Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Another 7.62mm Bullet For M-16s
SYSOP    12/27/2011 5:58:01 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
WarNerd       12/27/2011 2:08:17 PM
here is a manufacturers/proponents web document on the 300BLK.
http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-BLK.pdf" href="http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-BLK.pdf">http://300aacblackout.com/reso...
 
There are a number of claims/comparisons in it I would consider of dubious merit vs. the 5.56mm M-4.  In particular:
Claims of greater versatility (whatever that is), despite acknowledging lesser effective range.
 
Claims of better accuracy, but the numbers to support this claim on page 13 are comparing the average spread at 100m for the 300BLK to the extreme spread at 200m for the M-4.
 
Claims of better suppression fire, despite the heavier recoil. It is notable that the weapon rated best for suppression is a 4.6mm PDW, which has the lowest recoil.
 
Claims of improved barrel life include credit for proprietary barrel (not bullet) coating.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/27/2011 3:12:40 PM
The real reason for 300BLK is for a single system to fire both supersonic and subsonic ammo.
 
Quote    Reply

Colin Campbell       12/27/2011 3:48:36 PM
When I was in Iraq just about all of the troops were clamoring for the 6.8 round - however the Pentagon bureaucracy thought that is would be too expensive to replace the 5.56 with something better.

The primary resistance to getting a better bullet is the Pentagon bean-counters.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Colin   12/27/2011 4:19:34 PM
To Summarize HorseSoldier who used to post here:
1) SOCom used it and didn't think it was worth the extra bother...
2) It may be better but is it BILLIONS of dollars better, because to re-do the M16/4/249's in the US arsenal is going to take BILLIONS.
3) What IS "better?"  Is it more "lethal?"  Define lethal...only the .45 Caliber and the .50 caliber can be considered one-shot lethal, so unless you are going to be carrying Delisle Carbines and Barretts NO weapon is going to be lethal.
4) "troops" in Iraq, WHICH troops in Iraq, Horse reported most complaints came from troops who didn't fire their weapons...so mayhap more target practice, rather than a different round would be a better bet.  No one dies from a bullet that doesn't hit them.
5) Yellichink, who cares if it fires a sub-sonic round?  The goal of a Ranger/Light Infantryman/Marine Rifleman/Mechanized Infantryman ISN'T stealth, it's accurate fire out to 600 metres to kill, wound or suppress the enemy, it's not sneaking up on someone and using a suppressed/silenced weapon.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/27/2011 4:28:09 PM


  5) Yellichink, who cares if it fires a sub-sonic round?  The goal of a Ranger/Light Infantryman/Marine Rifleman/Mechanized Infantryman ISN'T stealth, it's accurate fire out to 600 metres to kill, wound or suppress the enemy, it's not sneaking up on someone and using a suppressed/silenced weapon.

The round is developed by the company which is well known for making sound suppressors.
I didn't claim that it is superior to 5.56NATO. I didn't say that the intended purpose is for regular units.
 
Just say what it is.
 
Suppressed deer hunting could be fun, though.
 
Quote    Reply

Rick9719       12/28/2011 12:05:29 AM

2) It may be better but is it BILLIONS of dollars better, because to re-do the M16/4/249's in the US arsenal is going to take BILLIONS.

It's hard to think of anything more important to the US Army than getting the bullets right.  With what we've learned about the importance of aimed shots and the improvments we've made in materials, switching back to the 7.62 M-14/M89/Socom makes sense and would be worth the money.
 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       12/28/2011 2:29:01 AM

Suppressed deer hunting could be fun, though.
A low velocity round with limited penetration and hardly any wound cavity. Don’t bother with expanding bullets, they won’t work that slow. You will need to be close to get reliable hits, and unless you get the brain or the heart you better be prepared for a long chase, unless you are the type of hunter that will just let the animal suffer for days before it dies.
 
Or you could just take up bow hunting. It is quieter, has better penetration, and with broadheads they bleed out quick. Plus the season is longer. 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Ricky   12/28/2011 10:46:31 AM
7.62mm X 51mm is far to big a round...the vast majority of Infantry Combat (WWII evidence) occurs within 200 metres, the rest within 400 metres to 600 metres.  Verty little combat occurs at ranges greater than 600 metres....and as a GLOBAL force, that matters...we won't be fighting in Afghanistan, the next time. 
 
And why is 7.63mm "better?"  Be specific.  Is it more "lethal?" Define Lethal....
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       12/28/2011 11:30:32 AM


7.62mm X 51mm is far to big a round...the vast majority of Infantry Combat (WWII evidence) occurs within 200 metres, the rest within 400 metres to 600 metres.  Verty little combat occurs at ranges greater than 600 metres....



Russians adopted this approach since WW2.
 
Their way of dealing with it? Anything but single caliber solution.
 
That's why they have DMR with Dragunov integrated at platoon level.
 
That's the rare thing which Russians got it right from the beginning.
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Yellichink   12/28/2011 11:40:03 AM
What are you saying?  I don't follow...the US doesn't have a single caliber policy, hasn't since the M-16 was adopted...PRIOR to that it did, 7.62 X 51 (M-14, M-60/1917/1919) or .308 (7.62mm X 63mm-Garand/BAR/Browning MMG).
 
I'm saying the Garand/Lee-Enfield/Mauser/FN-FAL/G-3 are a waste of resources...too large a round, for their user(s).  The M-60/Browning/Bren/MG-42/MG-4 are a better use of the round.  And a move to re-adopt the 7.62mm NATO is a mistake, for the rifleman, because it's too large and long-ranged...most infantry combat occurs at 400 metres or less...and an infantryman needs a weapon optimized for that, not a round that is lethal to 800-1,000 metres, producing too heavy a weapon system, with too much recoil, on a target set the infantryman doesn't engage. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics