The Army's new Rifle and Cartridge

[Art]

I guess its as official as it can be, the orders have been placed. Apparently the new weapon and squad automatic weapon will only go to front line troops and the rear eschelon types will still keep the M4. The Marines have already invested heavily in a new weapon that will still use the 5.56 cartridge and a new squad automatic weapon as well.

To get that .270 slug out of a 16" barrel at 3,000+ fps the new round generates a whopping 80,000 psi of chamber pressure and the new round uses a bi metal case with a mostly brass case attached to a stainless steel case head. If you watch video of the rifle being fired recoil looks stout.

I don't see how this can possibly not result in some logistic problems but we'll see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3oWZhjCrk8

[barretcreek]

$$$$$$$$. How much per round? 80k psi means wear and tear. .422 diameter case @ 80k will require lots more area on the lugs plus better metallurgy. Tactics will be planned around the 6.8 Unobtainium but as you point out logistics will result in the troops reverting to older worn out weaponry. Palladium plated welfare for a retired four star.

[Art]

The most troubling thing to me is most US servicemen, Marines, Navy, Airforce and all Army who are not in Infantry, Combat M.P.s, Engineers or Special Ops will still be carrying the M4, or in the case of the Marines the brand spankin' new M27 also chambered for 5.56 NATO. Tricked out the new rifle is heavier than an M14 by a good bit, and of course you have the heavier ammo.

This is going to be interesting.

[barretcreek]

Forgot to add. Quality control on this two piece case will turn to merde when war time production starts taking shortcuts. How about a case head separation in combat? This thing stinks of a payoff for some senior brass.

[Former Cav]

my understanding was it just used a 6.8 SPC round that was all brass and it was "no big deal"
this does NOT sound good!
Reminds me of that sheridan M551 POS Tank they gave us.

[bruce]

Same mentality as once demanded and ended up with fragile rear sights on Trap Doors, Krags, Springfield 03's, and full auto M-14's. Give them all Ak's in whatever caliber worked well out to say 300-400 yds w/ iron sights or a little further with a decent optic. Then, get on with the business of defending this nation. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Allen]

Should have kept the M14.

The M16 and the 5.56 never should have been.

My 2 cents.

[jjrothWA]

Did they have any gun guys" on that committee?

Recalling what the late Major Culver wrote in his M16 Saga's, all I can say is here we go again.

[bruce]

It is what it is. Gun guys gave the Army every single development right through to today. Big problem was folks who wanted the rifles to be more accurate so as to satisfy unrealistic impractical purposes rather than be the best possible design for the requirement ... hitting and killing the enemy. Sincerely. bruce.

[barretcreek]

I dredged up this from the Wayback Machine.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/%22Everlasting%22+stainless-brass+cases%3b+the+new+two-piece+%22steelhead%22...-a03999880?msclkid=2cb9d7bcd14311ecae7d4a9baf27c618

[dogtag]

Will the new cartridge chamber in the M4 ?
If it does I can see blow ups looming

[Art]

Will the new cartridge chamber in the M4 ?
If it does I can see blow ups looming

No, it will not.

[jon_norstog]

Should have kept the M14.

The M16 and the 5.56 never should have been.

My 2 cents.

Here's two more cents on top of that.

jn

[barretcreek]

Garand based rifles are hand built by skilled craftsmen. Can you imagine an 80% M-14 receiver? OP rod or bolt and fitting them? AR based weapons, including the new 6.8 Wundergewehr, are just a few precision made parts assembled without much fitting. Most of us have done it; I have two Wilson Combat barrels waiting to finish gestation. DoD needs a cheap, reliable bangbang. The new two piece case will be a serious problem when demand has ammo plants operation 24/7 for sure.

Do I prefer the M1/M14? You bet. Two M1s, an early Springfield M1a and I'd have more if I could.

[dogtag]

I thought the M14 was the perfect rifle. Never found one I could afford,
but I have a small lookalike (180 series Mini 14)

[Allen]

Will the new cartridge chamber in the M4 ?
If it does I can see blow ups looming

The 300 Blackout can. Another cartridge that never should have been.

[Art]

I qualified with the M14 in the Army and carried it a lot in Korea, and once again I'm going to be the fly in the buttermilk.

I found the M14 to be an accurate rifle. I enjoyed shooting it. It is harder to disassemble than an M16 or an AK. I also found it liable to failure (locking up like a bank vault) if it got very wet at all. Exception to you "Gyrines" who were issued Lubriplate. Remember, it's still basically a Garand action. We in the Army never were issued gun grease and I wasn't the only one who had this "lock up" problem and I had it more than once. I was meticulous about keeping my weapon clean but the only lubricant we were issued was whatever light machine oil was classed as "gun oil" at the moment.

The current combat load out is excessive, sometimes over 50 pounds, and I'm interested in seeing how the troops are going to react to this weapon in light of its weight and the weight of its ammunition. Combat load will be 140 rounds with the new weapon (that should hold down the temptation hit the "go fast switch" because of the weight of the ammo; the M4 combat load is 210 rounds with the same number of magazines. With the M14 I carried 101 rounds. Remember, soldiers today consider the M16 excessively heavy, unwieldy getting in and out of vehicles and too long for urban combat....and that's the M16!!

There is that tendency to think of the rifle one used in the Military as the best "thunderstick" ever. I just can't do that with the M14.

My devalued $.05

[Former Cav]

they should have made the M16 with a bolt that had 2 BIG locking lugs (like on the M14 Bolt). 3 at the most. Of course, the "spline" in the chamber would be the same but with clearance for dirt. 6 mm bullets to 6.5 mm with about a 2800 FPS and the bullets weighing about 107 in the 6mm and 142 max in the 6.5. Then you would have had a rifle that would PUT THE ENEMY down and out of the fight after the first good hit. You hit them with that squirrel gun we had, and you would PISS them off and they would be shooting at you with there AK's for a 1/2 hour till they finally bled out.
The M14 should have had a fiberglass stock due to the JUNGLE climate. Gun grease...issued!! (as mentioned above by Art).
IMHO

[Mark in Ottawa]

One major problem that nobody has mentioned is compatibility with the ammunition used by other NATO countries. There is likely to be a lot of pushback over changing calibers since if such a change were to be applied throughout NATO, the costs would be very high. Otherwise there would be logistics issues

[Art]

One major problem that nobody has mentioned is compatibility with the ammunition used by other NATO countries. There is likely to be a lot of pushback over changing calibers since if such a change were to be applied throughout NATO, the costs would be very high. Otherwise there would be logistics issues

It isn't just a compatibility with NATO. The Marines have just adopted a new weapons system in 5.56mm. The Air Force will still use 5.56mm and all Army support troops will use 5.56mm. The new weapon will be for Army front line troops (Infantry, Spec. Ops., Combat MPs, and Combat Engineers) only. All other Army troops will still have the M4.

You are right. There will be logistical issues.

[RH Scott]

My $$ is on this never lifting off the ground other than contracts being awarded. GWOT is over and military contractors are looking for contracts.
Too big, too expensive, too heavy, too much PSI and heat and most of all no training program to use the proposed new capability.
I will also go against the grain on the M14. It was obsolete the day it was proposed and only lingers on because they are paid for and we have not cut them up. It may have had its place in the Cold War but time has passed it by long ago.