BF2S Forums Marine Corps Weapons Review: From Iraq

So to give a synopsis on those last 3 or 4 posts; we need to switch to 6.5 or 6.8 ?

Lai wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

M14 has way too much kick and 7.62's are heavy. You can carry way more 5.56. That's why M16 is the standard today.

They respectively represent the extremes on both ends, unsuited for modern combat. One you use in the fields as an old school fuselier and the other you use for hunting prairie dogs. True the 7.62 kicks too hard and is too heavy, but the 5.56 is equally to light and hits not hard enough. Likewise the M14 was too much of a classic rifle while the M16 was too fancy and unreliable. The Russians made a better effort with their 7.62x39. The fact that it tends to hit shit and still kick relatively hard has to do with low quality high tolerances ammunition and the gun it was used in, which wasn't so much "poor" as designed from a different perspective.

British .280 intermediate would have hit the nail on the head at its time. Today it would be outdated as better performing powder and other cartridge components are available, but that's the kind of design you want. An intermediate round designed from scratch that can serve in roles varying from DMR to SMG and still have significant knocking power.

Which is why we should switch to 6.5mm Grendel if we need a replacement round. It's a perfect balance between the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO and actually outranges the 7.62 in flight as 6.5mm bullets tend to fly pretty flat while the 7.62 NATO will start dropping. 6.8 is more of a balance between the 7.62AK(I designate as AK instead of R as there are 2 Russian 7.62 bullets) and the 5.56 NATO, decent as a DMR round but not as good as the 6.5 Grendel.

Read some stuff about it.

You mean bullets? Of course not but I've read tests that were done.

seymorebutts443 wrote:

War Man wrote:

You mean bullets? Of course not but I've read tests that were done.

That's not the point here.

Just shush, reading is all I got. When I join the army I'll have the fucking experience you want afterwards.

VicktorVauhn wrote:

War Man wrote:

seymorebutts443 wrote:

That's not the point here.

Just shush, reading is all I got. When I join the army I'll have the fucking experience you want afterwards.

Have you ever even been in an actual fight?

Well I had a little fight with seymore haven't I?

War Man wrote:

VicktorVauhn wrote:

War Man wrote:

Just shush, reading is all I got. When I join the army I'll have the fucking experience you want afterwards.

Have you ever even been in an actual fight?

Well I had a little fight with seymore haven't I?

So basically you have never even been in an actual physical fight, let alone a war zone, but you have some romanticize notion of battle based off some movies you have seen?

I thought they were gonna introduce the ACR or XM8 as a standard issue arms in the future...

War Man wrote:

TopHat01 wrote:

I thought they were gonna introduce the ACR or XM8 as a standard issue arms in the future...

XM8 got canceled and ACR is just a replacement being considered.

XM8 is on hold, not canceled.

War Man wrote:

Which is why we should switch to 6.5mm Grendel if we need a replacement round. It's a perfect balance between the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO and actually outranges the 7.62 in flight as 6.5mm bullets tend to fly pretty flat while the 7.62 NATO will start dropping. 6.8 is more of a balance between the 7.62AK(I designate as AK instead of R as there are 2 Russian 7.62 bullets) and the 5.56 NATO, decent as a DMR round but not as good as the 6.5 Grendel.

seymorebutts443 wrote:

again, how would you know.

War Man's assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the various rounds is rather accurate.
For an intermediate round, compatible with a 5.56x45mm [size and formfactor] weapon - 6.5 Grendel would be a good choice.
Balances power of the round and overall weight of the weapon and ammo fairly well, if yet on the side of "a bit too light"


Personally, I'd ditch the M-16/M-4/SCAR-L sized platform and move to an AR-10/SCAR-H platform.
The SCAR stock design looks a little funky, but it "just fits" very well.  Adjustable length of pull, and adjustable cheek height - combined with the old familiar M-16 pistol grip, and M-16 locations for trigger, selector, etc.  Good combo of the new and old.

Take the SCAR-H, and rechamber it for the intermediate 6.5x47 Lapua round.
6.5x47mm, in short: external dimensions of the 7.62x51 NATO (mostly), same powder capacity as a 7.62x51, shooting a lighter/longer/more-aerodynamic bullet.  Less weight, similar energy, better accuracy, better ballistics than the 7.62x51 - and works in an AR-10 or SCAR-H chambered for 7.62x51 with the simple change of just the barrel.

But... two details;
1) I'm not asked to decide which weapon systems the US military procures.
2) My days wearing an Army uniform are probably permanently past, even if a corner of my brain hasn't quite registered that fact yet.

So... If I'm going to be shooting anything, it will most likely be with the following;
Winchester/FN M70, chambered in 7mm WSM, McMillan A4 stock, Krieger barrel/brake, Zeiss scope.
Differences between a 5.56x45, 6.5x47, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62x39R, 7.62x51 NATO....  all f'ing academic next to a 162 or 180 grain, .284" diameter round being pushed out of a rifle at 3000fps.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-04-30 01:59:13)

War Man wrote:

Which is why we should switch to 6.5mm Grendel if we need a replacement round. It's a perfect balance between the 7.62 NATO and the 5.56 NATO and actually outranges the 7.62 in flight as 6.5mm bullets tend to fly pretty flat while the 7.62 NATO will start dropping. 6.8 is more of a balance between the 7.62AK(I designate as AK instead of R as there are 2 Russian 7.62 bullets) and the 5.56 NATO, decent as a DMR round but not as good as the 6.5 Grendel.

Fair enough, but do you agree that the 6.5 Grendel could be better if we were not bound to the 5.56 cartridge dimensions? If we would design a 6.5-7mm round without concessions, the case could be slightly more tapered and slightly longer, as a result it could also be less chubby, less prone to feed jams and magazines could be either shorter or more cartridges would fit in it.

rdx-fx wrote:

(...)

I realy like the idea of the 6.5x47mm, I hadn't looked into that.

Just did a bit of Googling and came across this:

M4Carbine.net wrote:

While at USAMU, Cris Murray, one of the co-designers of the 6.8 mm SPC simultaneously developed an “ideal” combat rifle cartridge, with none of the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC. Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, offers better range and terminal performance than 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 mm SPC, or any other common assault rifle cartridges, including 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. Since the 7 x 46 mm is based on the proven Czech military 7.62 x 45 mm cartridge (itself an offshoot of the Russian 7.62 x 39 mm), it has an established record feeding and functioning in both magazine and belt-fed full-auto fire. Likewise, recoil appears manageable and weapons remain controllable in FA fire, just as with the Czech cartridge. Like the 6.8 mm, the 7 x 46 mm is optimized for shorter barrels and larger magazines than the heavier, bulkier, and harsher recoiling 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 cartridge. In addition to Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, the older FN 7 mm's (7 x 44 mm, 7 x 47 mm, and 7 x 49 mm), as well as the newer 6.5 mm Creedmore are worthy of consideration. For that matter, revisiting the British .270/.280 wouldn’t be a bad idea. Keep in mind that the OAL of these cartridges is a bit too long to fit into the M4/M16 or other 5.56 mm size weapons/magazines. As a result, these cartridges should ideally be used in all new rifle designs optimized for their characteristics.

Sized in respectively a 5.56 and a 7.62x51 mag: