In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56
Mr. Perfect
Member, Moderator Posts: 66,437 ******
Interesting. I'm guessing they end up with the 6.5 creedmoor Grendel, given their criteria.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556
After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, soldiers could get a peek at a new prototype assault rifle that fires a larger round by 2020.
Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in ?intermediate calibers,? which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.
The weapon designs being tested will be ?unconventional,? officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available.
Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.
If selected by senior leaders, the weapon could resolve a close-quarters weapons debate about calibers that critics say dates to the 1920s and has influenced military small arms ever since.
If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower ? with little change in weight.
The new rifle would likely replace the M16/M4 platform, which has been in the hands of troops since the 1960s and undergone multiple modifications and upgrades.
Maj. Jason Bohannon, lethality branch chief at the Army?s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Matt Walker, deputy director of the branch and a retired command sergeant major, spoke recently to Army Times about broad efforts in small arms weapons research and development.
?Better option?
Work on the new round began in recent years, Bohannon said, and much of the next steps in developing both the round and rifle will be driven by the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study.
The study has been going on since at least 2014, according to the Army.
The study is expected to conclude in the next three months, Walker said.
Portions of that report and its findings will likely be made public, but other portions may be deemed sensitive, they said.
Multiple active and retired military arms advocates and industry experts have presented papers and data on the alleged ?overmatch? that U.S. troops face on the battlefield with their current calibers.
One oft-noted recent study was authored by then-Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, ?Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.?
The paper drew from soldiers? experience in Afghanistan firefights.
Ehrhart wrote that half of the firefights infantry units in Afghanistan encountered were past 300 meters, and the 5.56 mm round had lessened lethality at longer distances.
He offered two solutions ? a more effective 5.56 mm round, or the ?better option? of adopting a caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm range.
The major then cited a 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics?Integrated Product Team, which also named the ideal caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm size.
Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, pull security during an exercise at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. Army officials said they?re developing new weapons systems to give soldiers, especially at the squad and platoon levels, as much firepower as possible.
Photo Credit: Sgt. Eric M. Garland/Army
Decades-old debate
This isn?t the first time ammunition experts have reached that conclusion.
?There is a long-running debate, going back almost 100 years now, about the optimal, optimum small arm,? said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, author of the 2016 book ?Scales on War: The Future of America?s Military at Risk.?
Scales pointed to the development of the M1 rifle by John Garand in the 1920s.
At the time, Garand built both a .30 caliber and a .276 caliber version of the rifle.
But a surplus of .30 caliber ammunition from World War I, coupled later with the financial constraints of the Great Depression, led to senior defense officials and political leaders calling for a .30 caliber rifle.
The M1?s design eventually evolved into the M14. Both rifles share a 7.62 mm or .30 caliber bore. But the M14 was soon discarded when, in the 1960s, Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay purchased the early version of the M16 for some Air Force units.
The M16 was then adopted across the branches and fielded for service in Vietnam, where troops reported frequent jamming and malfunctions in early versions of the weapon.
One case, detailed in the 2010 book ?The Gun,? by former Marine and award-winning journalist C.J. Chivers, grabbed national attention during the Vietnam War when Marine 1st Lt. Michael Chervenak wrote an open letter that recounted his company?s experiences with the new rifle jamming in combat.
The letter led to hearings in Congress and, along with other incidents, contributed to decades of controversy, modifications and adaptations, which resulted in the current M4 variants, which continue to have their supporters and critics.
Maj. Thomas Campbell, a spokesman for Army Training and Doctrine Command, provided Army Times with the results of a nine-year, post-deployment survey of 9,000 soldiers conducted by the command.
The survey saw 80 percent of troops rate the M4 as ?effective or better.?
The survey did not compare the M4 to other weapons, but instead asked the respondents to rate the overall effectiveness of the weapon in the performance of their duties while deployed, Campbell said.
Time to invest
The aging M16/M4 platform is nearing the end of its life cycle, Bohannon said.
?Right now the [M16/M4] platform we have is a workhorse and very effective in the hands of a trained soldier or Marine,? he said.
But, Walker at Maneuver Center added, the Army can?t continue to ask more of the weapon system that has been in service for so long.
?Our next investment will likely be in a new operating platform,? Bohannon said.
Spc. Timothy Squires, an infantryman assigned to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, scans his sector of fire during squad-level training in Kosovo.
Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Thomas Duval/Army
Critics of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 mm round say no matter what has been done to improve the M16 and its subsequent variations, the 5.56 mm round lacks the range and lethality needed in modern firefights.
Some of the concerns Scales said he believes are driving military leaders to finally look at an alternative to the 5.56 mm and the M16/M4 include:
? Improvements in adversaries? body armor, which make the 5.56 mm less lethal.
? Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch.
? Jamming problems with M16/M4 variants that continue to plague the design.
At the 2016 National Defense Industrial Association Armament Systems Forum, retired Brig. Gen. Dave Grange and Jim Schatz, an Army veteran and weapons expert who has since passed away, each gave presentations calling for a new ?intermediate caliber? in the 6.5 mm range.
They also referenced the Russian, Islamic State and al-Qaida advantages with longer-reaching and more lethal weapons, including reports of Russian work on their own 6.5 mm assault rifle.
But, Scales said, one of the problems that led to the .30 caliber being adopted over the 6.5 mm nearly a century ago still remains ? an abundance of 5.56 mm ammunition stockpiled across U.S. military commands and NATO, whose nations fire the 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm as part of an ammunition standardization agreement made decades ago.
Other weapons work
Meanwhile, the Army?s Maneuver Center isn?t the only entity looking at new or existing small arms replacements.
Marine Corps Times, a sister publication of Army Times, recently reported the Marines are considering equipping nearly every Marine 0311 infantryman with the M27, which first hit the fleet in large quantities in 2010.
The M27 is seen by experts as superior to the M4 in reliability and increased range. But, at $3,000, it runs three times the cost of an M4 and is still chambered in 5.56 mm.
Marine Corps Times
The Corps' quest for the best rifle for infantrymen
U.S. Special Operations Command is currently testing a new commercially available sniper rifle using the .260 Remington and 6.5 mm Creedmoor rounds, which ?stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,? said Maj. Aron Hauquitz.
SOCOM is also developing polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm to reduce the weight load.
Current research is showing polymer 6.5 mm reducing weight by one-third from 7.62 mm, reaching nearly the same weight as conventional brass 5.56 mm.
Both regular Army weapons researchers at the Maneuver Center and Marine Corps weapons experts are monitoring the SOCOM testing, officials said.
Military Times
Special Operations Command is looking at a new 6.5 mm round for its sniper rifle
Textron Systems, a private defense industry company, conducted a caliber study using a specially designed .264 caliber cartridge which they said resulted in ?terminal effects greater than 7.62 mm NATO out to 1,200 meters? in both their carbine and machine gun.
Data provided by the company showed the machine gun is 7 pounds lighter than the 7.62 mm M240L with 800 rounds of their lightweight ammunition, lowering the combat load by 27 pounds.
The machine gun is also lighter than the M249 SAW, wrote Paul Shipley, chief engineer of light armaments for the company.
While SOCOM is looking at immediate fixes and off-the-shelf options, Bohannon said that the Maneuver Center and related entities working on weapons issues for the regular Army ?invests in more revolutionary, long-term? solutions.
Bohannon said that his team has weekly meetings with officials involved with the Joint Service Small Arms Requirements Integration working group, which includes all the services and SOCOM.
While the Army continues to explore existing intermediate rifle/round combinations, their work is only to provide options for senior leadership to choose and then request funding, Bohannon said.
He did not provide cost estimates or a timeline for the potential replacement.
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556
After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, soldiers could get a peek at a new prototype assault rifle that fires a larger round by 2020.
Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in ?intermediate calibers,? which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.
The weapon designs being tested will be ?unconventional,? officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available.
Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.
If selected by senior leaders, the weapon could resolve a close-quarters weapons debate about calibers that critics say dates to the 1920s and has influenced military small arms ever since.
If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower ? with little change in weight.
The new rifle would likely replace the M16/M4 platform, which has been in the hands of troops since the 1960s and undergone multiple modifications and upgrades.
Maj. Jason Bohannon, lethality branch chief at the Army?s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Matt Walker, deputy director of the branch and a retired command sergeant major, spoke recently to Army Times about broad efforts in small arms weapons research and development.
?Better option?
Work on the new round began in recent years, Bohannon said, and much of the next steps in developing both the round and rifle will be driven by the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study.
The study has been going on since at least 2014, according to the Army.
The study is expected to conclude in the next three months, Walker said.
Portions of that report and its findings will likely be made public, but other portions may be deemed sensitive, they said.
Multiple active and retired military arms advocates and industry experts have presented papers and data on the alleged ?overmatch? that U.S. troops face on the battlefield with their current calibers.
One oft-noted recent study was authored by then-Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, ?Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.?
The paper drew from soldiers? experience in Afghanistan firefights.
Ehrhart wrote that half of the firefights infantry units in Afghanistan encountered were past 300 meters, and the 5.56 mm round had lessened lethality at longer distances.
He offered two solutions ? a more effective 5.56 mm round, or the ?better option? of adopting a caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm range.
The major then cited a 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics?Integrated Product Team, which also named the ideal caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm size.
Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, pull security during an exercise at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. Army officials said they?re developing new weapons systems to give soldiers, especially at the squad and platoon levels, as much firepower as possible.
Photo Credit: Sgt. Eric M. Garland/Army
Decades-old debate
This isn?t the first time ammunition experts have reached that conclusion.
?There is a long-running debate, going back almost 100 years now, about the optimal, optimum small arm,? said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, author of the 2016 book ?Scales on War: The Future of America?s Military at Risk.?
Scales pointed to the development of the M1 rifle by John Garand in the 1920s.
At the time, Garand built both a .30 caliber and a .276 caliber version of the rifle.
But a surplus of .30 caliber ammunition from World War I, coupled later with the financial constraints of the Great Depression, led to senior defense officials and political leaders calling for a .30 caliber rifle.
The M1?s design eventually evolved into the M14. Both rifles share a 7.62 mm or .30 caliber bore. But the M14 was soon discarded when, in the 1960s, Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay purchased the early version of the M16 for some Air Force units.
The M16 was then adopted across the branches and fielded for service in Vietnam, where troops reported frequent jamming and malfunctions in early versions of the weapon.
One case, detailed in the 2010 book ?The Gun,? by former Marine and award-winning journalist C.J. Chivers, grabbed national attention during the Vietnam War when Marine 1st Lt. Michael Chervenak wrote an open letter that recounted his company?s experiences with the new rifle jamming in combat.
The letter led to hearings in Congress and, along with other incidents, contributed to decades of controversy, modifications and adaptations, which resulted in the current M4 variants, which continue to have their supporters and critics.
Maj. Thomas Campbell, a spokesman for Army Training and Doctrine Command, provided Army Times with the results of a nine-year, post-deployment survey of 9,000 soldiers conducted by the command.
The survey saw 80 percent of troops rate the M4 as ?effective or better.?
The survey did not compare the M4 to other weapons, but instead asked the respondents to rate the overall effectiveness of the weapon in the performance of their duties while deployed, Campbell said.
Time to invest
The aging M16/M4 platform is nearing the end of its life cycle, Bohannon said.
?Right now the [M16/M4] platform we have is a workhorse and very effective in the hands of a trained soldier or Marine,? he said.
But, Walker at Maneuver Center added, the Army can?t continue to ask more of the weapon system that has been in service for so long.
?Our next investment will likely be in a new operating platform,? Bohannon said.
Spc. Timothy Squires, an infantryman assigned to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, scans his sector of fire during squad-level training in Kosovo.
Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Thomas Duval/Army
Critics of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 mm round say no matter what has been done to improve the M16 and its subsequent variations, the 5.56 mm round lacks the range and lethality needed in modern firefights.
Some of the concerns Scales said he believes are driving military leaders to finally look at an alternative to the 5.56 mm and the M16/M4 include:
? Improvements in adversaries? body armor, which make the 5.56 mm less lethal.
? Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch.
? Jamming problems with M16/M4 variants that continue to plague the design.
At the 2016 National Defense Industrial Association Armament Systems Forum, retired Brig. Gen. Dave Grange and Jim Schatz, an Army veteran and weapons expert who has since passed away, each gave presentations calling for a new ?intermediate caliber? in the 6.5 mm range.
They also referenced the Russian, Islamic State and al-Qaida advantages with longer-reaching and more lethal weapons, including reports of Russian work on their own 6.5 mm assault rifle.
But, Scales said, one of the problems that led to the .30 caliber being adopted over the 6.5 mm nearly a century ago still remains ? an abundance of 5.56 mm ammunition stockpiled across U.S. military commands and NATO, whose nations fire the 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm as part of an ammunition standardization agreement made decades ago.
Other weapons work
Meanwhile, the Army?s Maneuver Center isn?t the only entity looking at new or existing small arms replacements.
Marine Corps Times, a sister publication of Army Times, recently reported the Marines are considering equipping nearly every Marine 0311 infantryman with the M27, which first hit the fleet in large quantities in 2010.
The M27 is seen by experts as superior to the M4 in reliability and increased range. But, at $3,000, it runs three times the cost of an M4 and is still chambered in 5.56 mm.
Marine Corps Times
The Corps' quest for the best rifle for infantrymen
U.S. Special Operations Command is currently testing a new commercially available sniper rifle using the .260 Remington and 6.5 mm Creedmoor rounds, which ?stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,? said Maj. Aron Hauquitz.
SOCOM is also developing polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm to reduce the weight load.
Current research is showing polymer 6.5 mm reducing weight by one-third from 7.62 mm, reaching nearly the same weight as conventional brass 5.56 mm.
Both regular Army weapons researchers at the Maneuver Center and Marine Corps weapons experts are monitoring the SOCOM testing, officials said.
Military Times
Special Operations Command is looking at a new 6.5 mm round for its sniper rifle
Textron Systems, a private defense industry company, conducted a caliber study using a specially designed .264 caliber cartridge which they said resulted in ?terminal effects greater than 7.62 mm NATO out to 1,200 meters? in both their carbine and machine gun.
Data provided by the company showed the machine gun is 7 pounds lighter than the 7.62 mm M240L with 800 rounds of their lightweight ammunition, lowering the combat load by 27 pounds.
The machine gun is also lighter than the M249 SAW, wrote Paul Shipley, chief engineer of light armaments for the company.
While SOCOM is looking at immediate fixes and off-the-shelf options, Bohannon said that the Maneuver Center and related entities working on weapons issues for the regular Army ?invests in more revolutionary, long-term? solutions.
Bohannon said that his team has weekly meetings with officials involved with the Joint Service Small Arms Requirements Integration working group, which includes all the services and SOCOM.
While the Army continues to explore existing intermediate rifle/round combinations, their work is only to provide options for senior leadership to choose and then request funding, Bohannon said.
He did not provide cost estimates or a timeline for the potential replacement.
Some will die in hot pursuit
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Comments
And also, I suppose with the introduction of plastic ammo, we'll have a whole new group of folks ranting about Mattel bullets.[:I]
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Neal
Maybe they should consider the 7.62x39, & call the rifle "AK-47".
Neal
With a hand guard to hang all the gadgets from.
Maybe they should consider the 7.62x39, & call the rifle "AK-47".
Neal
That's not what most people would call a longer range round. YMMV.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
When you compare recoil on the shooters end to power/ballistics out the front end it's hard to beat the 7mm-08. Seems like it should work in the type of platforms needed. An AR 10 style infantry rifle with 18" barrel with a few in the squad carrying a longer barreled version (22") with quick release/mount optics, 800+ meter weapon. Then a couple SAW platforms. They could all use the same magazines if needed just like the SAW in 5.56 can now.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
A 6.5 Creedmoor won't fit a 'platform' designed for a 5.56 NATO round.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
According to the article, they want to be able to carry nearly the same number of rounds in nearly the same size/weight as the 5.56. I think that rules out the 7.62 NATO.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Hell, they already have the matching helmet.
[;)]
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
A 6.5 Creedmoor won't fit a 'platform' designed for a 5.56 NATO round.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
According to the article, they want to be able to carry nearly the same number of rounds in nearly the same size/weight as the 5.56. I think that rules out the 7.62 NATO.
That would rule the 6.5 creedmoor out as well
wish full thinking but it would great if the powers to be would allow full auto guns to be bought and sold again lifting the stupid ban and ungodly prices on the pre ban full autos select fire
then they could sell the rifles to us also [:D][:D][:D]
Bring back the 45/70.
They will do just like they did before. Not change over cause then we would not have a NATO round.
+1
quote:Originally posted by grumpygy
They will do just like they did before. Not change over cause then we would not have a NATO round.
+1
Trump don't care if it's good for the US. I kind a wish they'll go .458 Socom so there will be cheap ball ammo [:D].
Unfortunately and in many cases small arms changes begin at the general officer or civilian secretariat level. These people are NOT
the ones spilling blood.
The AR was a failure in Afghanistan. Most engagements were great distances.
The M4 was a superior weapon in urban fighting in Iraq.
Russian and China still use the AK or some variant which has been around for 70 years now.
Whatever the outcome, there will be opposition and a lawsuit or two.
Seems to be the rifleman not the gun.
serf
The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters.
These comparisons however, do not consider the fact that the SS-109 uses a semi-armor piercing, steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively soft antipersonnel, lead-cored projectile
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
A 6.5 Creedmoor won't fit a 'platform' designed for a 5.56 NATO round.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
According to the article, they want to be able to carry nearly the same number of rounds in nearly the same size/weight as the 5.56. I think that rules out the 7.62 NATO.
That would rule the 6.5 creedmoor out as well
Good point. All along I was thinking the creedmoor was the round that fit in the AR-15 platform, but it's the grendel.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
what ever happened to the 6.8spc that was supposed to take care of this problem?
I don't know. I would assume it's still being considered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC
Makes for some interesting reading.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Sounds to me like they are just bored with it and want a new toy. I love the military but the last job I had overseas I worked with DOD TACOM personel and found that they believe that Uncle Sams checkbook has no limits.
quote:Originally posted by Idahobound
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
A 6.5 Creedmoor won't fit a 'platform' designed for a 5.56 NATO round.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
According to the article, they want to be able to carry nearly the same number of rounds in nearly the same size/weight as the 5.56. I think that rules out the 7.62 NATO.
That would rule the 6.5 creedmoor out as well
Good point. All along I was thinking the creedmoor was the round that fit in the AR-15 platform, but it's the grendel.
I'm sure glad Idahobound cleared that up. I'll try to be more clear when I post.
quote:The aging M16/M4 platform is nearing the end of its life cycle, Bohannon said.
Sounds to me like they are just bored with it and want a new toy. I love the military but the last job I had overseas I worked with DOD TACOM personel and found that they believe that Uncle Sams checkbook has no limits.
Pretty much true. I've worked on lots of government contract. The pockets run deep. That's until the program gets cut.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Idahobound
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
A 6.5 Creedmoor won't fit a 'platform' designed for a 5.56 NATO round.
A 6.5 Grendel would.
Using the 6.5 Creedmoor would require an AR-10 platform. That said, why not just go BACK to the 7.62 NATO round?
According to the article, they want to be able to carry nearly the same number of rounds in nearly the same size/weight as the 5.56. I think that rules out the 7.62 NATO.
That would rule the 6.5 creedmoor out as well
Good point. All along I was thinking the creedmoor was the round that fit in the AR-15 platform, but it's the grendel.
I'm sure glad Idahobound cleared that up. I'll try to be more clear when I post.
To be clear, I responding to both of you at once.[:D][:p] (also, I hadn't realized my own mix up)
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain