What do you think they should do?

[AbitNutz]

It looks like evolution has come up with the 7.62x51 NATO round. All its competitors have fallen by the wayside, the 30-40 Krag, 30-06, 303 British, 7.7 Jap and perhaps ultimately the mighty 7.62x54r may someday disappear in favor of its rimless ballistic twin. It would be hard to argue with how good a full power battle rifle cartridge the 7.62x51 is.
Is it the very best caliber for this case? Would a 7mm-08 be a better full power battle rifle cartridge? What about a .270 6.8mm area?
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?

[TNsailorman]

The 7.62x51 does nothing the 30-06 can't do or better. It's main claim to fame is that it gives about the same velocity of the 30-06 up to 165 grain weight bullets and being slightly shorter, a soldier can carry a little more 7.62 ammo than 30-06. But then the same can be said about the .223 verses the .308. That being said, both the 7.62 and the 30-06 hit harder at longer range than the .223. They are also better on hardened targets and bunkers. As far as being rimless being an advantage, I really don't see it as such. The case length remains the same. I don't see the 7.62 needing to be improved all that much unless you can improve the ballistics or bullets without compromising the basic cartridge. As a battle cartridge it is excellent as is. I am an old dinosaur and carried the M1 Garand and would not feel handicapped about going in harms way with one now. But I would not turn up my nose at an M14 either. There are times that full auto is handy, like when trouble is close enough to smell him. In that situation, I'll take a good 12 gauge pump or semi-auto over a .223. my opinion anyway, james

[Texas by God]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The 7.62 Nato/.308 Win is perfect for its intended role on the battlefield or hunting grounds.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[country gent]

The one problem with the above mentioned cartridges is the recoil they generate. Back when they were in use troops usually had some shooting experience and training was easier to a point. Now the military is getting recruits who may never have handled a firearm of any kind. Training is harder and the heavier recoil adds to this. The M16 with its low bore to centerline and cartridge make recoil almost nonexistent removing one variable from training. Weight of ammo is even more important with the pack load they are carrying today also. Shaving a few pounds is a big plus especially in the heat and cold. Yes the 7.62 X51 round is accurate efficient and has a very useable range but the weight and recoil restrict it somewhat also. The M14 was an excellent rifle in 7.62 nato, and the AR 10 is possibly better as it has the low bore centerline of the M16 also.

[Bloodman14]

Build an American version of the AK-47 or SKS, and let the enemy supply the ammo! The x39 cartridge is a handy, hard hitting, intermediate power round that is perfect for the urban terrain in the Middle East.

[Adam Helmer]

I am not sure I understand the question? As for the rifle I would prefer to carry, my first choice is the Match M14s I shot in the early 1980s. In 1982 and 1984 I was one of the five members of my state High Power Rifle Team to shoot 200, 300 and 600 yards at Camp Perry with iron sights with my Match M14.

In July 1965 I was issued a Mattel 16, 5.56MM and did not like it then and do not yet today! Nuff said. I prefer a Garand or M14 over the "varmit round" M16. Unfortunately, most recruits have had no firearms experience before they enter the military and you cannot make a rifleman in three days on the range! The alternative is "Spray and Pray", therefore we now have the three-round burst to hold down ammo consumption by soldiers who cannot hit what they aim at.

Adam

[lefty o]

the problem is a lack of training. even petite ladies can handle a service rifle in .308 if they get some actual training, instead of the spray and pray basics they get.

[vzerone]

Another reason they came up with the 7.62x51 is it's more suitable for machine gun actions then the longer 30-06, althought the 06 seamed to run good in them. Maybe it had something to do with the longer stroke of the action.

Not that I'm supporting the M16, but if they had the M16's we have today, that is with ALL the bugs out of them, little heavier barrel, and the excellent sights, plus the chrome lined chambers and bore......in addition to better ammo then they had in the beginning of it's use in Vietnam.........PLUS if they hadn't told the troops in the beginning it didn't have to be cleaned and issued cleaning supplies and manuals when it first appear, I believe their would be less negative comments about it in the beginning.

The government though we shot up too much ammon in Vietnam, thus the comments "spray n pray" and put the 3 round burst in.

When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do.

Me, I'd liked to have had the M14 with more a selection of ammo and FMJ's with thinner jackets to blow up like the 5.56 did...but that's asking too much especially when you don't know ahead of time what the circumstances may be.

[308Jeff]

IMHO, there is only one cartridge in the 7.62x51 class that has enough of an advantage to replace it, and that is the 6.5 Creedmoor.

*Flame On*

[AbitNutz]

IMHO, there is only one cartridge in the 7.62x51 class that has enough of an advantage to replace it, and that is the 6.5 Creedmoor.

*Flame On*

Or maybe the 6.5x47mm Lapua which is even more efficient than the 6.5 Creedmoor. Not much difference between them on paper.

[nicholst55]

A plastic, telescoped case 6.5mm cartridge is Big Army's current flavor of the week. The search for an off-the-shelf 7.62mm battle rifle was last week/month.

[Larry Gibson]

"When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do."

Have to disagree.

I was in Viet Nam in early '65 and then on to other target rich environments through out the world. Early on we had some of the "green guns" (early EXM16s with 14" twist barrels) along with XM16s (had 12" twist barrels). There was a noticeable difference in terminal effect with issue M193 5.56 between the 12 and 14" twist barrels. We didn't understand why at the time but since then I have shot a lot of things (animate and inanimate) with M193 ammunition out of 12, 14 and 9" twist barrels to know why. M193 out of 14" twist barrels did the greatest damage causing the most severe wound. However, the damage done from 7.62 NATO M80 out of M14s or M60s was far greater, especially if the bullets had passed through "concealment" before hitting Nathanial or Victor. I've seen too many enemy bodies that were shot with both to believe otherwise.

Like we paraphrased to old commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card or Visa.....accepted world wide......never leave home with out it........"

We also had quite a few M14s as when we deployed from Okinawa in May there were enough Xm16s for everyone.

[vzerone]

"When that early Vietnam issue 5.56 ammo was used, and if it performed right, it blew a mighty big hole in the enemie's body that a 7.62x51 wouldn't do."

Have to disagree.

I was in Viet Nam in early '65 and then on to other target rich environments through out the world. Early on we had some of the "green guns" (early EXM16s with 14" twist barrels) along with XM16s (had 12" twist barrels). There was a noticeable difference in terminal effect with issue M193 5.56 between the 12 and 14" twist barrels. We didn't understand why at the time but since then I have shot a lot of things (animate and inanimate) with M193 ammunition out of 12, 14 and 9" twist barrels to know why. M193 out of 14" twist barrels did the greatest damage causing the most severe wound. However, the damage done from 7.62 NATO M80 out of M14s or M60s was far greater, especially if the bullets had passed through "concealment" before hitting Nathanial or Victor. I've seen too many enemy bodies that were shot with both to believe otherwise.

Like we paraphrased to old commercial; "7.62 NATO, better than Master Card or Visa.....accepted world wide......never leave home with out it........"

We also had quite a few M14s as when we deployed from Okinawa in May there were enough Xm16s for everyone.

Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated.

I would think your rifle should have been marked XM instead of EX.
The first few Colt serial numbers (001-100) were toolroom prototypes and mules, and numbers were reused, and some were built on unnumbered receivers. Most of these were destroyed.
The first ~15,000 guns were, as the memo notes, marked as “Armalite AR-15” and these weapons went to the USAF for Security Police use and for testing by the services, including the Project AGILE tests and Vietnam tests by USSF.
The Model 03 Army Rifle was rollmarked XM16E1 until the rifle was type standardized as M16A1 on 28 Feb 1967. (The nature of mass production being what it is, this rollmark change took place over a period of months, and is uncorrelated with any physical change to the rifle).
The Model 04 Air Force Rifle is rollmarked M16.
The 10,000 guns in the 900k range are believed to include most experimental GX guns and all XM177/E1/E2 guns. We have observed GX’s outside this range. GX’s are tool-room prototypes with a four digit number which is reportedly their master drawing. We believe that there are multiple GXs with the same number. There are also GXs that also have a serial number as well as the GX number. A lot of the GXs have serial numbers in the 14xxx range. Prior to 1969 some mil experimentals were made with no serial numbers, and there are duplicate serial numbers in this area as well.
The British contract guns were originally intended for special operations forces including the SAS and SBS.

[vzerone]

Here's a picture of even an earlier rifle. Notice it's marked GX. Those were the protypes and mules. Supposedly most were destroyed.

205996

[AbitNutz]

I'm thinking that a full power battle rifle should be the 7.62x51 NATO necked down to .270. It's better ballistically, a bit lighter to carry and they can claim they did something. All hail the 6.8x51 NATO!

[M-Tecs]

Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated.
.

Per various gun rags like the Rifleman the claim was that the 55 grain ball M193 bullet was designed too be base heavy so when fired from the initial designed 14 twist barrels the bullet was marginally stabile and it would tumble on impact. The 14 twist proved to be too marginal and was changed to 12 twist.

While I have spent a far amount of time in a combat zone I was always inside the wire on airbases and have zero first hand experience with the performance of combat rounds. This is second hand but per the guys that used both the M193 55 grain in 12 twist barrels and the later M855 62 green tip out of 7 twist barrels the stopping performance of the 55's and 12 twist was noticeable better than the 62's out of 7 twist barrels but both were lacking compared to the 7.62 x 51 NATO round.

In my collection I have a very nice 100% original and correct 601 upper, several original and correct 604's and one 605 upper with a later rifle barrel.

[vzerone]

Per various gun rags like the Rifleman the claim was that the 55 grain ball M193 bullet was designed too be base heavy so when fired from the initial designed 14 twist barrels the bullet was marginally stabile and it would tumble on impact. The 14 twist proved to be too marginal and was changed to 12 twist.

While I have spent a far amount of time in a combat zone I was always inside the wire on airbases and have zero first hand experience with the performance of combat rounds. This is second hand but per the guys that used both the M193 55 grain in 12 twist barrels and the later M855 62 green tip out of 7 twist barrels the stopping performance of the 55's and 12 twist was noticeable better than the 62's out of 7 twist barrels but both were lacking compared to the 7.62 x 51 NATO round.

In my collection I have a very nice 100% original and correct 601 upper, several original and correct 604's and one 605 upper with a later rifle barrel.

M-Tecs I've also heard that the scored the M193's pretty good that they fragmented upon hitting tissue. Guess that would mean they had thin jackets.

[M-Tecs]

M-Tecs I've also heard that the scored the M193's pretty good that they fragmented upon hitting tissue. Guess that would mean they had thin jackets.

During WWII and Korea ammo was hard to get it was common to score or cut the point off of 30 cal FMJ's so they would expand.

Thin jacket is a relative term. The 55 grain M193 bullet ricochets like crazy. In my early days I tried shooting prairie dogs with them.

I have a couple of native American friends that use M193 exclusively for Elk and Moose. They claim two or three quick shots into the lungs works is very effective. I am afraid to ask but I suspect that at least one use a liberated M16 from Nam.

Spent some time with some Eskimo's this summer. They use M193 for Caribou doing the same.

Some interesting info here:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/Rifles/5.56mm/5.56mm.html

[woodbutcher]

:grin: This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[vzerone]

:grin: This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

You're right about the powder. The ball powder, at first, had too much calcium in it, which was used to increase powder shelf life. It was a very high percentage and then they found out it was fouling the M16 badly and dropped it way down.

I can't remember the powder number exactly, but it was Dupont 4475. Then they went to the ball powder, but continues using the 4475 through to the early 60's.

[M-Tecs]

Larry can address that far better than I can. He live it. That is just one of the issues on why the M16 had issues. McNamra and the slide rule boys made a bunch of changes to the M16 and ammo. They also ignored Stoner on most of his recommendation for productions rifles. The changes and lack of training created a very bad situation.

[Larry Gibson]

"Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated."

Not stating that at all. I didn't mention anything about a "smooth bore M16" either. In above freezing temps the 14" twist gave the 55 gr FMJBT bullet minimal stabilization. That provided the required accuracy by the military. It also enhanced terminal effectiveness in that the bullet lost stability and did tumble inside a target. It was found early in testing in Alaska that below freezing accuracy was lost because the velocity dropped to the point the bullet was not stabilized. Hence the change to a 12" twist.

Well, they could have been marked "XM" instead of "EX" as a lot of XM16E1s were made and used also by us. But they were black guns not green guns. The stocks of the first AR15s were brown and was reported they were the first tested with Marvin the ARVN in SEA. The stocks of the first early ones issued to SF in the Asian theater and to the 173rd Bde Sep (ABN) in the early '60s were green but shortly the black stocked XM16E1s were issued..

They probably were marked XM as I was relying on memory of 62 years ago w/o researching it but then I was there and used them......were you?

[Multigunner]

I suspect that the origin of the smoothbore M16 myth came from very far sighted recruits looking down the bore when cleaning and seeing nothing. My older Brother was very far sighted and too stubborn to wear reading glasses. I once showed him a Japanese training rifle with two piece smoothbore barrel and he said the rifling was perfect. Whatever he saw it certainly wasn't rifling.
I've also seen barrels , both worn and new, that had so much grease left in the bore after a cursory running through of a patch that they looked smooth bored.

Which reminds me. A while back I read of a lot of M1 carbine barrels being sold off cheap that turned out to have only two grooves, both on the same side. Must have had worse quality control than Ruger on a Monday.

[vzerone]

"Are you trying to say the 14 twist didn't stabilize the bullet and it tumbled causing more damage? Might be where the story of smooth bore M16's got stated."

Not stating that at all. I didn't mention anything about a "smooth bore M16" either. In above freezing temps the 14" twist gave the 55 gr FMJBT bullet minimal stabilization. That provided the required accuracy by the military. It also enhanced terminal effectiveness in that the bullet lost stability and did tumble inside a target. It was found early in testing in Alaska that below freezing accuracy was lost because the velocity dropped to the point the bullet was not stabilized. Hence the change to a 12" twist.

Well, they could have been marked "XM" instead of "EX" as a lot of XM16E1s were made and used also by us. But they were black guns not green guns. The stocks of the first AR15s were brown and was reported they were the first tested with Marvin the ARVN in SEA. The stocks of the first early ones issued to SF in the Asian theater and to the 173rd Bde Sep (ABN) in the early '60s were green but shortly the black stocked XM16E1s were issued..

They probably were marked XM as I was relying on memory of 62 years ago w/o researching it but then I was there and used them......were you?

Larry I didn't mean to imply that is exactly what you meant. The story i heard was that the Air Force in some cold climate area (Alaska comes to mind) reported that the cold temperatures caused the bullets not to stabilize because the powder wasn't burning optimin. Stoner made an appearance at that base and verified it was true. That's when they switched to the 12 twist.

These are the things I recall that made the M16 bad in the beginning: Too much calcium in the ball powder causing fouling, McNamra was too cheap to let the bores and chambers be chromed after Stoner recommended it, The first Frankfort Arsenal brass was too soft and coupled with corroded rough chambers caused it to stick and the extractor would rimp through the soft rims, the personal were told you didn't have to clean the M16 and they weren't issued with cleaning kits or instructions (you do remember the comic book like instructions that they put out immediately to resolve that along with cleaning equipment?), the barrels were thin and report of some soldiers bending the barrels while opening crates with the bayonets attached, the three prong flasher, although and excellent flash hider, snaged on tree branches, the smooth forearms were very slippery when wet, they didn't have forward assist at first (which many question if you really need it). It was fielded too soon. Like I mentioned before if they had the current M16 then, I believe it would have been a wholed different ball game.

Hell look Larry, Japan is an island, and the Jappanese didn't waterproof any of their equipment in the beginning of the war including their ammo!!! They learned the hard way on those tropical islands.

We learned a valuable lesson in Vietnam...the hard way.

[Larry Gibson]

:grin: This question is for Mr Gibson or M-Tecs.Now my memory is a bit fuzzy on this,so forgive me if wrong.What I heard about the M 16 malfunctions was this.They switched from IMR type powders to ball type to get the MV up to what they wanted.Now the way I understand the issue is this,Ball type leaves a residue that is not compatible with a high humidity environment as it leaves a residue that becomes sticky in the high humidity environment.Is my memory correct?Thank you for your time and consideration on this question.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

Yes it is true the arsenals switched from the recommended extruded powder to ball powder. The residue left by the powder was a calcium/carbon deposit that was very hard. The gas piston of the M16 series is part of the bolt with the cylinder being in the bolt carrier. The hard deposits in the cylinder and on the gas rings caused the action to get sluggish. Soldiers are now taught (or at least they should be) to keep the carbon cleaned out of that area. Commercial tools ("scrapers") are available to do the job easier.

However, the real problem was one of leadership. When men die in the military or elsewhere in is human nature to blame it on the equipment, in this case the rifle. While the XM or whatever M16 rifle was partially at fault the real blame was one of improper leadership. We were told the M16, being made of wondrous "modern space age material" did not need cleaning and was impervious to the elements. The only cleaning rods we had were one per squad and it was left in camp the first hew missions until we learned better. Many of us sent home for our folks to buy and send Outer .22 caliber cleaning kits. The first general issue cleaning rods were 3 piece that fit in the second issue bipod case. However only the squad AR men were issued the bipods.

The real cause of the jamming was because of improper or no cleaning. In the high humidity or monsoon weather moister condensed on the brass cartridge cases, especially the one in the chamber. This cause rusting in the chamber which developed into small pits. When the minimal high intensity 5.56 cartridge was fired brass flowed into the small pits. The case stuck in the chamber with the small extractor ripping through the rim. The only way to clear the jam was with a cleaning rod but then the next round would jam the same way. We had an old NCO (WWII and Korean War vet) who figured out the problem. We polished several chambers with steel wool (scavenged from the mess hall) on 30 cal rods and a bit of valve grinding paste (scavenged from the motor pool) on the steel wool. We kept the fully functioning rifles well cleaned and oiled after that. Toward the end of '65 or early '66 ordnance folks showed up and TM'd all the weapons, a lot of M16s were pulled and had barrels replaced. I had my best M60 barrel replaced because it was a little shot out but that's another story.........

Proper issue of cleaning equipment and proper training in maintenance of the M16 along with chromed chambers and bores of the M16A1 solved the malfunction problem for the most part. A change was also made to the powder removing the calcium which is a flash retardant.

[vzerone]

I concur with Larry Gibson except for the use of the calcium in powder. It was calcium carbonate used to neutralize the acid in ball powder. In September 1969 Olin reduced the calcium to .25 percent.

[Multigunner]

Calcium Carbonate also works as a coolant to reduce muzzle flash.

[vzerone]

Calcium Carbonate also works as a coolant to reduce muzzle flash.

That's true Multigunner. It is my understanding that in the the two main ball powders they used in the 5.56, 844, 844T, and 846 that 844 has less CC in it then the 844T because it was needed to have the gases hot enough to ignite the tracers. There was also less CC in the 844 then the 846 because because large amounts of it creates more carbon just as Larry Gibson said and it was intended to make ball ammo burn cleaner in direct impingement rifles. CC's ability to reduce acidity of the powder which reduced corrosion of the barrel.

I would say it all boils down to it done a lot of things and they selected those things independently to the application they wanted to fulfill. So in the 844 ball powder they weren't concerned about the muzzle flash as much as the other attributes.

[woodbutcher]

:grin: Gentlemen.Thank you for your replies.
Good luck.Have fun.Be safe.
Leo

[KenT7021]

As far the first use of the AR/M16 in VietNam they were issued to the ARVN Airborne.They liked them.The weapons were then taken from the ARVN and issued to Army helicopter companies for use by pilots.

[Kosh75287]

It took us a while to get the AR-15 pattern rifles right, but it appears that we have, finally. The only improvement I'D like to look into, would be rechambering it for 6x45mm, with an 80gr. FMJBT leaving at or above 2750 f/s.

[AbitNutz]

There is increasing noise about moving off and up from 5.56x45...but what to?

[nagantguy]

My vote which I don't have one is to keep the current crop of m4 platforms and 308 platform rifles as the investment is already made and start using ammo that will violently expand which already exists; I've seen very very nasty wounds on large critters from such bullets and I've also seen "bad guys" ventilated with Hauge compliment rounds and the difference is stark. They told us when we left Paris Island that with our Rifles we would rain death upon anyone who would do harm to our country;that's exactly what the arms and ammo we give give our boys should do.

[lefty o]

There is increasing noise about moving off and up from 5.56x45...but what to?

seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.

[AbitNutz]

seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.

I wouldn't have an argument against that.

[mcdaniel.mac]

seems people have been arguing, and speculating this since about 1967. if i were choosing, it would probably be something along the lines of the 6.5 creedmore.I'd have gone with a Grendel or similar, the barrel life on the Creedmore is too short for a service rifle. That gets important for sustained fire!

[Multigunner]

There should probably be more designated marksmen two or more per squad armed with 7.62X51 rifles whether scoped or not. The M14 seems to fill that role nicely.
The 5.56 weapons seem to be deployed as a substitute for SMG and carbine rather than as an infantry rifle in the classic sense. The M4 with its shorter barrel loses way too much velocity to be anything other than a carbine.
Steel core or penetrators may improve the penetration of the 5.56 but it still can't equal the performance of a bullet that weighs twice as much or more.

Its not a matter of lethality on unprotected targets, its how lethal the bullet may be after encountering substantial obstacles or body armor especially at range.
Body armor is not commonly encountered these days but there have been many reports of police and military body armor being stolen by insurgents. They'd be fools not to use it when available.

[vzerone]

What you fellows don't think about when suggesting cartridges you like or think are good performing cartridges such as the 6.5 Grendel and 6x45 is this. The Grendel is on the stubby side for a cartridge. It's also pretty much straight walled without much taper. In addition the 6.5 Grendel is too powerful to realized it's full potential in the AR15. It's hard on bolts even their new steel of 9310 and that's not even in combat. That's a terrible thing for reliable semi-auto and full auto functing especially in dirty enviroments that military operates in. The 6x45 just isn't enough improvement over a 5.56.

I've heard two thing the Army is thinking of doing. A new cartridge in 6.5. In reading the description it's the 6.5 Carcano recarnated. The other is going back to the 7.62x51. I have to think deja vu on that 6.5 closely resembling the 6.5 Carcano. Many countries fielded various 6.5 caliber cartridges many years ago and we're thinking of going back to it?

The is a problem with M16 full length rifles use in jeeps, tanks, and such. Look at some of the firearms used in WWII, the Germans at first has a very long 8x57, then shortened it in WWII. So in WWII two they had the fulls size battle rifle, the K98, a 9mm sub machine gun, towards the end the Stg 44. The Russian the Mosin Nagant in various disquises and the PPsH 41. The British the Smelly 303 and the Sten. Even the U.S. had the 1903 Sprinfield/ Garand and Thompson plus the M1 Carbine.

Boils down to their is no one format of a rifle perfect for everything.

[castalott]

If I remember correctly, there was a deal offered that we declined... if we would adopt the FAL in 7mm/08 ( it had a different name and was toned down just a little) , the rest of our Allies would too... I'm thinking the 7/08 had more at 600 than the 308 did at 500... I may have to get the FAL book out to check....but the 7/08 at the time was a very efficient cartridge and we should have done it... The terminal effects I know little about, though.... Dale

[vzerone]

If I remember correctly, there was a deal offered that we declined... if we would adopt the FAL in 7mm/08 ( it had a different name and was toned down just a little) , the rest of our Allies would too... I'm thinking the 7/08 had more at 600 than the 308 did at 500... I may have to get the FAL book out to check....but the 7/08 at the time was a very efficient cartridge and we should have done it... The terminal effects I know little about, though.... Dale

I also read that in the rifle trials the M14 was in that FAL actually beat it soundly! The 7mm-08 is a very good cartridge. The 6.5 Grendel has a trajectory very similar to the 7.62 NATO.

[TNsailorman]

I seem to remember that the IDF went away from the FAL because of problem with functioning in the sand. I never used one so I can't really say much about it. However, the Australians liked it in Vietnam. The only complaint that I ever heard from the Brits about it was that it was heavy, however they seemed to like it also. Me, I will stick with what I know, a M14 version of either the 7.62x51 or I would even go for it in 7mm-08( a short 7x57mm operating at a higher pressure). I am too old to ever hump a rifle in combat now but I still have opinions formed by a lifetime of shooting various calibers of rifles. Old is not necessarily obsolete and new is not always better. Discussing them is always interesting and sometimes downright informative. Life is interesting if you don't take it too seriously. james

[Multigunner]

IIRC the FAL failed the cold weather tests, the M14 passed. :ater production FAL of course are reliable in the cold.

The Israelis did have problems with the FAL in sandy conditions. Some later FAL versions have sand cuts in the bolt carrier to clear away sand while in operation.

Some 7.62X51 ammunition loaded with double base powders gives excessive gas port pressure causing jams and torn off rims or case separations. The M14 gas system was designed from the start to handle any probable propellant type.

[vzerone]

whod have thought, designing the gun to handle any ammo isssues from the get go like the model 98, the m14, or the 91/30 would be a logical thing to do.

...and the FAL, or called the T48 in the trails, wasn't designed for the 7.62x51 originally.

[vzerone]

IIRC the FAL failed the cold weather tests, the M14 passed. :ater production FAL of course are reliable in the cold.

The Israelis did have problems with the FAL in sandy conditions. Some later FAL versions have sand cuts in the bolt carrier to clear away sand while in operation.

Some 7.62X51 ammunition loaded with double base powders gives excessive gas port pressure causing jams and torn off rims or case separations. The M14 gas system was designed from the start to handle any probable propellant type.

The T48/FAL competed head to head against the T44 rifle, basically a product-improved M1 Garand with detachable magazine and select-fire capability.Initial testing proved the T48 and the T44 roughly comparable in performance. In December 1953, both rifles competed in the arctic rifle trials.Springfield Armory, anxious to ensure the selection of the T44, had been preparing and modifying the test T44 rifles for week with the aid of the Armory's Cold Chamber, including redesign of the T44 gas regulator and custom modifications to magazines and other parts to reduce friction and seizing in extreme cold. The T48 rifles received no such special preparation, and began to experience gas system problems during the trials.FN engineers opened the gas ports in an attempt to improve functioning, but this caused early/violent extraction and broken parts as a result of the increased pressures. As a result, the T44 was ranked by the arctic test staff as decidedly superior in cold weather operation.

When the Brits finally adopted the L85, it was far from being better than the L1A1. The L85 was so bad, it was shelved for ODS while the "old" L1A1s were brought out of mothballs and reissued to UK forces prior to the ground war, according to what I've read over the years. Hence, the L85A2 that was developed after Royal Ordnance acquired HK's engineering talent (I think that's how it went) for a PIP.

The T-48 would have been easier to manufacture than the M14, but I think McNamara was looking to rattle the cages of the "establishment" within DoD, and since everyone saw the war in SEA looming, the M16-or some other sub-caliber "SCHV" design-was inevitable.

Take into consideration that the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome quite possibly would have pressured ordnance authorities to look for a domestically-designed rifle to replace the FN designed FAL as a matter of national pride sooner rather than later. It may sound strange to you now, but NIH was a serious factor in weapons procurement dating way back to at least before the turn of the 20th Century.


The T44 / T48 tests were the death ride of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory as the Army's in-house firearms designers. Between the shenanigans pulled during this testing and the outright resistance / attempts to sabotage the M16, the position of Chief of Ordnance was abolished by SecDef McNamara and transferred to TACOM (later Army Material Command). And Springfield Armory was disestablished.

Basically, the T48 was 'not invented at Springfield'. Without someone as powerful as SecDef McNamara to push it (as he did the M16 because it was 'modern') or a President like JFK enamoured with it, the FAL was never going to be in a Soldier or Marine's hands.

From 1795 through the adoption of the M16, with the exception of the Krag (which they adopted because it was a great target rifle), every standard US Army service arm was a Springfield Armory design. And any competing designs in service , no matter how superior, were eventually eliminated. 1866 / 1873 trap door versus Spencer? **** can the Spencer!

The T44 / M14 was also the last gasp of the military target shooter fraternity ('gravel bellies' they were called) that had dominated the small arms design focus of both the Office of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory. 'Gravel bellies' wanted rifles that would win Camp Perry and not WW III. They had forced the adoption of the Krag over better US designs because it was a target shooter's rifle; stolen Mauser's patent for the M1903 and (until TR interfered) foisted the rod bayonet on the Army and fought the M1 until it turned out to be accurate enough for their precious matches.

[Multigunner]

No one "stole" Mauser's patents.
I've researched this in the past. The Chief of Ordnance cut a deal with Mauser's American lawyers to pay a royalty on use of several features of the 1893 Mauser , mainly magazine and stripper clip and the collar used to secure the non rotating extractor, which would soon have lost their patent protection anyway. The Comptroller of the U S Treasury dept objected to the amount and extent of the payments. I've found no case number for legal action filed for any patent infringement.

Later Mauser did get shafted during WW1 when the US Government attempted to short him on the previously agreed payments and the situation was settled out of court.

The British P-14 rifle used most of the same Mauser features yet no one claims they stole the design.

The major feature associated with the Mauser design is the dual opposed forwards locking lugs, which were in fact lifted from the Spandau designed GEW88 which they in turn "stole" directly from a purlorned French Lebel rifle sold to them by a French deserter. The Lebel bolt was never patented by the French because at the time it was a military secret.
Several contemporary designs used forwards dual opposed lugs coupled with non rotating bolt heads.

PS
The FAL receiver required a ridiculous number of machining steps, being machined from a nine pound block of steel. I can not see how the FAL could have been cheaper to manufacture than the M14.

[vzerone]

No one "stole" Mauser's patents.
I've researched this in the past. The Chief of Ordnance cut a deal with Mauser's American lawyers to pay a royalty on use of several features of the 1893 Mauser , mainly magazine and stripper clip and the collar used to secure the non rotating extractor, which would soon have lost their patent protection anyway. The Comptroller of the U S Treasury dept objected to the amount and extent of the payments. I've found no case number for legal action filed for any patent infringement.

Later Mauser did get shafted during WW1 when the US Government attempted to short him on the previously agreed payments and the situation was settled out of court.

The British P-14 rifle used most of the same Mauser features yet no one claims they stole the design.

The major feature associated with the Mauser design is the dual opposed forwards locking lugs, which were in fact lifted from the Spandau designed GEW88 which they in turn "stole" directly from a purlorned French Lebel rifle sold to them by a French deserter. The Lebel bolt was never patented by the French because at the time it was a military secret.
Several contemporary designs used forwards dual opposed lugs coupled with non rotating bolt heads.

PS
The FAL receiver required a ridiculous number of machining steps, being machined from a nine pound block of steel. I can not see how the FAL could have been cheaper to manufacture than the M14.

I was mainly talking about the rigged trials, not the patents. I heard they did the same thing in the trials with the M14 and the M16.

Don't misunderstand me on this, I'm not taking a stand either way: M14, M16, FAL.

[atr]

In my experience the problem with the M16 was a combination of no or little cleaning along with the the change in powder type. I liked the M16 for its rapid rate of fire and the fact that you could carry more ammunition than the M14. It was also easier than the M14 to hold steady.
That being said we were not happy switching from the M14 to the M16.
I recall the first AK47 I picked up...it took all of 15 minutes to figure out how to disassemble and clean that weapon. It was a real wake-up call when compared to the M16.
just my 2 cents worth for the day

[vzerone]

In my experience the problem with the M16 was a combination of no or little cleaning along with the the change in powder type. I liked the M16 for its rapid rate of fire and the fact that you could carry more ammunition than the M14. It was also easier than the M14 to hold steady.
That being said we were not happy switching from the M14 to the M16.
I recall the first AK47 I picked up...it took all of 15 minutes to figure out how to disassemble and clean that weapon. It was a real wake-up call when compared to the M16.
just my 2 cents worth for the day

I agree with you about the cleaning. Like mentioned there were no cleaning tools or instructions given when the M16 first appeared. Larry Gibson even mentioned about some soldiers sending home for cleaning rods.

In the "Black Rifle" book I believe it was Colt that send a rep over to Vietnam to see what the problems were. He was appalled at the condition of the rifles he saw. He said he looked down the bores of a few and couldn't see daylight, they were full of rust. He observed rifles with cleaning rods tape to them.

There were a multitude of problems with the M16 which included the rifle itself, the ammuniation, the powder used in the ammunition, the brass case, no chromed lined chamber/bore, and lack of maintenance with included lack of cleaning tools, manuals, and training.

What would one expect to happen under those kind of condition especially in the kind of climate Vietnam has? The M14 had a fathering of experience from the Garand. It had a head start in scheme of things.

Things haven't changed. Our military men always bemoaned giving up their old rifles for something new. I'll bet a survey of what rifle they loved would show it's the first one they were issued and trained with. I'm not talking about the ones that started with a M14 in trained, then taking it to Vietnam, and then given an M16. Today the M16 is one heck of a platform and many countries use it. I wonder what our soldiers would think if goverment handled them the CMMG dedicated MK47 that uses AK 47 magazine over in Vietnam if they had it back then?

[Larry Gibson]

Before regurgitating internet BS about the trials of the FAL vs the T44 one should get the facts of the tests. One should not criticize based on the 1953 test results and then leave out the results of the 1955 tests. Also McNamara had nothing to do with the testing/selection of the M14 as he wasn't SECDEF until 1961, well after the M14 was selected. I suggest reading "The Great Rifle Controversy" by Edward Ezell [Curator, Division of Armed Forces History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution]. The book has a forward by none other than Eugene Stoner who states;

"It should be required reading for all those who make decisions about small caliber weapons development. It is a must reading for all people who are concerned about the quality and effectiveness of the weapons carried by the American Infantryman."

The truth is in that book and you'll not find evidence of "rigged" or "fixed" tests. To the contrary you'll find the military actually favored the FN/FAL up until the last tests of production rifles, both US made (the FN/FAL by H&R).

In my more than 2 decades in Special Forces a greater portion was spent as an 18B (Special Forces Weapons NCO). In that capacity I traveled the world training foreign nationals in weapons and small unit infantry tactics up through battalion level. Many of those had FALs as primary weapons. Malfunctions were common due to improper gas port adjustment, dust and dirt and poor quality of magazines (particularly weak springs). Many 3rd world nations with soldiers of smaller stature had "dumbed down" 7.62x51 ammo which only functioned with the gas port in the most closed setting. In training and competitive shooting with Canadians (P.P.C.L.I. and the Airborne Regiment) they lamented giving up their FALs for the R7 (M16A1) and wished they could get M1A/M14s. The last year before Canada passed their stupid gun laws the P.P.C.L.I. showed up with real M14s they had got from Israel......it was a very closely contested match. They came down twice a year. We shot the NMC one time then the Canadian Combat matches the next.

In the mid '80s I spent a month at Swanborne, Australia (home of the Australian SAS) instructing foreign weapons during a Dark Cygnet exercise. The SAS loved the M14s we had there preferring them to the FAL and PS1s they had. Also in '65 in Viet Nam the 1RAR was attached to the 173rd and they also preferred our M14s (yes, we had some when we deployed to Viet Nam in May, '65) to their FALs.

I've shot many FN/FALs all over the world under varied circumstance. I even had a very nice Belgian made FN/FAL some years back. I never found them to be as accurate or reliable as the M14. I also found then to be less controllable in FA (shooting proper 2-3 round bursts) as a M14 or, especially, the M14A1. Probably why I own two M1As and no FAL.

[vzerone]

Larry would you expect a government official, or for that matter any official involved in the testing, to tell you they rigged the tests? I would think not. I also believe it's very true they didn't want a foreign made rifle. We may never know the real truth as many of those involved have passed on.

Have you by chance seen Larry Victor's gruesome torture testing of the Daniel Defense M4 Carbine with an Aimpoint on it? Not even the Aimpoint gave up to the harsh test. I don't see how an M14 would past the mud and sand test over a M16. It's too open on top. The M1 Garand had it's problems in the South Pacific, especially with the fine black powder sand from the volcano on that island.

Like I said I don't have a dog in this fight and I own and shoot quite a few of the military rifles in the semi-auto mode of course. All three the rifles have their good and bad points. I would say by your posts you're bias towards the M14. Had I gone to Vietnam I feel I would have preferred something shooting the 7.62x51 especially if they had today's refined AR 10. Don't forget that Stoner designed the AR 10 first in 7.62x51 showing that was the caliber he preferred over a small varmint cartridge. For some damn reason the government/military got a bug up their butt for a much lighter rifle firing a small varmint cartridge. The AR10 is in much use in the sand box and Brits, I believe, are currently having their's build by LWRC, after a refusal of their colonies for FAL's as they were asked.

[Larry Gibson]

vzerone

He wasn't involved in the testing. He had no dog in the fight. He was/is a historian and reported on the facts. Read the book instead of making excuses for internet conspiracy theories.

Let's take the '53 Artic test for example. It was expected to be just a formality on the way to approve the Belgian FN/FAL. In early August '53 the Infantry Board submitted a significant report recommending the FN/FAL be adopted. A LTG Dahlquist recommended the T44 be submitted to the Artic Test Board as a "control item". If the tests confirmed the unsuitability of the T44 (noted from previous tests) then the T44 would be dropped. The officer in charge of the T44 project, Col Rayle, was told "The T44 is so close to being a dead duck, you would be better off to spend the funds and effort on future weapons." Col Rayle instead chose an all out product improvement and prime it for the Artic test.

The product improvement included correcting the problems with the newly designed magazine, developing a winter trigger, reinforcing the stock with a steel liner and modification of the gas system. All atypical of what is done during product development and testing.

The Belgians did nothing. They had not tested the FN/FAL in Artic conditions yet still did nothing.

In December '53 in Alaska at Fort Greely the T44 was performing well, the FN/FAL was not.

Seems the gas system of the FN/FAL was gumming up. An engineer from FN, Ernest Vervier, was sent to Alaska. He increased the size of the gas port but that caused parts breakage. Too little to late by FN. The Artic test staff was not impressed by the performance of the FN/FAL. While not enthusiastic about the T44 either the test staff had to admit the T44 had been more dependable than the FN/FAL. That doesn't sound like a "rigged" test to me but a failure on the part of FN to fully test their own design.

BTW, I am not partial to the M14. I am partial to what works best. So far I've not seen any semi or full automatic rifle in 7.62 NATO that is better. Certainly not the FN/FAL. I also have shot a lot of AR-10s of various makes (the Army used to pay me to do that) including original ones from Portugal. The Brits may be buying AR-10s because even they know they are better than there FN/FALs. Remember also we have been pulling thousands of M14s out of storage and issuing them for use in the sandbox.....why?.....because we've nothing better......so far anyway.

[vzerone]

The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10.

You mentioned you shot AR10's even the originals, but have you shot the most recent AR10? Personally I'd take a recent AR10 over a M14. I see you don't mention the G3. What's your opinion of that?

As for another cold weather test, the one at Fort Greeley Alaska. Stoner had asked to be present at that. When did he go? He went after the test and after they complained to him about the problems they had. He right away got a plane to Alaska and found such things as the front sights had been removed and put back together with the two tapered pins, and others sights put back on with modified welding rod pieces. In both instances the sight were loose and he explained that would explain the reason for bad accuracy and also informed them they didn't need to remove the front sight. He re-assembled them correctly and performed perfectly after being left outside in the cold for a couple days. When it got back to the lower 48 he went and explained to Gen Powell he corrected the problem and all was well, but it wasn't. When he left the Gen he had found out the test was already performed and reported (negatively I might add) before he even arrived at Fort Greeley. It was as Eugend said "a dirty trick" and Eugene wrote this all up himself. It's not BS off the internet.

Fact still remains that military didn't want a rifle that wasn't U.S. made and you may ask "Well the M16 was, why didn't they want it?" Because it was too radically different, even in it's 7.62x51 form. They ended up with it anyways.

You know another firearm exists today with the military adopting the new Sig pistol over the Glock, when in all reality the Glock blows the doors off it. In fact many problems are showing up with their Sig choice. Seems nothing ever really changes with the military and their new firearm acquisitions.

[M-Tecs]

While I have spent a fair amount of time in the sand box I have zero first hand experience with small arms issues in that environment. That being said I do know people that have said experience. Per their claims the M14 based rifles tended to be more reliable that the current AR10 platforms in the sand box.

[vzerone]

How about this from a 25 year veteran:

The M14’s awesomeness is legendary—half history and half myth.

The M14 was not only not a “proven” design, many of its defects were assigned via follklore to the M16:
“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” Seven rifles each from batches accepted from H&R, Winchester, and Springfield Armory had been shipped to Aberdeen for testing to find and cure the causes of the M14’s inability to meet its accuracy requirements. Examination and testing of the 21 rifles uncovered the following:

All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace.

All of the rifles had loose handguards.

95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.

90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.

75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.

50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.

50% of the rifles had op rods that rubbed the stock.

Three rifles had barrels that exceed the maximum bore dimensions.

Only three rifles had an average bore diameter that fell below the accepted mean diameter.

One rifle was found to have a broken safety while another had a misassembled safety spring.

One rifle had a misassembled flash suppressor, which was actually contacting bullets during live fire tests.

A barrel from each manufacturer was sectioned for examination of the bore and chrome lining. The chrome lining was out of tolerance (uneven and on average too thin) in all three barrels. The H&R barrel also failed the surface-finish requirements. During accuracy testing, the M14 rifles produced greater group dispersion and variation in the center of impact than the control rifles (two T35 and two AR10). NATO testing was quoted indicating that the Canadian C1 (FN FAL) and German G3 were less sensitive to variations within and among ammo lots. Shutting off the gas port in the M14 rifles resulted in an average 20% reduction in extreme spread compared to those groups fired with the gas port open. This also reduced the variation in the center of impact. The design of the flash suppressor was singled out as a cause of inaccuracy.

A M14 Rifle Cost Analysis report that gave rounds used and over haul schedules from rounds fired states M14 annual usage is 3,500 rounds to overhaul and 599rds MBTF. Does not sound much like a hard use fighting gun…

~~~

In fact, it had at least as many problems as the M16, and a greater failure rate in testing.

The M16’s primary lack was in changes the Army made to the weapon without consulting with either Stoner or Colt, and in lack of training on the platform.

Interestingly, the SEALs and Special Forces liked the M16 just fine. It gave them more capacity, faster followup shots, and an attachable grenade launcher.

The M14 failed every one of its design criteria, and despite claims of accuracy, was no more accurate in design (both weapons were sight-limited to 460 yards max effective range), and suffered from assembly errors that made it less accurate, along with the need for more training to get that accuracy.

There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years, and the M16 and variants have been at it for over 50 years.

The M16 when it came out was not wanted by the Army. It was forced on them by Congress, and by God, the Army was going to make sure it failed. It was a progression of the Stoner rifle used by guards in the US Air Force, who loved it. It was light, the ammo was light, it had a fast cycle rate and in general it was a good competitor to the AK-47.

[Multigunner]

One manufacturing flaw that affected some M14 rifles was a flash hider that a subcontractor made from what is called "Pipe Stock".
IIRC the inner core of a large ingot/billet (?) of freshly smelted steel contains microscopic defects. They cut slabs from the outer surfaces of the billet for use in drop forging of parts intended for heavy work loads and the core is sold off to be drawn or rolled into pipe of various types. Drawing and cold rolling rearrange the grain of the steel making it at least suitable for lighter pressures.
The subcontracted flash hiders were know to shatter after some use.
I had a flier telling what markings to look for on surplus flash hiders.

Any manufacturing defects of the M14 were due to pure laziness and greed on the part of the manufacturer. There's nothing about the design that would make these defects forgivable.
Even WW2 subcontractors who had never made weapons before turned out high quality products. They still had pride in a job well done in those days. My old Remington Rand was evidence of that. I have yet to see a modern rendition of the 1911 that is as reliable and accurate.

The open topped receiver of the Garand and M14 allow the action to be quickly sluiced free of dirt and debris by pouring a canteen of water through it. That was WW1 era thinking after the dust covers of the Lee Metford and various other rifles were shown to merely trap mud and sand in the action increasing malfunctions and making them harder to clear.

Early AR barrels could split if they got water down the muzzle. Plastic tubes were provided to cover the muzzle in rainy conditions but some preferred to use a condom for the purpose.
A friend had his dad send him a large packet of party balloons for the purpose.

[Larry Gibson]

"The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10."

Guess that's a lick on the Brits, eh.

As to the rest I can't see what problems Stoner encountered some years later has anything to do with the "rigged" tests to approve the M14 over the FN/FAL.

And what does this "“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” have to do with that process. All rifles/weapons systems have production problems that are solved. The FN/FALs had problems, The M1 had problems, the M1903 had problems.....and the M16 certainly had problems. Are you award of the initial burst barrels during the test at Fort Benning from water in them? How about Ordnance suggesting a 6.35 cartridge to eliminate the problem. So how does initial production accuracy problems with the M14 differ, especially since the problems were solved. Notice every single one of those "deficiencies" was a production problem. Not a single one was a design problem and the M14 did not fail a single design problem. How many "design problems" did the M16 have after production began......far too many to count here. But you know what, they fixed them all just as they did with the M1873, the M1892, the M1903, the M1 and the M14.......funny how that works.......

Are claiming now that the M14/M1A is an inaccurate rifle, have you never been to any matches since the early '60s? Obviously you've no field or combat experience with either the M14 or the M16. The M16 gets "broke" a whole lot. M16 and their variants are constantly TI'd, repaired and /or replaced.

"There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years"

Sorry, but wrong again. Lacking personal experience you should do a better internet search. The M14 is still in service as the M14, the M21, M25, the Mk.14, the M39 with the Army, the Marines, the SEALs and Special Forces. Why? Because the M16, especially the M4, doesn't have the range (that means distance and terminal ballistics at long range) to be effective. The 7.62 NATO cartridge does and we still have the best platform for it.....the M14.

BTW; what do I think of the G3......well I'd just as soon have an FN/FAL............

[vzerone]

"The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10."

Guess that's a lick on the Brits, eh.

As to the rest I can't see what problems Stoner encountered some years later has anything to do with the "rigged" tests to approve the M14 over the FN/FAL.

And what does this "“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” have to do with that process. All rifles/weapons systems have production problems that are solved. The FN/FALs had problems, The M1 had problems, the M1903 had problems.....and the M16 certainly had problems. Are you award of the initial burst barrels during the test at Fort Benning from water in them? How about Ordnance suggesting a 6.35 cartridge to eliminate the problem. So how does initial production accuracy problems with the M14 differ, especially since the problems were solved. Notice every single one of those "deficiencies" was a production problem. Not a single one was a design problem and the M14 did not fail a single design problem. How many "design problems" did the M16 have after production began......far too many to count here. But you know what, they fixed them all just as they did with the M1873, the M1892, the M1903, the M1 and the M14.......funny how that works.......

Are claiming now that the M14/M1A is an inaccurate rifle, have you never been to any matches since the early '60s? Obviously you've no field or combat experience with either the M14 or the M16. The M16 gets "broke" a whole lot. M16 and their variants are constantly TI'd, repaired and /or replaced.

"There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years"

Sorry, but wrong again. Lacking personal experience you should do a better internet search. The M14 is still in service as the M14, the M21, M25, the Mk.14, the M39 with the Army, the Marines, the SEALs and Special Forces. Why? Because the M16, especially the M4, doesn't have the range (that means distance and terminal ballistics at long range) to be effective. The 7.62 NATO cartridge does and we still have the best platform for it.....the M14.

BTW; what do I think of the G3......well I'd just as soon have an FN/FAL............

LOL, well that doesn't say much for the G3. I never said the M14 wasn't accurate, to the contrary it's very accurate. I've shot a M1A with match bullets and was very impressed with it. Personally I don't like the feel of the AR's and it's about the pistol grip. I'm from the era where the rifles had a walnut stock and the M1A, am sure the M14 too, feel more comfortable hold and shoot. Hell let's not forget the M1 Garand. I especially like that one. One of the softest shooting 06's out there in my opinion.

BTW a lot of this data comes from veterans friend, all have passed away now. Sure wish they were around to ask them more about the guns of WWII. One friend, actually a neighbor when I was a little kid, was a WWI veteran. Every New Years Eve night he go out around the back of his house with an ole Webley and let go with a few rounds to bring in the new year. Sad thing about Warne was he got gassed in WWI. Going of topic here.

Well I vote to bring the M14 back for our military, in brand new manufactured rifles. Sure bet the gov is sorry they sold the machinery to make them.

[lefty o]

as the m16 variants do ok in modern trim i dont have a big problem with them. on the other hand accuracy problems with an M14 while bad arent the end of the world. much rather have a rifle that shoots 4" groups in combat than one that only shoots once and terminally jams. it is what it is, and was.

[Larry Gibson]

Note the Army has adopted the HK G28E, a really beefed up AR10 variant. Except the M110A1, as it's called, has an aluminum receiver instead of the steel receiver which the German G28E has. 7.62 NATO of course but with the short barrel range is limited to 800 - 850 meters.

[shdwlkr]

the military should find a caliber that can handle a hundred grain bullet, mv of 2800-3000, effective range of 700-800 meters. What that works out to be is the question, the AR platform seems to be here for the long run. My experience with the M16 started in early '70 and I hated my Mattel rifle it even was stamped on the butt with Mattel toy corp logo, it fired a 55 grain fmj round something I would hunt wood chucks with back home. I went 40 years after walking away from carrying for 75 of them until I fired one of the newer models, yes most of the issues had been taken care of. the one I have not seen answered is if 5 drops of water down the barrel will still destroy the rifle.
I got to use the M14 a lot also and liked it a lot, yes it was heavy, but could it connect with target which meant more to me. Yes ammo was heavier but you needed less to make the other guys stop fighting if you connected with them.
Last I knew the military ammo plant in Texas was making the 7.62 ammo and most of the ammo used by our special force folks. In a real bad fire fight ammo is burned up really fast no manner what caliber it is you are using and as long as you have enough does it really matter how much it weights. I was told once that those that had the 7.62 went out with 200 rounds in 10 mags and the guys with the M16 went out with mags early on with same number of rounds and later with 10 30 round mags. My question is what is the ideal number of rounds to have, not the caliber but rounds. Larry you spent enough time jumping around what is the magic number of rounds to have
What I would like if for those who need the firearm have a whole lot of input into what ever new caliber firearm is deemed the one that we go too.
I don't care to much what round our military uses as long as it gives those in harms way an advantage in getting out of bad situation. I am too old and busted up to really think I could hump along distance even with the current rifle, we all get to that stage in life and I am there. thanks for the thoughts and responses.
I just hope we don't spend millions on a new weapon that could have with some modifications be taken off the assembly of the many current made rifles.

[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.

[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 :kidding: 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/2017/10/21/7-62mm-hk433-variant-confirmed-hk-ausa-2017/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2017-10-24&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

[vzerone]

What German Special Forces just adopted;:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/18/new-photos-new-hk416a7/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2017-10-24&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

Mr Stoner you should be proud!

[vzerone]

guess the germans want to be like men again....

NO ONE can say the m4 crappola out performs the garand, the k31, the 24/47 or carcano

Well heck no the M4 isn't going to outperform those and I presume you mean in power and terminal ballistics. Now a semi and full automatic does out perform a bolt action in putting out fire power and keeping the enemie's heads down. Also that short carbine is better fit to room to room house cleaning then say that long Garand. Like I've said you can't eat your cake and have it too with the M4 carbine.

[Larry Gibson]

Yup, HK416A7 is gas piston driven instead of impingement operated. Weighs 8.2 lbs but don't know if that includes suppressor, sight or loaded magazine? Has a 14.5" barrel and is still 5.56 NATO..........

[bruce drake]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/07/23/taking-a-look-inside-the-armys-devastating-new-m80a1-7-62mm-round/

Someone mentioned shooting a lighter 130gr bullet in the 7.62x51?

The NEW M80A1 ball ammo. 130gr bullet with a steel exposed penetrator point...at 3000fps....

https://youtu.be/yW-jlvNQA8w - Ballistics test.

[vzerone]

Yup, HK416A7 is gas piston driven instead of impingement operated. Weighs 8.2 lbs but don't know if that includes suppressor, sight or loaded magazine? Has a 14.5" barrel and is still 5.56 NATO..........

Larry that new HK433 is prepared for a 7.62 NATO meaning the distance apart the take down pins are. The 7.62 NATO version, they say, is coming and it will be called the HK231.

You are wrong about the weight and your supposition of a 14.5 barrel. It's 7.71 pounds with a 16 inch barrel.

[Larry Gibson]

You just don't learn do you........

On October 10, the Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr (Federal Office for Equipment, Information Technology of the German Armed Forces) ordered Heckler & Koch from Oberndorf to supply 1,745 H&K 416 A7 weapons and accessories.

The Bundeswehr designation is expected to be G95 (G is Gewehr which is German for Rifle). It is a gas piston rifle in the caliber 5.56 mm x 45 NATO. The weapon has a weight of 3.690 kg and a barrel length of 14.5″. The G95 is to be the new standard gun of the KSK ( Kommando Spezialkräfte) and the special forces command of the Navy (KSM) and is expected to be delivered to the force beginning January 2019. Technical testing at the military service center 91 as well as tactical testing by the special forces starts in November 2017. This German Special Forces adoption is of a newer edition of the HK416 than that which in use with US and UK SOF. It will be very interesting to see which laser boxes and optics will be chosen for the new Sturmgewehr Spezialkräfte.

[vzerone]

Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYfGq1yk66Q

[vzerone]

I mentioned just going back to the original Spanish/german 125 grain bullets in the 7.62x51. if made right from solid copper, thing the PPU thunder bullet that was not hollow pointed, youd blow through most guys and the majority of body armor. fragmentation at short range would be like a chainsaw going through someone.

Don't need it we already have a speciall armor piercing 5.56 round they've been using in Afghanistan called:

5.56 mm, Armor Piercing, M995 [Black tip]

This is true armor piercing in that is has a tungsen core.

206625 206626

206627 206628

[Larry Gibson]

Here's the AR 10 promo video of 60 years or so ago.....sure looks good but everyone has been working on it the last 60 years. Maybe the German's after 60 years +/- of "development" and adding 2 more pounds of receiver weight have got it?

https://archive.org/details/AR10_Promotion

[vzerone]

WILL TAKE IT!!! LOL I think they should have adopted the AR10 instead of the M16, especially considering that we already had the 7.62 NATO ammo for it and the ammo more or less was pretty well established.

I think a mistake when they did one of the tests for the military was that light weight lined barrel that had a bullet rupture through the side. That made them look really bad. Scrap that idea. Now one thing I liked is they had an easier better adjustable rear sight then the M16 having to use a bullet point to adjust it. The AR10 also had the gas tube coming in the left side of bolt/carrier and no gas key like the M16. I wonder if it stayed cleaner inside because of that then the M16? The belt felt back pack was interesting. The grenade/rocket launch method was far different then what the M16 ended up with. Notice too that they were cleaning the rifle in various pictures on that video. What the hell happened to the idea of cleaning the M16 when they first shoved it on our soldiers in Vietnam?

Yup if they would have adopted that they would have a 60 year refining period over with.

Impressive video Larry thanks for putting that up.

Hey why no comment on that armor piercing ammo I posted above this?

[Multigunner]

"Hey why no comment on that armor piercing ammo I posted above this? "
I'll say this about it. No 5.56 AP bullet will deliver as much as a 7.62 AP bullet of the same design.

The 130 grain 7.62 I mentioned earlier is a very effective AP bullet at much higher velocity than the standard M80 ball. It should remain effective at much greater range than the 5.56 AP.

The situation is like this IMHO. Both have short comings.
The short comings of the 7.62 are recoil and controllability in a lightweight weapon and the weight of the ammunition restricting how many rounds can be carried.
The shortcomings of the 5.56 is inability to penetrate substantial barriers unless expensive AP ammo is used and the relatively shorter range that such a round will remain effective, especially in high crosswind conditions, also its lack of effectiveness against even thin skinned vehicles much less substantial military spec vehicles. Even if the body metal is penetrated the bullets aren't as likely to disable an engine or fatally wound occupants who are wearing body armor, the lightweight bullet is already spent.
Modern urban buildings, office buildings stores and such, usually have tough steel door frames set in concrete and often sheet steel fire doors. A 5.56 is not much use in such a setting, One would have to resort to grenades to route out die hards more often than if a 7.62 weapon with AP ammo were handy. The die hard hiding behind that door frame would have the advantage in a grenade tossing match, he doesn't have to expose himself.
I've put 7.62X54r steel core bullets through even more substantial steel frames.

I've stated earlier that each round and weapon type has its uses and disadvantages. There should be several 7.62 rifles available in each squad to back up the more lightly armed members when necessary. This seems to be the way things have been done in recent years.

[vzerone]

The Swedish rounds that were adopted by the U.S. military as M993 & M995 were developed by Forenede FabriksVerken (FFV in Karlsborg, Sweden)) in the late 80s. The earliest headstamps are "070" until '90 then "FFV" in '91. FFV merged with Carl Gustav/Bofors in '91-'92 who started headstamping the 5.56mm & 7.62mm AP cartridges "CG". Raufoss of MK 211 MOD 0 .50 Cal HEIAP fame also merged into the CG/ Bofors group in 1993. Then Carl Gustav/Bofors and several other Nordic munitions manufacturer's all merged into NAMMO in '98. NAMMO kept the "CG" headstamp. The U.S. type classified 7.62MM M993 AP cartridge 02/16/96 and 5.56mm M995 AP cartridge 03/29/96.

Here's an interesting pdf file. Both the M995 (5.56 NATO) and the M993 (7.62 NATO) are on it, but there is no penetration value for the M995.

https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/ammobook/nammo_produktkatalog_2014_web.pdf

BTW lots of different 5.56 NATO ammo in that file.

[vzerone]

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m993.htm