What would you Change the US Assault rifle to

Status
Not open for further replies.
First off, I love the BAR, or M-1 garand. The 30-06 can be controlled on full auto, especially the BAR - Browning was an absolute genius.
Since we are playing, though, I would go with the general M-4 platform, with some modifications, such as the piston upper instead of the gas bleed that caused so many problems, up calibered to the 6.5 grendle (or maybe carcano?) or even something closer to the 7.62X39?
That would be the basic rifle, for the elite forces, I would suggest the same basic M-4 platform, but in .308 Caliber. They are more likely to be the "Gun folks" who would appreciate the heavier hitting, longer range bullet, and more likely to use it correctly for the tactical situation.
Just my 2 cents
 
Long range is not important. As has been stated many, many times, 90% of all infantry fire occurs at 300 yards or less, over half at less that 100 yards, and rifle fire, even by 'expert' marksmen is ineffective at 500 yards.

Being able to hit a target at 500 yards at the range has absolutely nothing to do with shooting in combat - probably at a moving target who is using cover and shooting back.

Longer ranges are useful for sniping and for support weapons like MGs. The only relavant rational for a long range cartridge is if you are going to have a catridge that you share between rifles and MGs. This is the reason the M855 was adopted - nothing to do with the rifle and everything to do with extending the range of the SAW.
 
I know the AR-15 has stopping power but the AK has more, check out this movie I found on YouTube it shows the M16 vs the AK-47,
Click to expand...

Actually, the AK doesn't have more stopping power - at least at shorter ranges. It has to do with the performance of the bullet in tissue.

M855.jpg


AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg
 
I would change it to the M1918A2 B.A.R. in 30-06 with a 30 round mag, a selector switch, and a scope rail.
Click to expand...
By definition, that's not an "assault rifle", given that real assault rifles fire an "intermediate cartridge", and the only thing the .30-06 is "intermediate" between is the .308 and the .300 Win Mag.

The easiest, cheapest, most sensible thing to do is to replace all of the direct gas impingement uppers on all of the M16 type guns with piston uppers of the type made by H&K, Barrett or POF. Clearly, that makes too much sense.
 
+1 on the XCR

AR ergonomics with FAL and AK guts and Robinson Arms are really listening to their customers and their feedback.

Robinson are currently testing out the 6.5 Grendel which gives 7.62 NATO range and performance.

Now if this could be reconfigured as a bullpup I would definitely get another...:D :D
 
What would you change the current US military assalt rifle to

We dont have one, unless your an anti-gun liberal who calls everything an assult something or the other.

AUTO RIFLE-15
 
We are talking about the Current US services rifle, the M16/M4 - which is an assault rifle.

And BTW, the AR in AR-15 comes from Armalite rifle. All the rifles designed at the original Armalite were given the designation AR, including the AR-5, which was a bolt action rifle.
 
For the guy that said we should use blended metal bullets, I advise you to read up on:

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=001189

It's a con job.


As far as using the 6.5 Grendel goes, I love it how AA's website skews their data to make you believe that the Grendel is basically a magic bullet. For instance, their use of the best bullets on the market along with exaggerated velocities to give every advantage to the Grendel while using less that superior bullets and standardized velocites for the comparison cartridges. GunTech has some excellent posts regarding some of the misinformation about the Grendel and I suggest you do a search for his posts. Basically, the Grendel will never be a military cartridge.

GunTech, I don't have the dimensions of the 7x46mm, but I'll try to get them from Dr. Roberts.

I think the 5.56 is good enough for all practical military purposes in the middle east. I think a heavier projectile would be more useful in heavy penetration applications or cold climate warfare. For instance, if we had gone to war in Siberia, I think the military would of found the 5.56 to be less than ideal due to reduced velocities in the cold and more use of heavy clothing. For use in an M4 platform the 6.8 SPC has all the hallmarks of the best overall cartridge for military use. If platform didn't matter, then the 7x46mm would likely be the best overall candidate.
 
@Hauptmann,

Re GUNTECH's comments on the Grendel, I did search the forums and the negative issues appear to be related only to potential issues if used in a belt fed weapon and not the ballistics or energy of the round in a rifle.

Guntech, would I be correct in my assumptions?
 
I think the M16 is fine.
However, I think that we should look into a replacement. The M16 is the longest-serving (front-line) modern rifle we've ever had. We need to think about its retirement or replacement (even if it's with other M16s).
We already pretty much know what I'd do, but, in short, I think more research into better conventional cartridges is key to an expedient and reliable upgrade of the general weapon system.
 
Here's a few questions I have:

1. Why is it really all that important to retain the AR-15 platform? We've officially changed the service rifle three times in the last century. Even though I really don't see any incredible leaps of performance above the AR platforms, save perhaps the idea of the gas/piston systems, it shouldn't really be all that difficult to switch.

2. Why, if we are going to retain the AR-15 platform as our basis, is it necessary to retain the same receiver length? Even if we didn't step up to the AR-10 platform as a basis, why couldn't we just make an AR-style rifle system with an intermediate action length that would accommodate something in-between the 45mm and 51mm cases (say, 48mm?)

3. Although the 6.5 Grendel seems on the face of it to have superior ballistics to the 6.8mm Remington SPC, there seems to be more support for the SPC. Why is that? Other than the fact that the Grendel is a bit ungainly looking, are there significant drawbacks to it?

4. Judging from the muzzle energy of the .223 Remington (~1300 ft-lb), 6.8 SPC (1750 ft-lb), and 6.5 Grendel (1900 ft-lb) [all from 24 in barrels], it would seem that we should be looking for a round that would produce something in the area of 2000-2400 ft-lbs ME for superior performance in everything from a carbine to an SAW. Why wouldn't we just go with the .243 Winchester, .260 Remington, or 7mm-08 Remington (or a 48mm cased version of any of these)? Any of these would be lighter than the .308 Winchester/7.62x51, which has always been cited as one of the major advantages of the 5.56mm rounds v. the 7.62mm rounds, and should exhibit less recoil (other commonly cited advantage).

5. Other the search for a more powerful service caliber and the idea of the gas-piston systems, what is it about the AR rifles that makes people think they need to be replaced, anyway? It seems to me that they are very effective in a wide variety of roles.
 
Well the m16 is I think 41 years old and will soon reach curios and relic status. :) If I were to replace it I would probably not buy anything new. We have a good weapon. Perhaps upgrading to the piston and 6.8 such as glockfan pointed out would be a good choice. Give it a little more oophf and make it a little cleaner.
 
The issue I have with the advertisements of 6.5 Grendel is that they don't do apples to apples comparisons. For example, their marketing literature compares 6.5 grendel fired from a 24 inch barrel and using 144gn Lapua scenars against M80 ball ammunition, but then they show 6.5 grendel solutions in the AR-15 type rifle.

1. 24 inch bbl AR-15 are not common, and in the case of the military, the M16 uses a 20 inch bbl and th M4 uses a 14.5 inch bbl. Compare performance from those barrel lengths.

2. The Lapua Scenar 144 is one of the highest BC target bullets available, and is probably not compliant with the hague conventions. It also lacks the canneleure of the 149gn M80 FMJ.

If you wanted to do an apples to apples comparison of cartridges, you'd have to look at the 6.5 Lapua scenar versus the 308 lapua scernar in the 7.62x51. In that case, the 6.5 fails to equal or come close to the 7.62x51. It almost looks like Alexander arms was rigging the data to show that the 6.5 Grendel is superior to the 7.62x51. Using the same bullets, this is simply not the case.

The 6.5 Grendel does look to be a nice middle ground between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51. It is not clearly superior, but rather is a case of shuffling features around to get something different. The 6.5 has more range and energy than the 5.56x45, but also weighs more and generates more recoil. It's not the wonder cartridge that some seem to think it is.

By the same token, the 7x46 that has been mentioned isn't any better. It gains powder and range at the same expense of recoil and weight, in this case the recoil is probably too much for useable automatic fire in a rifle.

A true 'in-between' cartridge would be a 6.5mm bullet at about 107-108 gns at about 2600 - 2800 fps. This would be the 6.5 gredel with a lighter bullet. However, with a lighter bullet and keeping the M16 magazine, there is no reason to use the short case of the 6.5 Grendel. It is for this reason I suggested the 6.5x42mm. It's basically similar to the Grendel, but has more body taper and a more sloped shoulder to help improve feeding. It also has more case capacity than the 6.5 Gredel, allowing more velocity or lower chamber pressure with the same bullets. Unlike the 6.5 Gredel, the 6.5x42 is limited to bullets of about 123gn vs 144 for the Grendel.
 
Upgrading the M16A2

1. Change the forearm to a tube with rails and float the barrel.

Advantage: More accurate. Cheaper. Easily accessorized.

2. Drop the burst kit and put in a decent 2-stage trigger.

Advantage: Same cost. Trigger control improved.

3. Finish converting to strictly flat-top with removable handle.

Advantage: Optics are the future for combat weapons.

4. Introduce heavier bullets. 69, 77.

Advantage: More power.
 
Amper,

going to a larger cartridge destroys the advantage of lighter ammo, allowing more rounds to be carried. Something like the 7mm-08 is almost the same weight as the 308, and has nearly the same recoil. Why not just go back to the 308?

A longer intermediate action length for the AR would allow for more experimentation - somthing between the AR-15 and AR-10.

I'd like to see a cartidge between the 5.56 and 7.62 if it's going to be a universal catridge (i.e. replace both). My own suggestion was for an intermediate round with more energy and better BC than the 5.56 without so much recoil that it was useless for autofire. I also suggested an increased body taper of around 1 degree - much closer to the M43 round - to improve feeding. The result was the 6.5x45mm previously discussed. It lies between the 5.56 and 7.62 in terms of weight, recoil and energy. It actually approaches the 7.62 in terms of power at longer ranges thanks to the typically better BC for 6.5 bullets vs 308, making it a better solution for DMRs and MGs.

Ultimately, you are going to have tradeoffs no matter what you do.
 
Some more comparative data on the 6.5x45mm.

The 6.5x45mm will throw a 100gn FMJ at approximately 2900 fps
The 5.56 M855 throws a 62gn bullet at 3000 fps

The 6.5x45mm using this round has almost exactly the same recoil energy as an AK-47 firing M43 ammunition.

Using a bullety weight identical to the AK, the 6.5x45 tosses that 123gn pill at about 175 fps faster, resulting in slightly more recoil (almost negligible). But the BC of the 123 is in the range of 0.450+, resulting in a much flatter trajectory and much better retained energy.
 
everallm,

Other than case dimension problems, the primary problem with the Grendel is terminal effects. The Firearms Institute is funded to conduct many different tests on cartridges and when they tested the Grendel they found that it had virtually duplicated the 6.5 Carcano in Hague compliant bullet designs. The Carcano will not upset in tissue until it has passed all the way through the body. So, it does nothing more than leave a 6.5mm hole with very little temporary cavitation and no tumble or fragmentation. The 6.5 Grendel was tested and did not begin upset until it had penetrated 7" in ballistic gel, with a full tumble and maximum tissue destruction at almost 12" of penetration. The target window of initial upset is 1-2" with maximum tissue destruction around 4". The Grendel does not even come close to the Hague compliant load requirements. It may do fine with SP, HP, or OTM loads, but these loads are indeed questionable for legal military use. Virtually any bullet design will do fine with these bullet designs, the trick is to make a bullet design that will do a heafty amount of damage in FMJ format. The 6.8 SPC was designed to do this while the Grendel was not.

The Grendel cannot make the target window of 4" unless it uses a hollow tip or uses deforming rounds. The 6.8 SPC does it by using a shortened bullet design which is more triangular in shape. This allows to to disrupt in tissue quickly and facilitate rapid tumble and fragmentation based on the principle physics of a moving body. The heavier rear wants to lead when the stability of the bullet's spin is no longer in play. This comes at the price of bullet stability which the bullet becomes more unstable at longer ranges and less accurate. The Grendel's bullet designs are VERY stable.....so stable that they cannot disrupt quickly enough in tissue with Hague complicant loads. That's the price you pay for a high ballistic coeficient.

AA has marketed the Grendel well, but it will never catch on as a viable military cartridge unless the upper brass doesn't listen to the experts and makes the "mistake" of adopting it. Lets hope they listen to the experts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Ho Ho Ho, I've got a machine gun!
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
5K
Eightball
E
C
  • Locked
Best military caliber/rifle idea with a twist
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
JesseL
J
N
  • Locked
M60 Machine Gun
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
Nightcrawler
N
J
  • Locked
Winchester Model 70 questions
Replies
7
Views
841
joshh
J
T
  • Locked
.308 vs. .30-06 sniper round question
2 3
Replies
58
Views
36K
Red_SC
R
Back
Top