Titan ReloadingRotoMetals2MidSouth Shooters SupplyLee Precision
Graf & SonsADvertise hereStainLess Steel MediaInline Fabrication

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Looks Like The Army Dropped The New 7.62 Rifle Program

  1. #1
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478

    Looks Like The Army Dropped The New 7.62 Rifle Program

    From what I can gather the Army has changed it's mind again. They won't be persuing the 7.62 rifle. At least that is what I got from this release.

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

  2. #2
    Boolit Master



    MUSTANG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Moapa, Nevada or Kalispell, Montana
    Posts
    1,193
    The article does mention they will focus on the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW), as a permanent solution that will be Ten Time better - but no mention of any specifics or development/testing/delivery schedule. Thus we have no idea of caliber, projectile, etc.. Maybe it will be a Ronny Ray Gun solution that shoots lightening bolts and no ammo necessary; otherwise it sounds like a Tax Payer Soaking Boondoggle to me.
    Mustang

    "In the beginning... the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain.

  3. #3
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,283
    As much .308 as I shoot, the round is not without it's problems.

    It was born as the child of more than a little post-WWII nationalism, and the desire to cram the performance of the .30-06 ball round into as small a possible space pretty much guaranteed that it would not have the .30-06's versatility. I've notice that those chickens are starting to come home to roost.

    You see, the geometry of the 7.62x51 was cooked when everybody thought the notion of sniping was antiquated, and it was cooked up before the advent of these high-B.C. hollow-point and plastic-tipped match bullets. These bullets are often too long for a .308 magazine - at least without stuffing them deep into the case, compromising powder capacity. When you start necking the basic cartridge down to take narrower-diameter and even longer bullets, the problem only gets worse. That cartridge selection has painted NATO into a too-small box (magazine). This might be part of the decision process.

    It's taken about a century and a quarter, but perhaps we're about to see that the 7x57/8x57 geometry was the right idea to begin with.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  4. #4
    Moderator

    ShooterAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Posts
    3,749
    The 7x57/8x57 geometry was indeed a good idea, as good as any. Having said that, I have found that a winning ticket with my 308W's is the Barnes "X" copper bullets. The 130 and 150 TTSX are scary accurate in my M1A and M700 and does things that the 30-06 does with the heavier conventional bullets. No slam on the 06, cause it shoots those same bullets well too. The Barnes bullets are a game changer in the 308 in my opinion.

  5. #5
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    I understand that part of the reason to come up with the 7.62 NATO is that the shorter rounds are suppose to function from machineguns better and more reliable. Did they really have any problem with the 30-06 doing so in machineguns?

  6. #6
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterAZ View Post
    The 7x57/8x57 geometry was indeed a good idea, as good as any. Having said that, I have found that a winning ticket with my 308W's is the Barnes "X" copper bullets. The 130 and 150 TTSX are scary accurate in my M1A and M700 and does things that the 30-06 does with the heavier conventional bullets. No slam on the 06, cause it shoots those same bullets well too. The Barnes bullets are a game changer in the 308 in my opinion.
    Indeed they are, but they do serve to illustrate the problem. I'm running the 130 TTSX in my Ruger Scout, and while it shoots with amazing accuracy, it did have to get seated farther back from the lands and deeper into the case than I'd like to get it to clear the front of the mag. That was with the metal mags. I purchased one of the plastic 5-rounders to see if the more rounded corners might make for some more comfortable carrying techniques, but I ended up returning it when the same load jammed up against the front wall.

    The modern bullet technology just has issues fitting with the magazine dimensions cooked up in the early '50's. It's interesting to contemplate where we'd be for "standard" action sizes if the U.S. military wasn't so insistent on waving its manhood around, and NATO went with a more 7.62x39 or 5.56-like cartridge from the get-go. The entire world could have just standardized on the 8x57 for squad automatics and snipers and the 8x33 for infantry and we'd probably all be perfectly happy today.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  7. #7
    Moderator

    ShooterAZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Posts
    3,749
    "The entire world could have just standardized on the 8x57 for squad automatics and snipers and the 8x33 for infantry and we'd probably all be perfectly happy today."

    I really can't argue with that at all. The step down from the 30-06 was a big mistake IMHO, but the 308 has a good proven record in combat. The 5.56 on the other hand...it's good for prairie dogs and coyotes. Sure, it's killed a lot of our enemies (and innocents of late). I'd rather have a 30 cal if I had get in a fight. The 8x57 properly loaded in suitable rifles will surely outclass the 30-06. For the record, I have not had any seating issues with the 130 TTSX in any of my 30 cal rifles. It's performance on game has been outstanding.

  8. #8
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    130
    IMHO we will never get past this until someone driveses a wooden stake in the heart of COLT consulting because nothing gets adopted unless the design gets sold to COLT.

  9. #9
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    brisbane ,qld,australia
    Posts
    486
    That is what the British military decided straight after WW2.Adopt the 8x57 and MG42,and develop a new roller locked assault rifle to use the 8mm short.The idea horrified the govt of the day,it was political suicide.For the same reason,even if the AK and 7.62x39 was the best possible assault rifle,it would be politically and idealogically impossible to even consider it.

  10. #10
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    387
    I'd say that john Moses Browning designed just about all the machine guns that were/are still in the U.S. inventory. Including the BAR. Haven't heard of any problems with any of them. Then you have the 1903 & 1903A3 & 1903A4 as well as the M1 Garand and 1917 Enfield. All in 30-06, lump in the various commercial sporters made just about everybody and you have a pretty much great rifle/rifle combination. Biased?, think I am as I have at least 4 '06 chambered rifles and three 308/7.62 rifles. Always found it easier to get an accurate load with the '06 than the 308. Think IMR 4350 and the various 165/168 grain bullets are a winning combination. That is the only powder I've ever used for my '06's with the exception of IMR 4895 in the Garand. My Sako loves 55.5 grs IMR 4350, Fed case, CCI 250 primer and 165 Nosler ballistic tip. Also likes my dwindling supply of LC67 Match M72 ammo. Frank

  11. #11
    I hate to rain on this parade, but look at this issue from your pocketbook. I'd love to be rich enough to afford Barnes bullets of any kind, but I can't afford to buy these bullets and shoot more than 100 rds a year. The military had the same dilemma: the .30-06 was significantly more expensive to make than the .308 (just in raw materials). So we really go cheap with the 5.56. Don't forget how heavy all that ammo is, either. Humping across the desert with a full load of MG ammo is not fun. From my experience in Vietnam, the .308 was just fine. I never saw a firefight beyond 300yds and the .308 was great (until the Army made us turn in our M14s for mouse guns). I have the same economic view when I read about the Army putting 25 -30mm cannons on the Bradleys and Strykers. Those cannon rounds cost a lot of money!!!! In the vast majority of engagements, a single (or quad) fifty cal (courtesy of Browning) will do just fine (for about $1.50 a round). Those cannon rounds cost $20 and up PER ROUND! It's nuts. To do what, tear up a brick hut in Iraq?
    Congress and the Generals just don't get it. It's all about the money!

  12. #12
    PAPERPATCH MASTER


    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Michigan Thumb Area
    Posts
    5,604
    As I recall that when the Army was looking to retire the `06 they did a bunch of experimenting with the .300 Savage round to fill their need. The .308 was still being developed. One reason the Savage round was eliminated from adoption was that the short neck wasn`t compatable with auto weapons, the .308 has a longer case neck for this purpose.Robert

  13. #13
    Boolit Master

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    State of Denial
    Posts
    2,283
    Quote Originally Posted by ShooterAZ View Post
    . . .I'd rather have a 30 cal if I had get in a fight. . .
    I think the prevailing attitude is "If I have to get in a fight, I'd rather do it with a radio to flatten the problem with artillery, mortars, and aircraft"

    I suspect that this designated marksman notion of having a couple of shooters per small unit armed with a special rifle in a special caliber has turned into an answer in search of a question. On the surface, it's not a bad idea - most people flunk out of sniper school not because they can't shoot, but because they can't sneak. So the notion of giving those guys an AR-10 when they get back to their regular unit makes some sense - they can reach farther and punch through things.

    BUT. . .

    If you can simply obliterate the same target with the squad's MG's, or call in other assets that go "BOOM!", you have to look at such a system in a cost vs. reward light. The logisitcs problems of a different, heavier rifle, made of different parts, shooting different, heavier ammo is probably not worth the hassle for the (to pull a number out of my butt) 5% of situations where an M4 isn't ideal.
    WWJMBD?

    "I'M MELLLLLLLLLLTING!" - Elphaba

  14. #14
    Banned - Charles1990/Eldon/Happy Warrior/Red Jackson/Henry VIII/Mr Humble
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    147
    6.5 Grendel would solve it all.

  15. #15
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    4,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigslug View Post
    As much .308 as I shoot, the round is not without it's problems.

    It was born as the child of more than a little post-WWII nationalism, and the desire to cram the performance of the .30-06 ball round into as small a possible space pretty much guaranteed that it would not have the .30-06's versatility. I've notice that those chickens are starting to come home to roost.

    You see, the geometry of the 7.62x51 was cooked when everybody thought the notion of sniping was antiquated, and it was cooked up before the advent of these high-B.C. hollow-point and plastic-tipped match bullets. These bullets are often too long for a .308 magazine - at least without stuffing them deep into the case, compromising powder capacity. When you start necking the basic cartridge down to take narrower-diameter and even longer bullets, the problem only gets worse. That cartridge selection has painted NATO into a too-small box (magazine). This might be part of the decision process.

    It's taken about a century and a quarter, but perhaps we're about to see that the 7x57/8x57 geometry was the right idea to begin with.
    I respectfully disagree.

    The beloved .30-06 is a fine cartridge but it's physically much larger than it needs to be for what is required of a combat cartridge.
    To be able to extract the additional performance of the .30-06 that is above and beyond what the .308 can delivery, you have to be shooting beyond about 600 yards. The military determined that:
    A. long range shots beyond roughly 400 yards were rarely encountered in combat
    and
    B. The average soldier couldn't utilize that performance even if it was available to him.

    The .308 can fulfill the needs of the average rifleman and the needs of a long range sniper when called upon. When we get beyond the performance envelope of the .308, the next step isn't to .30-06 but rather the 338 Lupua or the 50 BMG.

    The history of the .308 Winchester [AKA 7.62 x 51] is well documented and well known. After WWII the military wanted a shorter cartridge and a shorter action. NATO wanted a common cartridge. The U.S.A. was the big dog in the NATO pack and the 7.62 won that contest.

    I don't dislike the .30-06 but it doesn't impress me at all. The .308 does everything the .30-06 does until the ranges get way out there and the .308 does it with a shorter cartridge and a shorter action. When you get beyond the capabilities of the .308 the next place to go is 7mm Remington Magnum, 338 Lupua Mag, etc.

    While I have much respect for the 7mm Mauser [7 x 57] it doesn't translate into a lot of respect for the .30-06.

  16. #16
    Boolit Master Thumbcocker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Central Illinois
    Posts
    2,243
    .276 Peterson?
    You'll go far providin' you ain't burnt alive or scalped."

    Will Geer as Bear Claw in "Jeramiah Johnson"

  17. #17
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    4,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumbcocker View Post
    .276 Peterson?


    Almost made it into NATO in 1951 as the .280

  18. #18
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    16,415
    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

    If you go to that sight and then click on the underscored NGSW it will give you the usual pipedream requirements for that kind of weapon. You'll also see it is primarily for the development of a replacement for the M249 and possibly the M240. It also gives the ammunition requirements.
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

  19. #19
    Banned

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,478
    Maybe this more describes what the Army was wanting.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2017/06/02...tomatic-rifle/

    That sound much different then a SAW. Notice the low firing rate.

  20. #20
    Boolit Master


    Larry Gibson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Posts
    16,415
    The Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) is a single incremental program to meet future force warfighting needs. It is the planned replacement for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) in Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) and select support units during the next decade. It will combine the firepower and range of a machine gun with the precision and ergonomics of a carbine, yielding capability improvements in accuracy, range, and lethality. The weapon will be lightweight and fire lightweight ammunition with improved lethality. The NGSAR will help to reduce the heavy load that burdens Soldiers and that has a significant negative impact on their mobility, survivability, and firing accuracy. Soldiers will employ the NGSAR against close and extended range targets in all terrains and conditions. The NGSAR will be compatible with and dependent on legacy optics and night vision devices to meet required capabilities. It will also be compatible with the Small Arms Fire Control system currently in development and possess back-up sights. It is anticipated the NGSAR support concept will be consistent with (comparable to) that of the predecessor M249 SAW involving the Army two level field and sustainment maintenance system. The NGSAR will achieve overmatch by killing stationary, and suppressing moving, threats out to 600 meters (T), and suppressing all threats to a range of 1200 meters (O).”

    This is the announcement I referred to by following vzerone's first site. His second site in post #21 has much more detail. However, it still states it is a planned replacement for the SAW. Wonder if we'll really see anything that can meet all that criteria or wishful thinking perhaps?
    Larry Gibson

    “Deficient observation is merely a form of ignorance and responsible for the many morbid notions and foolish ideas prevailing.”
    ― Nikola Tesla

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check