The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States

[lobbie111]

To me its all about the art of handling a weapon, NOT THE DISTANCE! If you are one of those people who was just born to shoot, you can pick of a dude at 300m with a .22lr

I like your intentions but you and I both know a .22 is incapable of anything at 300m simple fact is it runs out of steam, the 5.56 was only designed to just make that distance the cahnces of a subsonic .22 even reaching that far without significant elevation is pretty slim

 

[OPSSG]

To me its all about the art of handling a weapon, NOT THE DISTANCE! If you are one of those people who was just born to shoot, you can pick of a dude at 300m with a .22lr

That's quite an interesting claim. At 300m a man standing is about the size of your thumb nail.

Guys, please, there is no need to debate the .22 calibre. Let's just go back to the topic at hand. Let's talk about using the right tool for the right job. Since we are talking about infantry assault rifles, can we stick to the usual suspects for proposed calibres?

 

[Spetsznaz]

Honestly, can you really expect 1 shot 1 kill from anyone, regardless of round type in a real combat situation I know I'd be shaky and scared as fuck I'd be lucky to hit someone at 50m with a whole magazine, face it ammunition has almost been perfected, there is no way its going to get better (other than caseless etc but the same pysics etc will apply) only the experience of soldiers will lower shots to kill ratio's and even then the almost dependence displayed my modern armies on CAS, mortar and artillery etc. support will throw out these numbers.

Okay, get the thing that the .22lr would run out of steam, I know I was just trying to set up an example. In fact here we are arguing the 5.56 and new 6.5, well what do the troops think, primarily of the united states, is there a good poll or a statistic.:ar15

 

[OPSSG]

Here is an awesome paper on US military rifle and cartridge history / development / training written by an Army Major... Very interesting info...

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Interesting food for though but I note that William F. Owen writing in RUSI has said:

Recent articles in Jane’s Defence Weekly and followed up by the popular press, suggested that the UK and NATO-standard small arms round of 5.56mm is under-performing on current operations, to the extent that a case for replacement can be made. This argument again highlights a vast field of woolly thinking and opinion that has traditionally informed infantry equipment decisions in the UK.

He sees it as a framing issue in 'True but Irrelevant: Small Arms Performance in Afghanistan (click to see full article)' and notes that:

"The crux of the argument to replace 5.56mm rests on framing the imagined problem at the section level, thus promoting the idea that infantry capability is somehow tied to section weapons. This is a popular but unfounded and rather new idea. Autonomous section capability has been recognised as largely irrelevant in every serious shooting war, with platoon, company and battlegroup weapons always being more decisive."​

I'm of the view that you don't have agree with everything he says but what he says and his reasoning needs to be seriously considered. Further at other occasions, he has also clarified the following:

"Having now talked to lot of UK guys back from A'stan, I have to say I am very un-surprised at what they actually say, which is that personal weapons are really just for self defence and under 200m and what does the killing is platoon weapons/section weapons, like GPMG, LRR and Projected HE. In other words all the lessons from the past 60 years hold true."​

As I understand, there's quite a bit of changes in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) due to the lessons learned process. The jury is not quite out yet but do read William F. Owen's article as a counter point.

 

[raider1]

As I understand, there's quite a bit of changes in tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) due to the lessons learned process. The jury is not quite out yet but do read William F. Owen's article as a counter point.

OK, I will... Thanks!

 

[Spetsznaz]

OK, I will... Thanks!

I see your new, you might want to stick from making short post. One Linear post tend to piss of the moderators I got a lot of flack from making that mistake

 

[Feanor]

I like your intentions but you and I both know a .22 is incapable of anything at 300m simple fact is it runs out of steam, the 5.56 was only designed to just make that distance the cahnces of a subsonic .22 even reaching that far without significant elevation is pretty slim

The 5.56 on an M16 is accurate out to ~500 yards.

 

[Chino]

The 5.56 on an M16 is accurate out to ~500 yards.

I read in a gun rag report that during one US military shooting competition, a USMC officer was able to accurately hit targets at 600m with an M4! (With the appropriate optics but I can't remember what scope.)

Is that possible?

 

[Feanor]

I would think so. I hit targets with an M-16A2 on the rifle range, from 500 yds with iron sights. Granted I was in the prone, and it was an M-16A2 (long barrel). But I wouldn't think it's impossible.

 

[Firn]

I would think so. I hit targets with an M-16A2 on the rifle range, from 500 yds with iron sights. Granted I was in the prone, and it was an M-16A2 (long barrel). But I wouldn't think it's impossible.

There is no reason why it should be, and it can even reach longer, which accuracy getting progressively worse until the projectile falls under the sound barrier.

Good, fine iron sights with long sight radius allow for accurate long-range shooting of distinct targets. Seeing well camouflaged targets, identifiying them and engaging them successfully at long ranges under difficult weather and light conditions is a completely different thing.

OPSSG is also right to give the link of Owen. My personal opinion is that if the enemy uses the high ground of difficult terrain and long ranges to keep the overburdened troops at a distance and to engage them with MGs and mortars the IW and the simple soldier might not be best answer.


Firn

 

[OPSSG]

There is no reason why it should be, and it can even reach longer, which accuracy getting progressively worse until the projectile falls under the sound barrier.

Good, fine iron sights with long sight radius allow for accurate long-range shooting of distinct targets. Seeing well camouflaged targets, identifiying them and engaging them successfully at long ranges under difficult weather and light conditions is a completely different thing.

OPSSG is also right to give the link of Owen. My personal opinion is that if the enemy uses the high ground of difficult terrain and long ranges to keep the overburdened troops at a distance and to engage them with MGs and mortars the IW and the simple soldier might not be best answer.

To add to your discussion, we need to talk a little about weapons capabilities versus defined military roles. This is for the benefit of civilians participating in this forum. Since this is a defence forum we should not think like main stream media and call everyone with a scoped rifle a 'sniper'. If the Taliban were able to deploy real snipers, the current ISAF coalition would have lost quite a number of MAJs/LTCs and other higher ranking officers by now.

As the price of optics goes down and having longer ranged weapons (like the new British 7.62 mm sharpshooter rifle or the M14 EBR, with a Leopold 3.5x10 power scope and Harris bipod legs for the US Army) issued to modern infantry, it is easy to get confused over a weapon capability (which is increasing with better optics and calibre of bullet used) and actual defined military roles.

For example, a sharpshooter (SS) or designated marksman (DM) is still performing a traditional infantry role (the US Army deploys in Afghanistan with two DMs with M14EBR in each section). Therefore to some extent, the SS/DM moves with the rest of the main force to deal with longer ranged threats with precision shooting - his core skill is not penetrating and operating in extremely hostile environment unsupported. In many area of operations, a SS/DM is a useful force protection measure that also assists in enabling speedy maneuver. Therefore we can say that a SS/DM is a soldier who consistently achieves a high standard of shooting and who is trained to inflict casualties on targets of opportunity using an individual weapon in a normal infantry role.

A sniper team (operating in teams of up to six) on the other hand has a different military role and is trained to operate way ahead of the main force, to insert deep in hostile enemy territory to seek out high value targets (like senior commanders/political leaders). The effect of a sniper is to harass the enemy in his areas of sanctuary, forcing the enemy to develop counter measures and investing in resources to deal with such a threat. A sniper team is differently trained for a planned role that a SS/DM cannot perform. IMO, observation, evasion and escape are core skills for a sniper and his ability to engage at long range is a collateral benefit. A sniper's ability to operate deep in hostile territory and observe is just as valuable.

Snipers Zero-In On Longer-Range Kills

Mar 3, 2010 - In 1967, U.S. Marine Corps sniper Carlos Hathcock took a 2,250-meter (7,382-ft., or 1.4-mi.) shot in Vietnam and made the longest sniper kill ever. Hathcock’s record stood for 35 years until two Canadian snipers, operating in the Shah-i-Kot Valley of Afghanistan, set new marks for long-range kills on the same afternoon—2,310 and 2,430 meters, also with 50-caliber rifles, in both cases McMillan Tac-50 Long Range Sniper Weapons...

...The 50-caliber rifle, for example, is effective because its bullets have high muzzle velocity (around 2,800 fps.) that maintains trajectory and achieves an effective range of 2,000 meters. The rifle, though, is heavy (25-30 lb.) and not suited for every situation. Lighter rifles with few tradeoffs in power and range are as effective against most targets.

One such is the 338-caliber rifle. When paired with the Lapua magnum cartridge, which was designed for snipers, the 338 fires the bullet with muzzle velocity near 3,000 fps. Tom Irwin, director of Accuracy International (AI), a British manufacturer of sniper rifles, says the bullet stays supersonic to 1,400 meters and achieves “a flatter trajectory than anything else,” giving it “reasonable accuracy” to 2,000 meters...

...Another factor is high-tech optics. “The quality and power of optics are playing a more important role,” says Sylvia Ehinger, military sales and business development representative for U.S. telescopic sight maker Schmidt and Bender. “If you can’t see that far, you can’t hit your target.”

The PSR solicitation for optics was released in February, and Ehinger says the draft specification calls for 5-25X sights. Most sniper scopes, by contrast, use 4-16X sights.

There is demand for other enhanced optics such as thermal imagers that attach on a rail in front of the telescopic sight. Ehinger says that eventually telescopic sights will integrate ballistic calculators (now handheld) and laser rangefinders to improve accuracy. “Everything will be inside a scope.”

...

Military snipers are not normal infantry and they are very highly trained assets who can stalk or lie in wait unseen in enemy territory for days and kill with one shot (with weapons like the new British 8.59 mm L115A3 rifle).

 

[Feanor]

Even the M-16A2s at my reserve unit have optics.... so yes calling someone with a scoped rifle a sniper is as inaccurate as calling a kid with a BB gun a soldier.

 

[Firn]

There has been some discussion about it.

All in all I do think that the discussions are usually more about firepower and accuracy than tactics, fieldcraft, camouflage, survivability and observation. Fortunately SWC has a broader view on this issues.

I also think that the sniper training has possibly moved too strongly into a "strategic" direction, towards long range infiltration and evasion. While we can not take WWII and WWI has yardsticks, it was rightly remarked on the same thread that the snipers there did very very little of this stuff. The Bread and Butter work was quite different from two shadowy ghillies stalking over many days to a hidden base.

So while it might be very worthwhile to keep offering this long courses to the "true snipers" (in the modern sense) it would be even more sensible to create intensive 2-week courses along the thoughts of "Sniping in France", but partly adapted to current challanges and technology. Most persons who show good shooting skill and fieldcraft during basic training should prove to be good sharpshooters, while suitable persons with good fieldcraft should do fine as observers. Modern technology greatly facilitates the dedection, identification and geo-localization of targets.

Both graduates might be best organized at the platoon or company level for the reasons outlined in the linked thread. So neither a "Squad designated marksman" nor "true (modern) sniper". But certainly useful when commander uses them well.


Firn

 

[Firn]

BTW, when thinking about a new standard rifle it might be wise to get a broader view on the whole rifle -soldier "system".

A good sound suppressor, an partly adjustable stock and cheek-rest, sunshades and kill-flashes for the rugged, good optics and a practical grip bipod can make hitting and suriving a lot more probable in many circumstances.


Firn

 

[Vajt]

BTW, when thinking about a new standard rifle it might be wise to get a broader view on the whole rifle -soldier "system".

A good sound suppressor, an partly adjustable stock and cheek-rest, sunshades and kill-flashes for the rugged, good optics and a practical grip bipod can make hitting and suriving a lot more probable in many circumstances.


Firn

That's actually a good point. From what I've been reading, sound suppressors have the added benefit that they increase accuracy. I wonder if they will become part of the standard kit?

-----JT-----

 

[Kilo 2-3]

That's actually a good point. From what I've been reading, sound suppressors have the added benefit that they increase accuracy. I wonder if they will become part of the standard kit?

-----JT-----

Seems to me that slowing the round down to subsonic speeds would lead to "rainbowing." But I doubt they'll become a piece of standard kit, at least in the US. The 5.56mm has enough penetration issues as is without slowing down the muzzle velocity.

 

[Go229]

Seems to me that slowing the round down to subsonic speeds would lead to "rainbowing." But I doubt they'll become a piece of standard kit, at least in the US. The 5.56mm has enough penetration issues as is without slowing down the muzzle velocity.

Silencers do not slow the round down, they trap the exhaust gasses. If you want subsonic ammunition the only way to do that is to load it with less powder and a heavier bullet. Then you get rainbowing.

 

[Firn]

Silencers do not slow the round down, they trap the exhaust gasses. If you want subsonic ammunition the only way to do that is to load it with less powder and a heavier bullet. Then you get rainbowing.

The standard issue ammunition dovetails actually very well with modern sound suppressors. The sound signature emitted by the flight of the projectile is btw also an important factor in the suppression of the enemy.

I think everybody who witnessed a night training operation with shooting knows just who perfectly the muzzle flash gives away the position of the shooter. This is also true to a lesser extent for difficult light conditions and bright days. Ironically a well chosen and camouflaged position can be more liable to get betrayed by the flash as in many instances it will make good use of shade and (light) cover, creating a better contrast for the bright flash.

The capture and slowing of most gasses does also greatly reduce the disturbance in front of the rifle. Far less movement of leaves, grass and less kick-up of dust and snow. In short the sound suppressors makes it much, much harder to see the signature of a shot making it much harder for the enemy to find you and to kill you and easier for you to suppress or kill him.


Firn


P.S: Subsonic ammunition should be special issue only, with specially designed projectiles. The light NATO caliber is not really suited to be completely silenced.

 

[Go229]

The sound signature emitted by the flight of the projectile is btw also an important factor in the suppression of the enemy.

What i forgot to mention! 5.56mm rounds cannot go subsonic whitout having the energy of a .22LR, that's why the Russians have developped specialised long 9mm rounds specially for silenced weapons.

 

[golden]

Is it important

There are several questions to ask?

1. Does the U.S. military really need a new carbine? The M-4 has just about replaced the M-16A2. So it may be around longer than most people think.

2. If a new gun is adopted, will it need a new caliber like the 6.8 mm round?

3. POLITICS! If a new rifle is chosen, it will have to be made in the U.S. Right now, COLT, FN and RUGER can make the quantities needed and have new designs. How will the politicians in the home states of these makers pressure the selection.
Remember the farse that surrounded the adoption of the BERETTA 92FS as the M-9 pistol. Even the most anti-gun politician in AMERICA, Edward KENNEDY got involved (his state is home to SMITH & WESSON, a loosing contender).
If REMINGTON gets behind the BUSHMASTER ACR, that would also become a real contender.

4. Money? The AR-15/M-16/M4 rifles are not cheap. RUGER can probably produce the SR-556 cheaper with more features than any competitor. It appears to meet all the requirements and should prove reliable enough. It would be the one that I bet on.
The high price on these rifle at gun shops in the U.S. is more a reflection of the demand that the real price. I have seen them at 25 to 35 percent below the suggested price.

I think the military will just keep using the M-4, improving it be adding better sights like the TRIJICON ACOG or CANADIAN ELCAN. Also, newer ammo with expanding bullets could be used in AFGHANISTAN. The enemy there are not signatories to the HAGUE or GENEVA conventions.
They may standarize on a modified version if it can save money like the COLT Monobloc version, but I have not heard of enough complaints from users to get rid of the M4. It has not been around that long and the military would have to buy all new support equipment.

Does anybody see that kind of expense when you have an anti-military administration?