What do you think they should do?

[vzerone]

the original Spanish 7.62x51 prototype ammo used a 125 grain bullet the same size of the nato 147-150 grain fmj load. loaded lighter due to using plastic in the bullet like the brits did for long time with enfield ammo.

do something similar. reduced recoil ammo for what that annoying European body builder called "girly men" and young boys, rest of us MEN can grab our .308 rifle throw on a dyna comp and not notice recoil

Yes, very familar with that and what amazes me is I don't feel the 7.62x51 (U.S. version) has much of a recoil unless it's fired in a very very light weight rifle/carbine.

I just wonder had they adopted the 7x51 what it would have progressed too. Funny at the time the British felt it didn't have high enough velocity. I believe it was around a 139 grian bullet at 2800 fps. Well that's pretty in line with 7mm cartridges of today that have near the same powder capacity.

[Larry Gibson]

"Larry I'll bet if your M14 and M60 were chambered in 7x51 NATO you'd be pushing the 7mm."

You'd lose that bet. Also I'm not "pushing" anything.

I'm just stating facts based on what is used, has been used and stating what works best based on that from my experience, testing and research. I've been shooting all the "modern" military calibers (most of them anyway) for a long time. I have used several in military form in combat from various weapons. I've also shot the 6.5-308 and the 7-08 extensively, even a 7-08 in a M1A. None do any better than 7.62 NATO and most don't perform as well. Keep in mind from a military application the various types of bullets used; ball, heavy ball, AP, tracer and API. The inability of the 6.5s and 7mms bullets to fulfill all of those requirements led several nations to .30/.31/.32 calibers. While numerous claims have been made that the 5.56 can fulfill all those bullet requirements it has not been proven in fact. That is why 7.62 NATO MGs are still maintained at unit level. It's why the M14 variants, AR10s and the new sniper rifle are all 7.62 NATO. The enhanced M16s which were touted to fill the sniper/SDM role out to 800M did not pan out in the real world.

My preferred cartridge for varmint shooting and 300 yard F Class matches is the 223/5.56. My preferred long range varmint cartridges are the 22-250 and the 244 Rem. My preferred NMC cartridge is the .308W in the M1A simply because I can still focus on the front sight (can't with an M16/AR service rifle). My preferred hunting and long range target cartridge for medium game is the 30-06. My "heavy" game cartridges are the 375 H&H and the 450-400-70. For cast bullet hunting of deer, pigs and elk I have become partial to the 35 Rem in my rebarreled M91 Argie.

So, pray tell, I'm a tad bit confused.....which am I "pushing".....?

[vzerone]

Well Larry some truth to what you posted, but I'll have to disagree that the 7mm-08 can't do better. For one it has a better trajectory. I too have had and shot all these weapons and caliber, but thank God not in anger at an enemy.

I don't really think you could say if when you were in the Army in 1965 and they issued you an M14 in 7mm-08 that you wouldn't have liked it and bend their ears over and over it should be a 7.62 caliber.

I feel then you should contact the military and the President and insist our military goes back to the M14 in 7.62 NATO. Apparent to you that it's the best ever military rifle and caliber ever conceived.

Now on another note what was Eugene Stoners first AR 10 prototype chambered in?

[Larry Gibson]

"I feel then you should contact the military and the President and insist our military goes back to the M14 in 7.62 NATO. Apparent to you that it's the best ever military rifle and caliber ever conceived."

No need to get defensive. This is supposed to be a discussion on “If the military is looking for a new full power load that is in the same class as the current 7.62x51 but wanting better…what do you think would be better?” I am entitled to my opinion here just like everyone else.

There are enough in the military currently bending everyone's ear on going back to the 7.62 NATO cartridge. Personally I think the world has changed enough with potential warfare anywhere that a "one size rifle/cartridge" will be the best option in the future. The M4 is sufficient for support troops but combat units should have options available to then depending on the nature of expected operations. We did in SF and it posed little problems. Perhaps a modular weapons system might be best built around the 7.62 NATO or other comparable cartridge on an AR frame. Then switching back and forth between M4s/ M16A4s would pose little additional training.

Here in Lake Havasu there are several machine shops that were/are making AR lowers for various manufacturers. One shop is making AR rifles in 30-06 and 300 Win Mag and any similar cartridges. They are big and heavy. They have to be to hold up. Even with the switch from steel to aluminum receiver the new M110 HK 7.62 NATO sniper rifle is heavy......it has to be big beefy and heavy to hold up. The M14 does not. Not saying we need to go back to the M14 but if one wants 7.62 NATO performance is there a yet a better platform? We haven't seen one. There are several product improved M14s that are even better for todays potential scenario that the "one rifle fits all" standard M14 model.

While the M16/5.56 have gone through several complete product improvements through their service we really haven't seen any other cartridge with enough improvement in the M16 frame to make a switch worthwhile let alone cost effective. If a change is going to be made to a larger more powerful cartridge then a new platform will also be needed.

It doesn't matter what cartridge a prototype was made in. What matters is what cartridge it was submitted for testing in and what cartridge it was adopted in. The AR 10 prototype initially submitted by Stoner for testing was in 7.62 NATO.

It would appear you are "pushing" the 7-08. Point is they didn't issue me anything in 7mm in '65. I saw a lot of weapons and different cartridges used in that war but never saw a 7mm of anything there. That is not to say there is anything wrong with 7-08 but what would be any practical advantage to it over the 7.62 NATO? And keeping in mind the 7-08 was developed well after the 7.62 NATO was developed and proven worldwide. Let's see......oh yes, it shoots flatter......well does it? Compare a 140 gr 7-08 and a 147 gr M80 both out of a 22" barrel with a 60 psi MAP given a 250m BS zero out to 450m. Any difference in recoil? How about the old "he can carry more ammo" line of BS.....how much more 7-08 can a soldier carry than 7.62 NATO?

Bottom line to answer the OP's question; I don't think there is anything in the same class as 7.62 NATO that will "be better".

[vzerone]

Not getting defensive Larry, just a little bit is all. I think this is a good conversation myself.

A rifle that comes to mind, and was developed around the same timer period as the M14 which also was chambered for a cartridge similar power as the 7.62 NATO, is (you ready for this?LOL) the MAS 49/56. That's just one off the top of my head. In all fairness the FAL gave the M14 a good run for it's money. Some say it beat it. Just like with the M16, which had many bugs, the FAL could have had the bugs worked out. They could have lightened it and chopping down that long flash hider they had would be a good weight reduction place to start. I don't think the G3 is that bad as you make it out to be.

The contruction and weight of the receivers on an AR 10, in my opinion, don't have a lot to do with the rifle taking a beating with the cartridges you named. The AR 10's that are really 308W actually operate at a higher pressure then the 30-06. It's very close to the 300 Win Mag too. So 7.62x51 would be easier on the rifle. What takes the brunt of it in an AR is the bolt and barrel extension. The receivers are merely recepticals to kind of hold everything together.

The first AR 10 was AR 10 A and was chambered for the 30-06 metric designation of 7.62x63 and it used a modified BAR magazine. Remember Stoner was a Marine and his caliber was 30 caliber. There were three designers in the making of the AR 10 and Melvin Johnson was one. I forget the other off the top of my head. Johnson's bolt system greatly influenced Stoner and you can see that in comparing the designs.

You ever fool around with and shoot a Russian SVT 40? Very interesting rifle. Light, the equivalent of a 7.62 NATO (maybe even more), integral muzzle break, adjustable gas system, box magazine and stripper clip fed. Problem with the Russians is they handed the rifle to peasants and farmers with no training or instructions, often didn't even issue them rifles telling them to pick one up in the field from a fallen comrade. You know the story there. It was the Germans that made that rifle shine. How about the FN 49, what do you dislike about it? Chambered in three different cartridges. Many praise the Egyptian Hakim. That one to me is too big and heavy, but many claim it to be a better rifle then the Garand.

[vzerone]

Country of Origin: US
Appears in: Competition for new service rifle in mid-1950s
Notes: The AR-10 that everyone knows today was the result of several prototypes and modifications. The basic design was still similar to the AR-10 familiar today, but was the result of several prototypes. Stoner began work on the AR-10 before he joined Armalite, and several features that would become familiar later, such as the carrying handle, the straight-in-line design, and the direct gas impingement system. The AR-10, unfortunately did not win the competition, despite many testers having judged it the best rifle in the competition. The AR-10, however, has come back, in the guise of the SR-25 SASS.
The first AR-10 prototype fired .30-06 Springfield (it appeared that the new rifle would fire .30-06 at the time). The barrel, bolt, and recoiling mass were straight-in-line, reducing felt recoil. The stock, however, did have a bit of a drop in it, behind the recoiling mass. Despite the AR-10 prototype's cutting edge design, some features of earlier rifles were used, such as the use of BAR magazines, and the sights and bolt locking mechanism of the Johnson Light Machinegun. The second prototype was made when the competition was changed to what would become the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. It was very similar to the First Prototype, but used a completely straight-in-line stock. The front sight remained a post on a triangular riser, but the rear sight used was a ZF-41 optical sight as used on the some versions of the Kar-98k. In both prototypes, there was a carrying handle incorporating the rear sight and enclosing the charging handle. Barrels were 20.8 inches; this would remain the same throughout the prototyping process. Magazines were subcontracted out, but proprietary at the time. The barrels for these two prototypes were light alloy, lined with stainless steel. Another feature which would remain constant (though the parts differ between the prototypes) are the large-scale use of polymer and light alloy.
The third prototype, the AR-10 A (not to be confused with the modern-production AR-10A), can be immediately spotted by its front sight assembly mounted on a pepperpot-type muzzle brake, similar to the mounting on a Johnson LMG. The handguards are short, leaving a long length of exposed barrel; this was an immediate no-go among the testers. The pistol grip was less sharply raked, and rather un-ergonomic. The charging handle was attached to the exposed bolt on the right side. The AR-10A used a lot of polymer, fiberglass, and light alloy, of course.
The AR-10 B (again, not to be confused with the modern-production AR-10B) incorporated a number of changes desired or suggested by the military testers. Minor changes included the gas block moved to the top of the barrel, and a linking stainless steel gas tube leading to the gas port in the lower receiver. The charging handle was placed at the rear of the frame, a feature familiar to AR-15 and M-16 users. The forward side had a narrow riser, and was positioned between the handguards and the muzzle device (which was a more beefy muzzle brake than that of the AR-10 A).The barrel was, again, light alloy with a bore liner of stainless steel, but it had more stainless steel thickness than previous AR-10 design. New handguards were designed; they looked very FAL-like, and increased the rate of cooling. The light alloy receiver and some internal parts were made of steel or reinforced with steel frames; the barrel also used a steel armature to bed the barrel. The butt and pistol grip were made of molded plastic strengthened with fiberglass; the stock, for example, was hardened fiberglass and filled with glass fiber. The US Army also found deficiencies in the AR-10 B; their primary concern was the temperature the barrel reached, up to 600 degrees on occasion. Armalite chose not to attempt another entry in the competition. Stoner and Armalite decided instead to sell semiautomatic version to civilians, and let it be license-produced in small numbers in the Netherlands. Series production of the AR-10 only resulted in slightly over 9000 copies. The version built by the Dutch differed from the AR-10 B in having a long, open, birdcage-type flash suppressor, and in being much lighter due to heavier use of advanced (for the time) light alloys and lighter fiberglass in the stock.


The weights for the AR 10 first prototype through the second prototype, the AR 10A, AR10B, and the Dutch AR10 was from 3.29 kg to 4.05 kg. The 30-06 first prototype AR10 is the one that weighed 4.05 kg.

[Larry Gibson]

Proto-type.....smoto-type.....you are hung up on them. They are irrelevant to the final product. Stoner, after his 1st '06 proto-type, built the next ones on 7.62x51. That is the AR 10 in various models that was built in the Netherlands. They made less than 10,000 of them. unfortunately many were sold before product development was properly done and bad for sales things happened like;

In 1957 Cummings secured an order of 7,500 AR-10 rifles from Nicaragua, with an initial delivery of 1,000 rifles to be delivered before January 1958. The order was contingent on a successful completion of a 7,500-round endurance test. With the AR-10 in short supply, Cummings left his personal demonstrator rifle with Nicaragua's chief military commander, General Anastasio Somoza, who would personally conduct the endurance test trial. While General Somoza was firing this rifle for the trial, the bolt lug over the ejector sheared off and flew past Somoza's head. The general angrily returned Cummings' AR-10 and canceled the entire Nicaraguan order. The remaining Hollywood rifles were inspected and refitted as necessary with new parts to prevent reoccurrence of the bolt lug failure, but the Nicaraguan order was lost for good.

Oops, not good.

Same thing happened with the AR15/XM16. It was issued out w/o proper development and testing. Soldiers/Marines lost their lives because of that. We ended up with the M16A1, then the M16A2, then the M4 and the M16A4. The M4 went through it's own problems of being issued before proper testing was completed which is why the M4A1 came along........

Current AR10 rifles in 7.62 NATO weigh 9+ pounds in service rifle configuration or they don't hold up. For example the HK G28 commercial and service rifle version weighs in at 5.8 kg (about 3 lbs lighter than the new M110 just adopted. That's close to 12.8 pounds for an unloaded service AR10 that holds up under the rigors of military service. Again, not a proto-type but the finished production rifle.

Now. how about something concerning the OPs question?

[M-Tecs]

Larry I don't know enough about the M110's growing pains for combat use to comment. I do know when it first came on the scene it was believed that it would dominate the Service rifle competitions at Camp Perry. That never happened. Long range accuracy was an issue. That was tracked down to flex in the upper. The first work around was adding a one piece rail from the handguard to the upper. Next was the monolithic uppers. Not sure what else was done.

The steel uppers sound interesting for future builds.

[vzerone]

Larry I could say the same thing about you being hung up on the M14 and the 7.62 NATO. I haven't seen you suggest a better rifle to the OP once, except again, the M14.

They aren't going to go back to an "old" design. They will come out with something entirely new. More then likely a new cartridge too, but I will say I think they are going to be with the M16 platform for a while longer. They are using old M14's in the sand box because that's all they have along with the AR 10's. I'm sure you know I mean that in respect to supplement the 5.56 for a cartridge that has more range and power. The government sure as hell isn't going to build new machinery to build new M14's. The U.S. had no were to turn too or any "colony" to turn to and borrow some 7.62 rifle.

So the M16 platforum being the U.S. longest running military rifle has nothing to do with the rifle at all, but just politics huh Larry? How come hardcore M14 lovers like you didn't raise a rukus and convince them to stay with it. You know the Army seen the Air Force had the new M16's and by God they wanted them too. Big mistake huh? I'll tell you the biggest mistake and it was letting the government run it.

See you didn't address the rifles that I mentioned that were/are decent rifles.

Now as far as the lug breaking on that AR 10, well all those AR's were in their infancy then. They only had an idea of what steels to use. Hell Colt has been using the Carpenter Steel bolts since ever and we know there are better steels today. The M14 had a head start with the Garand. In fact the M14 was the improved model of the Garand. Research the Garand and see all the problems it had in the beginning. If the M14 had to start dead nuts new in Vietnam it would have failed miserably too if it didn't have the Garand head start. The whole idea of the action was started with Garand, but if you remember he tried first to make it primer activated. What crazy notion that was.

[vzerone]

Larry I don't know enough about the M110's growing pains for combat use to comment. I do know when it first came on the scene it was believed that it would dominate the Service rifle competitions at Camp Perry. That never happened. Long range accuracy was an issue. That was tracked down to flex in the upper. The first work around was adding a one piece rail from the handguard to the upper. Next was the monolithic uppers. Not sure what all was done.

The steel uppers sound interesting for future builds.

Dont' fall for Larry's steel receiver, you don't need them. If those M110's are as accurate as they want then they are doing something very wrong in building them. Let Camp Perry allow a civilian AR10 built by the companies that know how to build them and see what happens.

The fact the military is using the M110 says they have takened more then a hard look at it. It's not something else is it?

[M-Tecs]

Dont' fall for Larry's steel receiver, you don't need them. If those M110's are as accurate as they want then they are doing something very wrong in building them. Let Camp Perry allow a civilian AR10 built by the companies that know how to build them and see what happens.

The fact the military is using the M110 says they have takened more then a hard look at it. It's not something else is it?

Actually I build NRA match rifle and Service rifles. I am also trained by the military to do just that. Upper receiver flex has has been an issue for the M110 for Military snipers and both military and civilian competitors since the introduction of the M110.

As to allowing companies to build civilian service rifles nothing is stopping them currently other than the Highpower/CMP rules that define what a service rifle is.

The AR 10 platform has be used with limited success to build match rifles long before the M110 was adopted.

As to whom I am listing too? First is personal experience, next are other civilian and military match and service rifle builders than anyone that has real first hand experience on the subject.

How many match or service rifles have you built for national level competition? Do you compete at a national level with an AR Service rifle? What are you basing your statement that the aluminum AR10 upper doesn't have flex issues?

[vzerone]

Actually I build NRA match rifle and Service rifles. I am also trained by the military to do just that. Upper receiver flex has has been an issue for the M110 for Military snipers and both military and civilian competitors since the introduction of the M110.

As to allowing companies to build civilian service rifles nothing is stopping them currently other than the Highpower/CMP rules that define what a service rifle is.

The AR 10 platform has be used with limited success to build match rifles long before the M110 was adopted.

You nailed it, the rules that define a service rifle. Please tell me what the flex has to do with anything after the primer is ignited. They sure didn't build their new sniper rifle on the M14 platform did they?

The conversation was suppose to be along the lines of a new standard military rifle, not special sniper rifles.

[M-Tecs]

Please tell me what the flex has to do with anything after the primer is ignited.

Both the upper and barrel flex as the bullet is in the barrel. The less consistent the flex is the more accuracy suffers.

As to what the OP asked it was specifically what a new military cartridge should be. OP did not request info on what platform this new cartridge should be in.

I will assume since you did not address my questions you have no first hand experience with obtaining maximum accuracy at long range with the AR10 platform?????????

[vzerone]

I know they have issue too with the fit of the upper and lower. So what I'm hearing you say then it's affecting the harmonics of the barrel.

I read a long time back about this gunsmith that built match rifle and was trying to do things to make the rifle more accurate by peculian mean. Get yourself a cup of coffee and sit back and read this. He was dealing with a bolt action. He got to thinking that there is a hole in the bottom of front receiver ring. The receiver was a round type not with the integral bedding lug. The hole was for a 1/4x24 bolt. So drilled a same size hole 180 deg opposite of the bottom one. Went out and tested the rifle and it shot consistant smaller groups. Back to the bench he studied the action more. It had a gas vent hole on the left side. He drilled one on the right side, back out to test. Again the rifle shot consistant smaller groups then the previous test. He concluded with these holes in the front receiver ring had something to do with barrel harmonics. He was also one of those gunsmiths that toyed with building a tight fitting sleeve over the action to stiffen it. He started with a group of shoulder that were talking a shorter action being stiffer and shooting better then a longer action of the same type.

It's not just the barrel vibrating, it's the whole action. I see now what you're talking about on that sniper rifle.

With Larry saying "they don't hold up" I envision the rifle's action literally falling apart in your hands because the receiver can't take it. I can't see an AR10 doing that.

[M-Tecs]

I know they have issue too with the fit of the upper and lower. So what I'm hearing you say then it's affecting the harmonics of the barrel.

Upper to lower fit is a separate issue. The M110 aluminum uppers simply are not ridged enough to provide the same level of accuracy of the beefed up or monolithic AR 110 receivers that have been developed to minimize this issue.

[vzerone]

Upper to lower fit is a separate issue. The M110 aluminum uppers simply are not ridged enough to provide the same level of accuracy of the beefed up or monolithic AR 110 receivers that have been developed to minimize this issue.

We're getting off topic here, but are the M110 receivers forged or billet?

[vzerone]

Its more then easy enough that someone isn't going to let things run until we all agree that there pet cartridge chambered in an m16 is going to be the next godsend to the us infantry man.

Pencil barrels BLOW. and suck. and blow some mores.

The SDM/dsm rifle concept was to put a rifle with better accuracy potential, with a better optic into the hands of an infantry man with slightly better trigger training.

they used 12-14 inch m4 carbines from FNH. NOT that 6-800 yard sniper gun....

Agreed and boy did the first M16's in Vietnam have thin barrel!!! They came up with that M4 for a special purpose, now they seem to use it for everything and you can't have eat your cake and have it too.

[Larry Gibson]

And......the unfortunate thing they've failed to learn in this last war where demand for longer range and greater terminal affect is the short coming of the short barrel.......pun intended........

[vzerone]

Here you go, here's another 7.62 contender:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

[vzerone]

What German Special Forces just adopted;:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

Mr Stoner you should be proud!