Battle Rifle?

[Subdeacon Joe]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05/us-army-considers-7-62-interim-battle-rifle/#comments

 

Quote

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62 NATO

According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond. The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.

Consequently, the Army wants to enable the rifleman to accurately engage targets at a further range than the current 5.56mm. Although at this point, I’ll keep that exact exact distance close to the vest. The goal here is to foster a dialogue about the 7.62 requirement in general, and not offer operational specifics.

 

 

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/04/05/army-considers-bringing-battle-rifles-back-war/

 

Quote

The demand for a battle rifle comes primarily from the Afghan War, where insurgents are ambushing U.S. forces with 7.62x54R machine guns from beyond the practical engagement range of soldiers and Marines armed with 5.56 NATO M4 carbines. 7.62 NATO battle rifles would once again allow rank and file soldiers (and not just designated marksmen and snipers) the ability to reach out beyond 500-600 meters to where enemy combatants have preferred to engage.

 

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

As a member of the OLD SCHOOL, I think this is long overdue.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Improvise, adapt, and overcome.  The M4 is a good CQB rifle.  The enemy has found that long range combat is more successful (until an A10 comes on scene).  when the soldiers counter the 7.62 by 54, the towelheads will do something else.

 

[Old Top]

Sounds as if the Army is finally agreeing with me, I cried when they gave me the Mattel rifle and never liked  it.  Does not mean that I could not use it, just never liked it like the 14.

[Tom Bullweed]

Okay, I am confused (or not).

The 7.62x54R is the Russian Mosin-Nagant cartridge developed in the 1890s.

The 7.62 NATO is a 7.62x51, similar to the .308 Winchester.

Two different rounds with different capabilities.

The 7.62x54R was chambered in the Druganov sniper rifle, but my experience is that this rifle does not compete well with modern sniper rifles.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

For close range stuff like clearing houses in a village, it's really hard to beat the M4.

 

for distances, an updated M14 can't be beat

 

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

No one rifle will ever be able to "do it all".  It's been a debate since gunpowder was invented.

 

The 30-06 was a solid round that could reach across the open fields of Europe through two wars.  The M-14 and its 7.62 NATO round were natural advancements of the Springfield and Garand.

 

Along comes Vietnam and jungles and short distances.  The M-16 and its variants, including the M-4, are good when stuff gets up close and personal.

 

Then we spend 10+ years in a war where the enemy has figured out that distance is his friend, and the M-14s are brought out of the armory and pressed back into service.  And Ronny Barrett's creation adds another dimension to "reach out and touch someone".

 

Then we have the M240 vs M249 discussion, and life gets really complicated.

 

Good fodder for gun nuts to hash out over a drink or two.

[Pat Riot]

It's about time!

I have never been in battle and I was never trained for traditional "battle". I was in the Navy and was trained (some) for on board armed confrontation and I was trained, in a short course, by some Navy SEALs in "landing party tactics" but this was not a traditional training course. It was something thrown together at the request of our  Combat Systems Officer at Norfolk before we deployed to the Med.

 

My opinion of the M4 / AR15 / M16 etc. has always been that it's inadequate. In the Navy we used M14s, Rem 870's, 1911's and M79 grenade launchers as small arms. The M14s and the M79s were not for "shipboard" use inside the skin of the ship.

 

Sure, the M16 / M4 is a great weapon. But it's a weapon using a concept that works in traditional warfare - wounding a guy takes 3 off the battle field. But this concept doesn't work with zealots. Also, like that article said, it's also not a good gun for longer range conflict.

 

I was going to go into a long dissertation about fighting zealots and what was learned in the Philippines over 100 years ago but I think I will just sum up with what my nephew, a Marine, said after 2 tours in Iraq and 1 in Afghanistan. I am paraphrasing a bit because I can't find his email right now - 

"These people understand one thing. Death! If one gets wounded their comrades say 'good, he can fight another day' but if they are dead they are a martyr, but they are dead and they can't hurt anyone else and we don't have to fight him later. These muslims we are dealing with don't have an enlistment. They don't have an end of tour. They are there to kill and they are there to win because they think that they are on the right side of their god."

[Pat Riot]

I forgot to mention - My nephew came home. How many didn't because they were outgunned?

[Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674]

9 hours ago, Tom Bullweed said:

Okay, I am confused (or not).

The 7.62x54R is the Russian Mosin-Nagant cartridge developed in the 1890s.

The 7.62 NATO is a 7.62x51, similar to the .308 Winchester.

Two different rounds with different capabilities.

The 7.62x54R was chambered in the Druganov sniper rifle, but my experience is that this rifle does not compete well with modern sniper rifles.

I'm a little confused by this also. The majority of those we are fighting are armed with 7.62 x 39 and 5.45 x 39 rifles. Neither of these rounds have any advantage over our 5.56 x 45, and the 7.62 x 39 is shorter ranged.   PKMs and Draganovs, in 7.62 x 54R are support weapons. If we are constantly being out-ranged by enemy support weapons wouldn't make more sense to increase the number of M240s or Mk 48s available to the squad then to adopt a new battle rifle, and develop a tactical doctrine around it, only then to replace it in the 2020s with a new rifle firing a new round? There is a part me who is wondering if this is some form of April Fools joke.

[The O'Meara Himself]

The army has been at war with itself since 1776 over firepower vs accuracy. One side says "If you put enough bullets out there you're bound to hit the bad guy" and the other side says "If the bad guy is more than 50 yards away thats not true." In the Revolutionary War, Americans bragged about accuracy. the minuteman farmers would line up facing the redcoats and fire one shot accurately which would take down the first row of Redcoats who were taught to turn their faces away when they fired their muskets, then reload quickly and fire again. After the first round the Americans would commonly beat feet out of there. Dan Morgan won a major battle when he got his minutemen to sand and fire a second round. Which tactic is better? The battle in the military was still going on in the M14 vs M16 battle, 7.62 vs .223, and still goes on now. Wish I had the answer.

 

The O'Meara Himself

 

p.s. I prefer the M14and the 1911 pistol in .45 acp. 

 

[Tennessee Trapper Tom]

There's nothing wrong with mixing it up. The AR 10 in 308 set up correctly has an effective range between 800 to 1000 yards. It also has a good cyclic rate of fire. Yes the ammo is heavier. Therefore each squad should have an aporia team mix to effectively deal with the each situation. Special forces has been doing this for years, the almighty dollar is IMNSHO has been the biggest driving force. Better training, better weapons, and better use of tactics at a all levels of troops is the key. The enemy we fight already does this. Why we don't also is beyond me.

 

As a Drill sergeant we trained in basic combat skills that every soldier is supposed to know regardless of their military occupational specialty. Better weapons and more advanced trading for every soldier is what is needed.

[Utah Bob #35998]

6 hours ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said:

No one rifle will ever be able to "do it all".  It's been a debate since gunpowder was invented.

 

The 30-06 was a solid round that could reach across the open fields of Europe through two wars.  The M-14 and its 7.62 NATO round were natural advancements of the Springfield and Garand.

 

Along comes Vietnam and jungles and short distances.  The M-16 and its variants, including the M-4, are good when stuff gets up close and personal.

 

Then we spend 10+ years in a war where the enemy has figured out that distance is his friend, and the M-14s are brought out of the armory and pressed back into service.  And Ronny Barrett's creation adds another dimension to "reach out and touch someone".

 

Then we have the M240 vs M249 discussion, and life gets really complicated.

 

Good fodder for gun nuts to has out over a drink or two.

Yup. The Navy and Air Force have been searching unsuccessfully for the perfect all mission plane for decades. Good luck with finding a perfect battle rifle.

 

Except maybe a phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Bring back the M 1 Garand. If the distance is too great, at least you can scare then with the PING!

[Sedalia Dave]

I thought the Army was looking at the 6.5 mm class of ammo to replace the .556. 

[twelve mile REB]

Tactics are every bit as important as weaponry we that is the United States has produced its share of real winners in both areas and failed in both areas as well in the last hundred years.  The 1903 Springfield in its many iterations was arguably our first world class battle rifle which served us well for more than 30 years.  The M-1 was and is a formidable battle rifle coupled with its partner the BAR made a US Squad a weapon to be dealt with.  There were others such as the Johnson that were good but didn't make the cut.   The M-14 was an attempt to blend the good qualities of the M-1 and the BAR into one weapon system and it almost worked however it was just too light for automatic fire at longer ranges.  It was however a good system with a good cartridge and tactics had advanced to a point that the systems could be well utilized.  I went to war with the M-14 and felt well armed it never failed me.  When the M-16 came around we the troops in the field wanted it badly twice the ammo and less weight damn right, give me one.  The problem was the M-16 didn't work really well.  I mean it worked it just liked to quit for various reasons when you really, really wanted it to work.  I carried the M-16 into battle and never shot anyone that didn't stay shot.  Fast forward 50 years and the M-16 and its variants are very serviceable tactics take into account its weakness's as well as its strengths.  50 years is a long time for a battle rifle, it must be doing something right