Please take the time to save and read this monograph from the US Army Command and General Staff College's School of Advanced Military Studies.And yes, it's applicable in places other than AFPAK.
Tempus fugit.
Please take the time to save and read this monograph from the US Army Command and General Staff College's School of Advanced Military Studies.
Another excellent, thoughtful White Paper, keep them coming.
ReplyDeleteFolks, take heed to this type of information.
This is why I recommend a 6.5 Grendel AR and not a 5.56 AR. Range is your friend, the 6.5G has a useful combat envelope of 700 to 800 meters. That's 200 to 300 meters farther than the 5.56.
If the newest 6.5mm-7mm AR-compatible cartridges can nudge the basic infantry weapon nearer the 300M-700M capability of an M-14 firing old-tech FMJ-BT M80, I'm for it if the overall cost is reasonable/comparable. Send the 7.62NATO WRM stocks and M-14's to CMP and the US Gov can make some serious money!
ReplyDeleteAn upgrade of 50-year-old 7.62x51mm projectiles might yield more hitting power at range for the money spent than a big effort to upgrade the M-16xx series. An interesting example is how little cash is being spent on the Army's .300WM program (perhaps the same kind of incremental quality improvements would work for the 7.62NATO cartridge).
Beware of over-optimization. The Germans of WWII did not put small or weak cartridges in the MG-42 because it needed to have both reach and punch at extended range more than it needed to be light-weight or conserve materials (even while being quite portable for the era). The Germans did not lose WWII because their weapons, soldiers, or small-unit tactics were inferior to ours!
The M-4 and M-16 are still perfect for some jobs: USAF gate guard weapon, tanker carbine, replacing the M-2 carbine (1/5th" holes may expand with luck, but 1/3" holes don't ever get smaller).
The best war is one that ends swiftly, with our victory.
Cheers.
I agree with many of the tenants in this Paper. One thing the paper doesn't come outright and say is that most of the decision for using the 5.56 was cost savings. Lighter rounds, troops were able to carry more ammo, and shipping/storing could be done to greater numbers in less space. Sadly, the troops had to carry more as they were using more to do the job.
ReplyDeleteWhat burns me is that it took them 8 years to come to this conclusion at the command level.(konger if you go back to 'Nam) There is a reason that our troops have been using confiscated weapons over there and leaving the M4 in the barracks. Use what works, adapt to the environment, Stay Alive!!!!
Very good reading.
ReplyDeletePat H: I still like my 6.8 SPC and think it is a major improvement over the 5.56 though the 5.56 has its place.
Availability of ammo is the one down side of both the 6.5 and the 6.8 yet I think the 6.8 might have the Grendel beat on that score.
One other reason I chose the 6.8 is I also own .270 caliber hunting rifles and it pairs nicely with them from a reloading perspective.
If I'm doing the math correctly, a 6.8mm is just above a .270 (6.75mm).
ReplyDeleteAnything wrong with using a caliber already in existence - .270??
I am not well versed in the .270 but it seems a popular round for deer hunting in the teen-age crowd.