Combat Rifle Rd

diesel1959

por vida
Lifetime Member
Nov 7, 2013
3,819
113
Houston & BFE
Well yeah, but we're reasonable, at least reasonable enough to know this

Last time i saw the military presentations on ballistic overmatch, it was all "zOMG REAR ECHELON PEOPLE CANT GO TOE TO TOE WITH CONCEALED GPMG'S!!1! WE NEED AR10'S!"

Overmatch could be a valid study if you are looking to compare say, m110 sass and csass to psl's and dragunovs, but they are comparing the m4 to the psl and dragunovs
Well, yeah. Maybe part of that is that I'm not an arms distributor/manufacturer/etc. Nor am I a federal contractor.
 

diesel1959

por vida
Lifetime Member
Nov 7, 2013
3,819
113
Houston & BFE
There is no such thing as knockdown power

It's just something that gun store clerks make up to try to push things on uninformed customers.



As it turns out, rounds that perform well in ballistics gel tend to do well on the street, and it allows you to see the true performance of a round without an outside factor ruining the experiment.

Once again, people are not deer. Deer do not shoot back. Deer do not wear armor, deer aren't trying to fix and maneuver on you. Deer don't go around taking dozens of "kill shots" from .308 amd continue to function

The ".22 bullet" as you so simply put it is pushing near 3000 fps while still maintaining good barrel life, low recoil, and capacity. Yes .243 and 6.5 exist, but have you held even an AR10 carbine? Shits heavy, even without an optic, magazine, peq, etc. Magazine footprint is much larger, a carrier that can hold 4 AR15 mags on a single stack shingle can only hold 2 ar10 mags in the same space


I get where you're coming from, but unfortunately its a mix of gun store hyperbole, and outdated nonsense that has killed numerous potentially great service rifles, and given us rifles that are only useful on a known distance range.
Not to mention that the 6.5CM burns up barrels pretty quickly. Mentally, I position it more into the "magnum" realm for that reason alone. The everyday warfighter does not need a magnum round. I'd much rather see them using the 6.8SPC (where you can use the legacy M16 platform), than the 6.5CM (where you have to use an AR10 platform).
 

Ole Cowboy

TGT Addict
May 23, 2013
4,046
113
17 Oaks Ranch
What I believe is going to occur is the Combat Arms will have it's own gun and some in the Combat Support will share it also. The rest of Combat Support along with Combat Service Support will continue with the M16 platform.

Great approach, one that should have been used years ago. The emerging tactics will dictate the functionality and that will drive the new round. Whether or not they stay with the M 16 platform or not is still a toss-up at this time. I would not be surprised to see them go with the larger frame like the AR 10. The AR design is a linear design and as a result, it's quite scalable so an all-new frame somewhere between M16 and AR 10 could well be developed.
 

Ole Cowboy

TGT Addict
May 23, 2013
4,046
113
17 Oaks Ranch
My thoughts. And I'm sure I will get corrected if needed. If a bullet has xxx ft lbs of energy(plain physics) and hits an object but does not exit then the object absorbs all xxx ft lbs of energy. I'm not discussing damage or anything else but say 1000ft lbs of energy is absorbed in a body something is going to get hurt.
I too have been led to believe that...in fact, I DO believe that the laws of physics still apply and on every ballistic table I have ever worked with there is a column labeled "Energy" which is shown at various distances. But I came to learn that its just gun shop talk and Energy is not measurable...
 

Ole Cowboy

TGT Addict
May 23, 2013
4,046
113
17 Oaks Ranch
Going forward I don't see the weight issue as important as it once was. What will drive that is the women being integrated into the Combat Arms especially the Infantry. Because there is no way that most women will be able to carry a 150 lb combat load then something must allow that to happen to meet diversity requirements. The Army is working on that now. Advancements in soldier-worn exoskeletons will enable dismounted troops to carry a good deal more armor and firepower as, given current trajectories, they should increase soldier carrying capacity by 50 percent by 2050.
 

vmax

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Apr 15, 2013
11,798
113
We are a highly mobilized military now

The days of 20 mile marches are long gone.

The troops can carry more load because they are covering long distances as a rule
 

Ole Cowboy

TGT Addict
May 23, 2013
4,046
113
17 Oaks Ranch
We are a highly mobilized military now

The days of 20 mile marches are long gone.

The troops can carry more load because they are covering long distances as a rule
I hope not! On the killing fields, we move on foot otherwise you just die tired. When I was on the DMZ In Korea back in the 70's with 1/9th Inf (MANCHU) every Sat we rucked up and when cross country 15 mi in 3 hrs, if you could not make it you did remedial PT until you did.

I look back on that with fondness, great training and albeit our rucks were light at just over 100 lbs of carry load it certainly put you FAR better condition that the daily runs every did. I lost 90 lbs making me a bit on the thin side for a guy my height, I was just below the Army min weight for 6' 2".
 

vmax

TGT Addict
TGT Supporter
Apr 15, 2013
11,798
113
Your 50 year old memories, which I respect and I know you are fond of, do not reflect the modern military.
We have spent a lot of money on APCs and Infantry Fighting Vehicles so we can put troops quickly where they need to be without marching them into battle like during the Civil War
 

toddnjoyce

TGT Addict
Sep 27, 2017
9,630
113
Boerne
I like infantry the same way I like trophy animals: mounted.

The last 100 yards is a different story altogether, but even light infantry is vehicle (ground or air) dependent in most AOs, today.

Much of that is due to increased comm capabilities and load requirements. Today’s approach loads range from 95 to more than 120 lbs. compare that to the standard 20k ruck requirement for the Army, which is 42lbs, helmet, but no body armor.

That’s do-able, it’s repeatable, and it’s good training. But it’s not representative of actual combat loads.
 

Ole Cowboy

TGT Addict
May 23, 2013
4,046
113
17 Oaks Ranch
Your 50 year old memories, which I respect and I know you are fond of, do not reflect the modern military.
We have spent a lot of money on APCs and Infantry Fighting Vehicles so we can put troops quickly where they need to be without marching them into battle like during the Civil War
All those do is get you to the Forward Edge of the Battlefield, then you unass and go fight.

That said, going forward we are not going to be fighting out of tanks and APC etc, those are rolling coffins in the age of drones.

I have often thought the tank was an outdated concept. It has a signature that just could not be any bigger. Be it Electro-Magnetic, Heat-seeking, IR, Visual or just throw short-range HE missiles at it till you hit it…not hard to do!

The conventional battlefield model belongs to the Infantry operating in small teams.

The days of maneuver at the Company – Bde level are gone. I remember well my days at Ft Hood listening to my Bn Co screaming over the radio, attack on line get on line like something out of a British warfare manual dated 17XX. We should have learned how we really defeated the Brits in the war, should have learned why the Indians spanked us so many times and just look at how many CMoH medals that have been given to those acting alone on the battlefield captured and destroyed so many bad guys time and time again.

Today HiTech has elevated our and their ability to kill and the bigger it is the easier it is.

If I were 4 stars: CDT2 would be the word of the day: Cohesive-Disparate-Teams x 2. Cohesive > they work, interact and think as a Team. Disparate > every individual brings unique skills and abilities to the team. 2 > every Team is cross supported by another team, we got your mission, we got your back. Every Infantry soldier today must have a toolbox full of skills he can call upon to impact the mission. The CDT must be skilled and cross-trained to achieve a seamless transition across the battlefield skill sets.

Well, what does the CDT2 look like, how many personnel according to the TO&E? There is NO TO&E, the CDT could be 2 individuals, could be 7. It is ALL mission-driven and CDT is real adjusted and based upon mission and the Intel to drive the configuration. No Team goes out as a singular team, it always has another Team, a buddy on the battlefield. Both Teams are briefed and appraised of each other’s mission. The gives each Team an external support package and a Team that can go forward and complete the mission if need be.

Since no Team goes out alone, all Teams are linked to one another like a Chain. This makes command and control paramount.
 

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
Texas Gun Forum Ad
silencers
third coast
Ranier
Tyrant Designs
DK Firearms

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
95,342
Messages
2,117,370
Members
30,380
Latest member
Bdudsley
Top Bottom