue round. It is used by special forces. With suppressors on their rifles. That round has a very limited military value. The 5.56 is superior for general issue troops.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
Originally Posted By: billt460
And please explain what any of your speech has to do with a well aimed shot hitting it's mark?
And please show me where I challenged you on the topic of ballistics?
Just answer the question. Don't make some half baked attempt to avoid it by asking another.
What else do you want me to say? I've already pointed out that it has nothing to do with "a shot hitting its mark". Again, I haven't made any assertions about ballistics. I have merely pointed out that you should not conflate WWII with modern warfare.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
Originally Posted By: billt460
And please explain what any of your speech has to do with a well aimed shot hitting it's mark?
And please show me where I challenged you on the topic of ballistics?
Just answer the question. Don't make some half baked attempt to avoid it by asking another.
What else do you want me to say? I've already pointed out that it has nothing to do with "a shot hitting its mark". Again, I haven't made any assertions about ballistics. I have merely pointed out that you should not conflate WWII with modern warfare.
Where are US troops CURRENTLY fighting? Afghanistan (open mountainous terrain) and IRAQ (helping Iraqi soldiers fight ISIS, street to street fighting, sniper vs sniper)
A .308 makes sense for these two. ISIS in Iraq is street to street fighting, and the .308 punches holes in concrete(cover) that the 5.56 doesn't. Its also only a rag tag group of 10-50 guys in most areas. The .308 rifle makes sense for this type of warfare.
The US military is not looking to replace its rifles with a .308. Period.
They ARE looking to purchase 50K .308 rifles. Why? For specific mission profiles.
Think about the warfare we have found ourselves in during the past 17 years. Mostly insurgent warfare.
We are not fighting a WW2 or Vietnam style enemy, with waves and waves of nation state soldiers attacking. Its mostly hit and run insurgents. So the troops lately do not have to worry about max load out. Meaning a .308 rifle with 6 spare mags (140 rounds) should be sufficient compared to the standard .223 load of 210 rounds.
The M4 is not going anywhere. I see nothing wrong with giving military brass another tool in their arsenal, that they can choose depending on the mission profile.
A .308 makes sense for these two. ISIS in Iraq is street to street fighting, and the .308 punches holes in concrete(cover) that the 5.56 doesn't. Its also only a rag tag group of 10-50 guys in most areas. The .308 rifle makes sense for this type of warfare.
The US military is not looking to replace its rifles with a .308. Period.
They ARE looking to purchase 50K .308 rifles. Why? For specific mission profiles.
Think about the warfare we have found ourselves in during the past 17 years. Mostly insurgent warfare.
We are not fighting a WW2 or Vietnam style enemy, with waves and waves of nation state soldiers attacking. Its mostly hit and run insurgents. So the troops lately do not have to worry about max load out. Meaning a .308 rifle with 6 spare mags (140 rounds) should be sufficient compared to the standard .223 load of 210 rounds.
The M4 is not going anywhere. I see nothing wrong with giving military brass another tool in their arsenal, that they can choose depending on the mission profile.
Originally Posted By: Leo99
Also, there are no despots trying to take over the world like there was in WW2.
Really?
Also, there are no despots trying to take over the world like there was in WW2.
Really?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: BigD1
AR-10 done!
I am very happy with mine.
http://www.dpmsinc.com/AP4-308762_ep_129-1.html
No retraining on maintenance or function needed. Many compatible parts. Reliable (as long as you don't use Remoil!
)
Yep. I say tell me "why not"?
Originally Posted By: BigD1
AR-10 done!
I am very happy with mine.
http://www.dpmsinc.com/AP4-308762_ep_129-1.html
No retraining on maintenance or function needed. Many compatible parts. Reliable (as long as you don't use Remoil!
Yep. I say tell me "why not"?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: spiritrider
Marine shot/kill ratio increased 250% from WW2 to Vietnam. Army shot/kill ratio increased 800%......and let's just say billt406 is clue challenged.
So you are trying to tell us that the 50,000 rounds to one kill ratio our military is presently enjoying, is including this supposed 800% IMPROVMENT? Which means, using your numbers, it use to be 1 kill to 800,000 ROUNDS? And I'm, "clue challenged"? Right.
Check your math skills. If the shot/kill ratio increases, then the previous ratio would be lower and the new ratio would be higher. Certainly not an improvement.
Originally Posted By: spiritrider
Marine shot/kill ratio increased 250% from WW2 to Vietnam. Army shot/kill ratio increased 800%......and let's just say billt406 is clue challenged.
So you are trying to tell us that the 50,000 rounds to one kill ratio our military is presently enjoying, is including this supposed 800% IMPROVMENT? Which means, using your numbers, it use to be 1 kill to 800,000 ROUNDS? And I'm, "clue challenged"? Right.
Check your math skills. If the shot/kill ratio increases, then the previous ratio would be lower and the new ratio would be higher. Certainly not an improvement.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
What else do you want me to say?
To be honest with you, I really don't care either way.
What else do you want me to say?
To be honest with you, I really don't care either way.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
They count the ammo that is used in training as well as combat to come up with their ratios.
If that's the case, then the entire exercise becomes stupid and pointless.
They count the ammo that is used in training as well as combat to come up with their ratios.
If that's the case, then the entire exercise becomes stupid and pointless.
Originally Posted By: spiritrider
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: spiritrider
Marine shot/kill ratio increased 250% from WW2 to Vietnam. Army shot/kill ratio increased 800%......and let's just say billt406 is clue challenged.
So you are trying to tell us that the 50,000 rounds to one kill ratio our military is presently enjoying, is including this supposed 800% IMPROVMENT? Which means, using your numbers, it use to be 1 kill to 800,000 ROUNDS? And I'm, "clue challenged"? Right.
Check your math skills. If the shot/kill ratio increases, then the previous ratio would be lower and the new ratio would be higher. Certainly not an improvement.
Answer to this one is going to be ... priceless ...
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: spiritrider
Marine shot/kill ratio increased 250% from WW2 to Vietnam. Army shot/kill ratio increased 800%......and let's just say billt406 is clue challenged.
So you are trying to tell us that the 50,000 rounds to one kill ratio our military is presently enjoying, is including this supposed 800% IMPROVMENT? Which means, using your numbers, it use to be 1 kill to 800,000 ROUNDS? And I'm, "clue challenged"? Right.
Check your math skills. If the shot/kill ratio increases, then the previous ratio would be lower and the new ratio would be higher. Certainly not an improvement.
Answer to this one is going to be ... priceless ...
It's my fault. I simply misinterpreted it.
I want a Kel-Tec RFB, it's the 308 bullpup. I have an AR-10 style 24 inch DPMS LR308 and I love it. But it's just too long and heavy for anything other than target. I'm just a backyard plinker/target shooter, and I have zero combat experience. However, there is no question the 308 is easier to shoot, with accuracy, at long distances in less than ideal conditions. My thought is that if the goals are to actually hit your target at longer distances and have enough energy to penetrate barriers, the 308 makes a good choice.
If the goal is saving weight, the 308 may not be the proper choice.
If the goal is saving weight, the 308 may not be the proper choice.
Last edited:
If you enjoy .308 firepower in a compact package, The new IWI Galil Ace, .308 pistol with the "Brace", (AKA legal shoulder stock), should be right up your alley. And it accepts standard SR-25, 20 round P-Mags.
http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/Defau...p;zipcode=85307
http://www.galleryofguns.com/genie/Defau...p;zipcode=85307
I'm a fan of the .30 caliber battle rifle. For many reasons.
The decision to go with the 5.56mm/.22 caliber was controversial at the time, and remains so. Detailed analysis on soldier marksmanship performance and combat effectiveness hadn't been completed at the time the decision was made and many false assumptions, some of which are repeated in this thread, were made at the time.
The book, "On Killing" by LCOL Dave Grossman, has a very interesting review on actual combat shooting.
While we look back on the days of the Garand winning WW II with fondness and admiration (both deserved) the actual kids in combat were NOT effective with that fine rifle. Several factors were at play: marksmanship was developed shooting at static round bullseyes, not many rounds were spent on marksmanship, and the shooting was all done in slow, untimed fire.
When exposed to the stress of combat: young soldiers were not able to hit their targets. Over 90% of WW II soldiers did NOT hit ANYTHING in combat (from the book). The Army was only beginning to realize this in the early 60s.
The first time a WWII soldier shot at a silhouette - it was an actual human being who was shooting back, and their training had not prepared them at all. Many soldiers found that they simply could not take aim at another human being. This shouldn't surprise us - it's a moral question and we hadn't trained those kids well enough to be able to do their jobs.
The implementation of man-shaped silhouettes, realistic targets, pop-up targets, timed fire, shooting from cover and various positions, all changed the nature of the American Soldier. Vietnam was little better than WWII, or Korea. But by Iraq and Afghanistan, over 90% of our soldiers were returning accurate, lethal fire.
And then we discovered that, at our typical engagement ranges, the M855 round was simply passing right through the target without lethal effects. It was taking 4 rounds, on average, to stop a Taliban fighter, using the 5.56mm M-4 system. Simply terrible performance. We had solved the soldier part of the equation through improvements in training realism and frequency, but discovered that the weapon system was inadequate. Until we had actual soldiers trained well enough to get good hits (as we now do) - the weaknesses in the weapon system was completely masked.
So, while the Army isn't ready to go to an all .30 caliber rifle force, they are spending big $$ (and not making decisions) on improving the 5.56mm round itself by modifying the projectile. Exotic metals, new design, etc. have all been examined. They're well aware that their present rifle is inadequate.
The decision to go with the 5.56mm/.22 caliber was controversial at the time, and remains so. Detailed analysis on soldier marksmanship performance and combat effectiveness hadn't been completed at the time the decision was made and many false assumptions, some of which are repeated in this thread, were made at the time.
The book, "On Killing" by LCOL Dave Grossman, has a very interesting review on actual combat shooting.
While we look back on the days of the Garand winning WW II with fondness and admiration (both deserved) the actual kids in combat were NOT effective with that fine rifle. Several factors were at play: marksmanship was developed shooting at static round bullseyes, not many rounds were spent on marksmanship, and the shooting was all done in slow, untimed fire.
When exposed to the stress of combat: young soldiers were not able to hit their targets. Over 90% of WW II soldiers did NOT hit ANYTHING in combat (from the book). The Army was only beginning to realize this in the early 60s.
The first time a WWII soldier shot at a silhouette - it was an actual human being who was shooting back, and their training had not prepared them at all. Many soldiers found that they simply could not take aim at another human being. This shouldn't surprise us - it's a moral question and we hadn't trained those kids well enough to be able to do their jobs.
The implementation of man-shaped silhouettes, realistic targets, pop-up targets, timed fire, shooting from cover and various positions, all changed the nature of the American Soldier. Vietnam was little better than WWII, or Korea. But by Iraq and Afghanistan, over 90% of our soldiers were returning accurate, lethal fire.
And then we discovered that, at our typical engagement ranges, the M855 round was simply passing right through the target without lethal effects. It was taking 4 rounds, on average, to stop a Taliban fighter, using the 5.56mm M-4 system. Simply terrible performance. We had solved the soldier part of the equation through improvements in training realism and frequency, but discovered that the weapon system was inadequate. Until we had actual soldiers trained well enough to get good hits (as we now do) - the weaknesses in the weapon system was completely masked.
So, while the Army isn't ready to go to an all .30 caliber rifle force, they are spending big $$ (and not making decisions) on improving the 5.56mm round itself by modifying the projectile. Exotic metals, new design, etc. have all been examined. They're well aware that their present rifle is inadequate.
I can pretty much agree with most of that. But if we were supposedly that bad with our M1 Garands. One can only come to the conclusion that the Japs were a lot worse with their Arisaka's. As were the Germans with their Mausers. After all we won in both theaters. And one has to keep in mind Stoner originally designed the AR rifle in 7.62. He changed it to 5.56 MM at the request of our military. All the rest has been a often debated, (many times heatedly argued), cluster F, for the last 6 decades. We have now come to the point with this weapon, that it is much like sleeping with an ugly wife for half a century. A divorce would be far too costly to resolve. So about all that's left, is to try to dress it up and put up with it.
- Status