What do you think they should do?

[castalott]

We can talk 'accuracy' of these rifles but they all shoot bad with bad ammo.

The M1A I had would shoot an honest 1 inch group at 100 with iron sights. With a scope that opened up to 2-3 inches. I went thru 3 mounts, including the very best available, and that is what the rifle shot. The front sight leaned to about the 1.30 position and the 1 inch group would move depending on whether the front sight was vertical or the rifle was vertical. It had a terrific trigger and never failed with good ammo.

I watched a guy shoot a HK91 with the good (HK) mount and a good scope at 100. It shot 1/2 MOA at 100. I tried to buy that rifle but no. The ergonomics don't fit me too well but I expect it would work ok...

I have shot 5 or 6 FALs and that is a **** shoot. The Metric guns out shoot the inch guns ( to be fair the inch guns were all Bitsis.... A bit of this and a bit of that as the Brits say). Except for the grip, I like the inch controls better. All the inch guns ( well worn and who put them together?) shot 4 to 6 moa. All the metric guns shot< 2.25 moa. Find ammo they like and most of the metric guns will stay under 2 moa. I watched one shoot into one little hole (< .4 moa)(5 shots). Was it a fluke? Maybe...probably... but it did do it.

Scope mounting on an M1A didn't destroy the balance or the feel of the rifle. A scope on a FAL destroys the balance and feel of the rifle... at least to me...


I don't own one but I think the current crop of AR rifles in 308 are the best of all of these. I didn't say I liked it the best... But if you want to build/work on/ modify your rifle to your specs....they are the way to go Just my opinion...YMMV

[castalott]

As far as the question of the thread... If we were a nation of riflemen I would vote 6.5 or 7mm in some efficient cartridge.


( A fun little story... we were shooting balloons at 500 and Billy was just picking them off with his 223. Larry and I ( God Rest his Soul) went to reset targets. Larry found a 223 bullet on the backstop and wrapped a busted balloon around it. he took to Billy and said, " yep, you are hitting them but it won't shoot thru both sides of a balloon.....")

[Larry Gibson]

"Larry you spent enough time jumping around what is the magic number of rounds to have"

One more than the other guys got.........

Seriously, it really depends on the mission. If your mission is to make contact and engage the enemy then as much as you can carry........with a resupply not too far behind you. When I carried the M14 I carried 7 mags for 170 rounds plus a bandolier of another 60 rounds for 230 total. I also carried 4 - 6 M26s. When I carried the M14A1 I carried 14 mags for 280 plus a bandolier for 340 total rounds. With the M16A1 and 'A2 we carried seven 30 round mags and a couple extra bandoliers and 4 M26s.

When I was in Iraq I carried seven 30 round mags for 210 rounds plus a claymore bag with eight more 30 round mags, another 240 rounds was in the vehicle to use or take if necessary.

If your on other missions where mobility is the key to survival you carry enough to break contact plus a little more. With the M16A1, 'A2 and M4s that usually was just the 7 mags and a couple M26s. I usually preferred WP Frags as that gets the bad guys attention and keeps it while you scoot......

Should mention I did carry and use a M2 Carbine (never used it on rock n roll in anger though) in the SE Asian War games. I carried eight 15 rounders in an M1 cartridge belt and four 30 rounders in a mag pouch. That was 270 rounds which was plenty....most of the time.......

One other thing to mention is the evac of WIA and KIA out of the area. I'd bet 90+% of the time no one bothered to take what remaining weapons/ammunition/grenades/food/water, etc. they had left off them before evac. I've been given some pretty lame excuses as to why not; "bad to take from the dead"......."they're accountable for it".....yadda, yadda, yadda......I always robbed the dead and wounded so to speak....friendly and enemy.........better to have and not need than to need and not have........

With any of the rifles and basic loads we soon learned to have on your self and on your LBE the "need to have" equipment. The "nice to have" stuff went in your 'dig ruck or other ruck. We learned to dump the ruck when the shooting started as mobility was a key to combat survival......the object being to win the fight.......something lost on todays weighted down infantryman. If you won the fight you could always retrieve "the nice to have" plus what ever else the enemy left you. If you lost the fight then the "nice to have" didn't really matter much.......

I was 57/58 years old my last trip to Iraq. About 3 months into the deployment I sat half in and half out of my hummer and said to myself...."self, you are just too old for this ****! That was 13 years ago and now I definitely am to old to hump much.....so I have a Jeep and a 4 wheel drive PU. With either and my M1A, 24 mags and several cans of M80 I should at least give a good fight.......

[vzerone]

Larry those water drops down the barrel would be near impossible to fix being the small 22 caliber bore. The bigger bores definitely have the advantage there.

Castalott....what I'm seeing is that they are looking very hard at a 6.5 cartridge very similar to the 6.5 Carcano. That would do what you said would be nice.......BUT lately I'm hearing they are going back to the 7.62x51 and Larry talking about that HK sure kind of sounds like it.

Larry how much does being NATO compliant affect what new cartridge the U.S. goes to? Say we did go that 6.5, would NATO have to go to it also. Larry how much does NATO interchangeability of ammo on battlefield really play? I'm of the thinking ***** NATO. What are you thoughts?

Last but not least like I've mentioned I HAD a lot of WWII friends and they all had one thing to say about carrying ammo. They said they sure wish they had helicopters bringing in ammo like in Vietnam. They didn't always get resupplied and often ran out of ammo. They wished too they had copters taking out the wounded, that made a huge difference in survival.

[castalott]

The 7.62x51 is a good cartridge. EVERYONE makes this ammo. I don't know how close we are to a shooting war in Korea but we don't need to changing horses in midstream.

I doubt that any 'one' firearm/cartridge is good for all scenarios. I don't have any combat experience ( probably a very good thing for our side!) but I do collect books written by the guys that do. What one guy loved another guy hated.

Several commented how wonderful a Thompson was on the line in a dark night on a Pacific island.
( can't remember the authors). But then George MacDonald Fraser in his book "Quartered safe out here" talks of his time in Burma with the British army. He dreamed and dreamed of a Thompson. When he finally got one, he found it was heavy, it rusted and had to be wiped clean every day, and most importantly, it would not shoot thru a 2 to 3 foot diameter tree and into the Japanese soldier behind it like his Enfield would.

On a river crossing he accidentally ( on purpose) lost it and was happy to get his 303 back.


So it goes....

[castalott]

one more thought on accuracy...

I was thinking the book was 'British snipers to the Rhine " but can only find "With British Snipers to the Reich". Anyway, the author talked of Lee Enfields converted to sniper weapons. Every Enfield was tested for accuracy before leaving the factory. The Enfields that would put 5 shots in 6 inches at 100 yards were chosen for sniping. ( I'm sure the ammo was just awful.)

( This is from memory so if anyone can find the book and check this it would be ok with me...)


Once again it is the nut behind the butt that makes all the difference

[vzerone]

You have to remember the Thompson wasn't meant as an all around weapon. It is heavy and so are the magazines and ammo for it, and it's a damn hard firearm to find a comfortable carry position when slinged over your shoulder...one that would let you get it into action faster. i heard the Germans were scared to death of it.

[Multigunner]

An old German officer in an interview said that the sounds of all other weapons ran together in a fire fight but everytime he heard a burst from a Thompson he knew another of his men was dead.

[vzerone]

An old German officer in an interview said that the sounds of all other weapons ran together in a fire fight but everytime he heard a burst from a Thompson he knew another of his men was dead.

I also heard that the Germans were PETRIFIED by the Russian PPsh 41. I can imagine, that baby is LOUD with a high cycling rate.

[castalott]

I also heard that the Germans were PETRIFIED by the Russian PPsh 41. I can imagine, that baby is LOUD with a high cycling rate.

LOL....My buddy Pat had one.... he claimed there were 3 bullets in the barrel at any given time...lol

[Multigunner]

In an article written by a military surgeon of the Korean War he stated that everytime a man was brought in that had been hit by a PPSH he had at least six holes in him. They had a chart that they compared the position of the holes to because very few survived these multiple wounds and only those with a certain pattern of hits would be rushed into surgery, the others were so unlikely to survive they just did what they could to make them comfortable.

[vzerone]

In an article written by a military surgeon of the Korean War he stated that everytime a man was brought in that had been hit by a PPSH he had at least six holes in him. They had a chart that they compared the position of the holes to because very few survived these multiple wounds and only those with a certain pattern of hits would be rushed into surgery, the others were so unlikely to survive they just did what they could to make them comfortable.

Multigunner, one of the places I work a long time I had a work friend that was a Nam Vet. He brought this wound book to work one day. It was just full of photos, not much writing. I asked him where he got it. He just looked at me and smiled. Anyway most all the pictures were of Viet Cong ( and the ones that fought for them) Let me tell you they were just awful. There were some American wound pictures too. The enemy pictures were almost exclusively from the 5.56. There are a few on this forum that will tell you the 5.56 most often didn't make a terrible big hole or massive damage. Not so and I'm not going to get into detail about it. The Americans were mostly wounded with the 7.62x39. That son of a gun done some nasty stuff too. I don't believe I would want to look at that book today.

[Larry Gibson]

How did they know the wounds were from 5.56 only?

I saw 1st hand lots of bodies of VC, PAVN and, unfortunately, Americans. Of the enemy there were a few instances that we knew had been shot by 5.56, 7.62x39, 30 Carbine, 30-06, 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54R. However, in most battles there was so much use of other weapons, 40mm grenades, hand grenades, mortars, artillery and airstrikes it was almost impossible to say what caused the wounds unless forensics was involved. Then too a lot of bodies were hit multiple times after they were already dead. I know from personal use which does the most damage to the human body.

Yes, the 5.56 will do the trick and I do not want to get shot with it. It performs well at shorter ranges and with the M4s that range is shorter. We also learned the hard way what is cover to 5.56 NATO is only concealment to 7.62 NATO. It's why as the Viet Nam war progressed the M60 machine gun (A general purpose machine gun) basically became the squad automatic weapon. It's why the M240 is much preferred in the current war. It's why numerous 7.62 NATO rifles are still fielded. They have the range and when the bullet gets there it has the power to do something. It's why in built up areas the 7.62 guns/rifles are preferred because what is cover to 5.56 NATO is most often only concealment to 7.62 NATO.

It was thought in the '50s after think tank research that spray and pray fire (they called it SPIW, SALVO and a few other concepts) would be more effective than aimed fire. Those concepts have led us to the 5.56 cartridge so with less recoil more rounds can be put out. They (the Harvard geniuses and many military officers at the time) have been proven wrong. We are now groping for the real answer.......again.

[vzerone]

How did they know the wounds were from 5.56 only?

I saw 1st hand lots of bodies of VC, PAVN and, unfortunately, Americans. Of the enemy there were a few instances that we knew had been shot by 5.56, 7.62x39, 30 Carbine, 30-06, 7.62 NATO or 7.62x54R. However, in most battles there was so much use of other weapons, 40mm grenades, hand grenades, mortars, artillery and airstrikes it was almost impossible to say what caused the wounds unless forensics was involved. Then too a lot of bodies were hit multiple times after they were already dead. I know from personal use which does the most damage to the human body.

Yes, the 5.56 will do the trick and I do not want to get shot with it. It performs well at shorter ranges and with the M4s that range is shorter. We also learned the hard way what is cover to 5.56 NATO is only concealment to 7.62 NATO. It's why as the Viet Nam war progressed the M60 machine gun (A general purpose machine gun) basically became the squad automatic weapon. It's why the M240 is much preferred in the current war. It's why numerous 7.62 NATO rifles are still fielded. They have the range and when the bullet gets there it has the power to do something. It's why in built up areas the 7.62 guns/rifles are preferred because what is cover to 5.56 NATO is most often only concealment to 7.62 NATO.

It was thought in the '50s after think tank research that spray and pray fire (they called it SPIW, SALVO and a few other concepts) would be more effective than aimed fire. Those concepts have led us to the 5.56 cartridge so with less recoil more rounds can be put out. They (the Harvard geniuses and many military officers at the time) have been proven wrong. We are now groping for the real answer.......again.

Well Larry bigger is always better and take for example African big dangerous game hunting. Sure don't want to go after elephant and cape buffalo with a peep squeak varmint pecker! It's not always practical in war though. Wouldn't it been nice to have, say, a short light and low recoil rifle that shot a round with the same performance of the 300 Winchester Magnum?

I don't know the specifics of that book. We know for sure that a 50 caliber sure can mess up the human body! I was told by a number of vets that there were certain pictures you couldn't take home from Vietnam. You may know something about that.

It's a damn good thing we had the M60 in Vietnam. We really did learn we shot up too much ammo in that war. Maybe they should have made the M16 weigh 20 pounds so they couldn't just hold it up out of a fox hole by the pistol grip and spray and pray. I do realize that many of them were really scared. We do know they went to the 3 round burst pretty fast after that war.

[vzerone]

Do you think the 7mm-08 was a new cartridge at it's introduction? Well think again because in the early fifties there was a joint effort by the British, Canadians, and Belgians that resulted in a compromise cartridge called T65/7mm. It was a 7x51 that I believe would satisfy many of you in this thread here for a military cartridge for the U.S. Some of you even mentioned a 7mm-08. Here's a link to it:

http://militarycartridges.nl/uk/7mm_compromise.htm

As usual as it turned out the U.S. got it's way with the 7.62x51.

[vzerone]

7.62x51 is a really good friend to have.

especially if its using 150 round linked belts.

I sure thought it was a very good cartridge that the U.S. could have had.

[nicholst55]

https://kitup.military.com/2017/10/lethality.html

[Multigunner]

In its power range the sub .30 cartridges do nothing that the 7.62 can't do.
None of the countries who fielded rifles of less than .30 continued to use those calibers unless due to budget restraints. Even the Spanish switched over to the 7.92 and then the 7.62.
Both Japanese and Italians developed .30 cartridges because of the demonstrated short comings of their 6.5 cartridges, though both had to continue to use the older rifles due to lack of funds for a complete switch over during war time.

7.62X51 ammunition with bullets of from 130 to 175 grains are available to the U S Military to fill differing roles.

The Japanese and the Spanish both experimented with specialized lightly loaded 7.62X51 cartridges that allowed better control in full auto firing.
Developing such a light loaded round that can give a POI very close to that of the M80 Ball should not be that difficult.
That's basically a moot point since we have the M4 that fills the role of SMG and carbine fairly well, though its longer range performance is lacking when any substantial barrier or body armor protects the enemy.

[Larry Gibson]

7.62x51 is a really good friend to have.

especially if its using 150 round linked belts.

That is very true....notice what I had in my avatar picture? That was taken Thanksgiving day '65.

[vzerone]

7.62x63 is good friend to have too!!!! Like I said there are those that are very fond of their first combat rifle and caliber. So you two guys think you are going to get the entire world armies to go 7.62x51? Not going to happen in your life time. Hate to sound negative, but it's the truth. Focus on what we can go to that's better then 5.56. You know elsewhere on this forum is a thread on the 224 Valkyrie that is a vast improvement over the 5.56 and would be an easy switch for our military. In all reality that 7x51 would have been a slightly better round then the 7.62x51, but never a slightly inferior one. Larry I'll bet if your M14 and M60 were chambered in 7x51 NATO you'd be pushing the 7mm.