Lynx Defense

Combat Rifle Rd

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • smittyb

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Nov 12, 2009
    3,061
    96
    Cut N Shoot
    There are a shit load of better choices.
    6.5 Grendel, 25-45, 6x45, 277 Wolverine just for starters.

    Now the best round, that is a debate that will not be settled on this forum, or any forum.
     

    zackmars

    Free 1911 refinishing
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    5,609
    96
    Texas
    Knockdown power or sometimes referred to as Killing Power, here is the formula.

    E x SD x A = KPS

    Energy (in foot pounds) x Sectional Density (taken from reloading manuals) x cross-sectional Area (in square inches) = Killing Power or Knockdown power call it whatever you chose.
    If you are not happy with that then apply the formula for Kinetic Energy: kinetic energy (KE) is equal to half of an object's mass (1/2*m) multiplied by the velocity squared. For example, if a an object with a mass of 10 kg (m = 10 kg) is moving at a velocity of 5 meters per second (v = 5 m/s), the kinetic energy is equal to 125 Joules, or (1/2 * 10 kg) * 5 m/s2

    Its just physics no more, no less, but what it does is provide an index(s) on which you can make some probable outcomes.

    No, Deer don't shot back or wear armor, nor did I say they did. However the size of an average Whitetail Texas summer deer is about 150 lbs, their body size is about that of a full-grown man and like men they have organs, muscle and bone so the similarity if about equal and faer more accurate in testing than a gel block that contains no bones and has a uniform density vs muscle and organs.

    Weight*: While a consideration, the Army has not figured out how to have a major impact on load-bearing combat weight. Of the 3 studies I am familiar with, Vietnam, Ft Lewis* and ME wars the COMBAT load has varied less than +/- 5 lbs from 147 lbs. The TO&E, on the other hand, varies a lot. Winter Vs Summer could swing from a low of 82 lbs to a high of 106 lbs, but that is NOT COMBAT loading that is just TO&E but does include your basic weapon and No Ammo.

    * Weight between a AR10 vs AR15 dressed out same-same for Infantry or civilian is about 2 lbs in fact about 1.8 +/- oz's.

    As for the frame, if you use the Win Short Mag .243 you get the same length as the 5.56, but it gains in the girth by being a fatter round. That will cost 5 rds or in a 30 rd mag 25 vs 30.

    Yes, the Army is on a tear to get the weight down and seeing as that have not been very successful since WWII I don't see any magic on the horizon. Of course, this is being driven by the integration of women into the Infantry.

    *Ft Lewis Study: one of the things looked at was the optimal carry weight. Sadly that did not give the Army and answer it wanted to hear so it was not disseminated. However, their office was the same building and down the hall...20% of body weight was considered the optimal load-bearing carry. To make it worse an Infantry soldier around 5'10" - 6' 2" and weighing about 175-200 lbs will lose approx 35-50 lbs in the combat role.

    ANYHOW...point is there are a lot of superior rds to the 5.56 and I am more than a bit concerned since the Army has stated it is going to design its own rd...telling us that of all the COTS rds out there nothing is suitable...I find that hard to believe!


    There is no such thing as knockdown power, killing power, whatever you want to call it.

    It is not scientific, it is not measurable

    It is, plain and simple, gun store BS.

    Always has been, always will be.

    The fact that no ballistics lab, or ballistician uses the term or your formula is a clue.


    Caliber is not everything. You seem to really want something like .243wsm, yet you have failed to recognize the biggest issue is that it is not suitable for a select fire rifle. And as far as 6.5cm, it may be a suitable replacement for DMR's and LMG's, but the size and weight penalty going from 5.56 is huge.

    Sure you may loose only 5 rounds a mag, but now either the stamdard AR platform takes a significant hit to durability and parts life (particularly barrels) or you waste time and money developing a complete replacement for the AR FOW, that despite its age, is still far superior to other competing options.

    Lets say you adopt your preferred barrel burner, will the avg. Soldier/Marine be able, in a combat environment, be able to take advantage of the extra long range performance of the .243wsm?

    Is that extra tiny edge worth the increased recoil, the decreased capacity, the increased weight and enormous cost of the new caliber? Because for each little thing a great shooter can take advantage of, an average to poor shooter will be hindered by
     

    zackmars

    Free 1911 refinishing
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    5,609
    96
    Texas
    The .243 WSM is a barrel burner. Even on a basic infantry weapon you're talking about swapping barrels quite often. In a combat situation you would need to issue barrels. That means the weapon needs to have a user swappable barrel. That's going to increase complexity, weight and cost.

    Taking a look into the not so distant past, the second battle of Fallujah, some of those Marines would have needed to swap barrels at least once a day, if not twice.

    Base diameter of the .243 WSM is almost half again that of the .223, I think your estimates of magazine capacity loss are a bit off.


    People think quick swapping barrels, like the AUG has are cool, but you could easily cut off a pound off that gun if you got rid of that system. I was really interested in the F88 from Lithgow which did just that.

    Unfortunately that guns DOA
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    The .243 WSM is a barrel burner. Even on a basic infantry weapon you're talking about swapping barrels quite often. In a combat situation you would need to issue barrels. That means the weapon needs to have a user swappable barrel. That's going to increase complexity, weight and cost.

    Taking a look into the not so distant past, the second battle of Fallujah, some of those Marines would have needed to swap barrels at least once a day, if not twice.

    Base diameter of the .243 WSM is almost half again that of the .223, I think your estimates of magazine capacity loss are a bit off.
    What exactly is it that burns out the barrel, I hear this term from time to time and am wondering what causes it?
     

    zackmars

    Free 1911 refinishing
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    5,609
    96
    Texas
    What exactly is it that burns out the barrel, I hear this term from time to time and am wondering what causes it?

    Big case, small bullet.

    Lots of pressure, gasses, and heat. This causes erosion at the throat, and particularly to gas operated guns, gas port erosion

    If you take a .308, which has a pretty respectable barrel life, and neck it down to a .243 win, barrel life suffers.

    In a bolt action rifle, it's not that noticeable, as it's not being shot a whole lot, and the action is inherently "slow", but when the gun has a much higher practical rate of fire...
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    Few here may be missing the point of the discussion. As we speak the Army is moving to a new caliber, the 5.56 is leaving the building. While they have not made a decision yet, they intend to sooner rather than later.

    My number 1 point and were I on the board I would ask the question: Is there nothing that is out there now that cannot do the job we want, I just have a hard time with reinventing the wheel...that IMO should be our last choice. Because we drive the train and coming up with an all-new round will affect all services and NATO.

    Functionality is key and right now emerging tactics are driving the train and forcing us into a new round. Tactics are calling for soldiers engaging out to 800m. I am just not sure that is doable at the individual soldier level, that is a high bar. Anyhow another discussion on tactics!
     

    zackmars

    Free 1911 refinishing
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 4, 2015
    5,609
    96
    Texas
    Few here may be missing the point of the discussion. As we speak the Army is moving to a new caliber, the 5.56 is leaving the building. While they have not made a decision yet, they intend to sooner rather than later.

    My number 1 point and were I on the board I would ask the question: Is there nothing that is out there now that cannot do the job we want, I just have a hard time with reinventing the wheel...that IMO should be our last choice. Because we drive the train and coming up with an all-new round will affect all services and NATO.

    Functionality is key and right now emerging tactics are driving the train and forcing us into a new round. Tactics are calling for soldiers engaging out to 800m. I am just not sure that is doable at the individual soldier level, that is a high bar. Anyhow another discussion on tactics!

    Do you know how many programs and billions of dollars have gone into replacing 5.56 and the ar15? SALVO, SPIW, G11, ACR, OICW, XM8, and a few humdred tests of the M16/M4 of varying degrees of legitimacy sprinkled in... And this has been going on since the 5.56 was adopted.

    Don't hold your breath. While 5.56 isnt infallible and there is a chance it may get replaced, its far more likely that everyone once again realizes that its just a waste of money and the current system does 99% of the job at 1/10th the price.
     
    Last edited:

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Do you know how many programs and billions of dollars have gone into replacing 5.56 and the ar15? SALVO, SPIW, G11, ACR, OICW, XM8, and a few humdred tests of the M16/M4 of varying degrees of legitimacy sprinkled in... And this has been going on since the 5.56 was adopted.

    Don't hold your breath. While 5.56 isnt infallible and there is a chance it may get replaced, its far more likely that everyone once again realizes that its just a waste of money and the current system does 99% of the job at 1/10th the price.
    Then again, we're talking government, and I used to work for the DoD.
     

    avvidclif

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 30, 2017
    5,794
    96
    Van Zandt County
    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.
     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,302
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,302
    96
    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
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    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
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    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.
     
    Top Bottom