Author Topic: What should our military be using? (Read 3953 times)

ShootnStr8 · « **on:** February 05, 2011, 01:58:34 PM »

i was encouraged to read this article and the comments by Bob Scales: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20030447-503544.html

Even though the article mentions only rifles, I think it would be great if we upgraded the sidearm as well. So what rifle and sidearm should our men and women and uniform be carrying and in what caliber?

I like the idea of a rifle in a 6.5 mm something (Grendel or 260 Rem) and a Glock or Springfield XDM in 45 ACP or 10mm. What do y'all think?

Blessings!

Shootnstr8

teamnelson · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2011, 03:11:28 PM »

Or a PDW in 5.56; upgrade the mbr and keep the mags, ammo, parts from the M16 series for the sidearm.

Redhawk1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2011, 04:59:48 PM »

Go back to the M14, and and high cap 45 ACP.

bigbird09 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2011, 06:04:33 PM »

something such as 7.62x39 for rifles and go back to 45acp for a side arm, something with some knockdown, 5.56 and 9mm just doesn't do it and I would hate to have to trust my life to them.

DCT · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2011, 03:57:00 PM »

The M14 and the 45 have already been battle proven, I never under stood why they replaced them with the smaller calibers.
I was involved in some of the testiing of the different 9mm's and was not convenced then and still don't understand the change. I heard all the reasons, weight, round count and women couldn't handle the 45 or the M14 and nato compliance. I never thought it was a good decision to go smaller and lighter.
Just my thoughts.

teamnelson · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2011, 04:46:51 PM »

I came in back when the sidearm made sense on the battlefield (80's) but after 2 tours in OIF in 2006 and 2008, I have to say I don't think it does. I don't really see a role for a handgun, 9 or 45, except in garrison roles (MP, security, etc.) Our current and future combat operations will really put us more in CQB type combat roles in urban, where an SBR, or more likely a pistol variant of an SBR, 10" or less barrel, is going to give you alot of flexibility along with firepower. Even mounted troops prefer an M4; give them a PDW with a pistol grip, and they'd be happiest. Such an animal in 30cal would be far better than a handgun round, for the versatility of penetrating cover and stopping vehicles.

bigbird09 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2011, 05:15:32 PM »

I would always carry a sidearm alone with my primary weapon, you just never know what can happen in a combat situation, the odds are slim that you will ever need to rely on a sidearm but there is still a chance, just like concealed carry in the everyday word, you may never need that pistol, but you have it just in case. Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

I think it would be best that someone would develop a battle rifle chambered for something like the 7.62x39. I think .30cal should be the absolute minimum for bullet diameter, but for most of the infantry run a short cartridge in something like a m4 platform, then still have designated marksman carry the m14 for a little extended range when needed.

Brett · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2011, 02:26:50 AM »

I'm thinking the FN SCAR in 6.8 Rem SP for an infantry rifle is a good current choice.

A sidearm like the Steyr M-1A in .357 SIG or a 10mm version would make a good sidearm.

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2011, 11:40:54 AM »

I like .30 cal.

In the pistol argument of 9mm/.45acp > womens hands/control etc etc etc. why not just go with a .40S&W, seems the better and more realistic compromise. But yeah, there's plenty of women that can shoot a .45. If my daughter when she was 12 could do it...............

Noreaster · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2011, 12:16:07 PM »

The 300 blackout is very close to the 7.62x39, (black out is 7.62x25 and works on the M4 plateform.) Some specops guys are already using it. The down side is its a 300 meter catridge. 6.8mm wouldn't be a bad setup either. As for handgun. The 357 sig is almost the same as the 9mm nato round they are using now, (check the velocity, unless they change to HP it won't be effective.) 40 S&W or 45 GAP would be a perfect fit and have many options for handguns. The venerable 45 acp would also be welcomed. I have talked to guys in the sandbox. I'm surprized how much use the pistols are getting. Thanks for cbs link.

bigbird09 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:12:24 PM »

Quote from: Noreaster on February 07, 2011, 12:16:07 PM

The 300 blackout is very close to the 7.62x39, (black out is 7.62x25 and works on the M4 plateform.) Some specops guys are already using it. The down side is its a 300 meter catridge. 6.8mm wouldn't be a bad setup either. As for handgun. The 357 sig is almost the same as the 9mm nato round they are using now, (check the velocity, unless they change to HP it won't be effective.) 40 S&W or 45 GAP would be a perfect fit and have many options for handguns. The venerable 45 acp would also be welcomed. I have talked to guys in the sandbox. I'm surprized how much use the pistols are getting. Thanks for cbs link.

The blackout would actually be pretty good. The way things are going most fighting will probably be urban building to building combat so really most of it would be within that 300 metre range. If engagment of longer range targets is needed keep a couple m14's in the group, if more than that is needed, then you need a new battle plan.

JASmith · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:37:23 PM »

I think TeamNelson is on the right trail with the notion of a pistol-sized weapon that can be fired from the shoulder. A folding version that can be carried in a package sized about the same as the currently popular "man-purse" would allow it to be handy for the folks in garrison duty. The right optical sighting equipment would give them a real chance of doing serious work out to 100-150 meters.

Training would be an issue, but I am of the opinion that making the weapon easy to aim and shoot goes a long way toward making it viable within our currently modest resources.

As far as the battle rifle goes, I think the best bet for a replacement is one that has at least as good a trajectory as the 7.62 NATO and has equivalent penetration potential at all ranges. This is doable with AR15-length cartridges in both the 5.56mm and 6mm calibers. The 5.56 would be an AR-friendly version of the 22PPC and the 6mm would be a similarly morphed version of the 6mm BR.

For a detailed discussion, go to http://shootersnotes.com/battle-rifle-cartridge/.

teamnelson · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2011, 01:58:22 PM »

JASmith, wondering when you'd show up!

For those able to pull up the logistical stats for OIF and OEF and see how many rounds of 9mm were drawn, then subtract how many were fired in training (BZO), you will numerically demonstrate how frequent the sidearm is actually used across the entire forces deployed. Last time I looked at the data for the USMC, it was minimal. There are some specialty units that may frequently draw them, and train with them, but seldom fire them in kinetic engagement. For the majority of forces deployed, the sidearm has become an administrative nightmare on the accountability system. I know personally of many infantry battalions that had all sidearms returned to the armory in country, and reissued M4s as a matter of command policy to anyone typically rated a sidearm. Or shotguns, depending.

It is for that very reason (the logistical data) that many of the major suppliers are fielding civilian variant AR pistols (in the last couple years), as part of their product development for hopeful future military contract. Given that the terms "task oriented" or "mission specific" are peppered in practically all strategy development, a weapon that can be "task oriented" is attractive. The ability to convert an M16 to an M4 or an M21 DM version, using existing stockpile of parts, and minimal training for the armorers is very sexy to the brass. Throw a pistol length piston driven upper into that mix, and folks will be lining up outside the armory to draw one, and instead of a broom handle, they'll probably ask for a quick attach side folding stock and a single point sling. Add a reflex optic on as JASmith mentions, and we may see a revival in naming weapons.

Now take that task oriented platform and upgrade it all (pistol, mbr, dm) to the same 6mm caliber or higher, and you've got something that could attract the bean counters and shooters alike.

ShootnStr8 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2011, 04:34:58 PM »

I am curious why some think that it is necessary to stay with .30 caliber. This was the argument that the US made against the Brits when the Brits wanted NATO to adopt the 280 British which is not that different than the 7mm BR. Come to think of it, the insistance on 30 cal also forced Garand modify the legendary M1 from the 276 Pederson to the 3006 (going from a 10 round clip to 8!). In fact, I doubt if we would have ever gone to the 308 and then 5.56 if we had adopted the 276 Pederson in the first place.

So what is so magical about 30 cal when .264 to .284 bullets offer higher ballistics coefficents for equal if not better long range performance. I've wondered about this and would appreciate someone straightening me out.

Blessings!

Shootnstr8

MGMorden · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2011, 05:17:56 PM »

6.8mm SPC for the rifle round. I don't really have much problem with the AR-15 platform as it stands, so just adopting 6.8mm SPC versions of that wouldn't bother me. If we had to look at something new though, a bullpup design would keep the length short whilst maintaining a longer usable barrel. Personally I think bullpups *look* a bit goofy, but in the field aesthetic concerns are completely unimportant (though one Air Force officer once mentioned that we would never adopt the YF-23 fighter because it was just too ugly, and we DID end up going with the sharper looking F-22 instead . . .

).

As to the handgun. I really, really have no problem whatsoever with the 9x19mm round. It's been used in just as many wars for just as long as the .45ACP was. I think to some degree the disdain for the 9mm in favor of the .45 has some degree of "not invented here" syndrome. If more power was absolutely necessary, the MOST I'd say to go to would be to adopt .40 S&W (which would likely be designated 10mm NATO or something similar). The width and weight tradeoffs of the .45ACP just don't make sense on the modern battlefield. Much like the Springfield Trapdoors of old, they served their purpose too, but it's time to move on. Let the old work-horse rest

.

As to the actual pistol, I do think the Berretta M9 is a bit dated. Whether we went to 9mm or .40 S&W, I'd say it's probably time to take the step to a polymer framed gun. Just as a matter of job creation and keeping money in the economy I'd rather see a contract go to a domestic company. The S&W M&P seems like it would be an EXCELLENT choice.

JASmith · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2011, 06:21:40 PM »

Quote from: MGMorden on February 07, 2011, 05:17:56 PM

...one Air Force officer once mentioned that we would never adopt the YF-23 fighter because it was just too ugly, and we DID end up going with the sharper looking F-22 instead . . . ).

Having spent the better part of a career in weapons R&D, I learned that aesthetics make more than a cosmetic difference. All too frequently, an item that looks ugly is ugly in more than one important performance parameter.

BTW I'm one who believes the A10 Warthog is a beautiful aircraft for its mission. It is viewed as plug ugly by folks who are enamored of the air-to-air mission and stealth operations. The most beautiful rotary winged aircraft I've seen is the Comanche -- canceled because it cost too much. Oh well...

Coming back to the original topic, functionality and reliability are key. We too frequently hang too many bells and whistles on our rifles. Look at the now-canceled OICW. It would have been the infantryman's dream because one had the 5.56 for close (under 200 meter) work and a precisely aimed 25 mm grenade timed to detonate at the target. Problem is that, not only did it look ugly because there were were so many components stuffed under its shell, but the user would have needed at least a BS, if not an MS degree, to use it!

(Maybe the last part is a bit overstated, but you get the drift!)

torpedoman · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2011, 06:24:45 PM »

lets go back to the 30-06 and the 45acp with which we actually WON wars with.

bigbird09 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2011, 06:32:06 PM »

Quote

BTW I'm one who believes the A10 Warthog is a beautiful aircraft for its mission

I love the A-10 it has to be one of my most favorite aircraft off all time, right along with the AC-130

JASmith · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2011, 06:47:05 PM »

I really have a soft spot in my heart for the AT-28 -- didn't get to fly it but they did an awful lot of airstrikes for me!

You might say that experience colored my views about combined arms and the need for the squad to be very capable in its own right and not be overdependent on air and artillery. (Yeah, the AT-28's and other aricraft did an excellent job, but you couldn't get them as often as you needed or wanted.)

While better and more responsive in many respects, there's only so much air and arty to go around. On top of that, the current ROE makes getting air or arty as much a political as a warfighting thing.

teamnelson · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2011, 08:20:13 PM »

Quote from: ShootnStr8 on February 07, 2011, 04:34:58 PM

So what is so magical about 30 cal when .264 to .284 bullets offer higher ballistics coefficents for equal if not better long range performance. I've wondered about this and would appreciate someone straightening me out.

Blessings!

Shootnstr8

Shootnstr8, I'd be okay with your options if we weren't seeing our enemy getting thicker and thicker skin. Modern tactics on both sides employ greater use of cover, terrain, and armor. Not to mention alot of battles are occurring in urban environments, not in wide open spaces. Or if the original contact is from a distance, by the time you close on the position, they've moved into hardened positions and they're no longer in the open. So a small high velocity bullet may be flatter, and hit well over greater distance, will it penetrate SAAPI, or 4" brick, or a car door? And with the greater use of VBIEDs, will it penetrate the block and retard momentum? Present policy is to employ the 30 cal for anti-vehicle, and anti-position, since the 223/5.56 is sketchy on those targets. That's probably why some of us incline to the 30. Now if you're saying the 264 will deliver all that and a bag of chips, bring it! Lighter ammo means the 210 combat load out weighs less.

Junior1942 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 08, 2011, 06:50:39 AM »

Our military is known for reinventing the wheel. For rifle, the 7.62x39. In addition to being perhaps--perhaps, I said--the best assault rifle cartridge, the enemy will supply us with free ammo.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #21 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:07:43 AM »

The military just ordered 450000 more 9mm's so it seems they will be with us. I have heard they are developing a new ammo for the 9mm pistol.
I read where one officer uses his 9mm on every entry where enemy is found. As they go from room to room he puts a bullet in the head of each enemy that is suppose to already be dead. He does this after losing a man to a guy faking it. True or not I don't know but it seems reasonable. With a simple bbl switch and mag switch we could go with a 40 S&W . Glock makes sense if weight reduction was the goal.

Swampman · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:14:11 AM »

Glock 17

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #23 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:15:31 AM »

Quote from: Swampman700 on February 08, 2011, 07:14:11 AM

Glock 17

And issue everyone at least one and some 2 guns !

Swampman · « **Reply #24 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:19:22 AM »

You can't hardly stop a Glock. It runs forever without cleaning. Most folks can't hit anything with a handgun anyway but it beats a sharp stick.

9mm is plenty enough.

teamnelson · « **Reply #25 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:39:52 AM »

A glock would be an improvement on the Beretta for sure. But none of the engagement areas we were in in Iraq, or that I've heard about in Afghanistan, would've been appropriately matched to the 9mm. The combat arms communities have warfare doctrines that sort of drive which weapons are employed, down to the 9mm. As I posted, entire battalions are de-issuing the handgun in theater and replacing them with M-4s to match the engagement requirements. 9mms are being retained by detainee guards, fobbits, etc. In other words, people who have no reasonable expectation of going kinetic. So if we're going to discuss an appropriate military sidearm, probably need to define which role you see it being employed to. Combat roles are different.

450,000 will just about cover ammo use at training commands stateside, to include Officer Basic, AF/Navy interior guard, etc.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:54:45 AM »

TeamNelson what type/s ammo is used in the 9mm now I have hears of some odd stuff .

I guess you could give every soilder a glock and a few mags or more ammo for the M-4 ?

williamlayton · « **Reply #27 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:04:53 AM »

I have been reading this with interest. I am still undecided on caliber bot have a decided opinion on the rifle.
I think it needs to be a weapon to shoot accurately to 400 meters with better power than the .223 (larger).
I like assault weapon sized rifles.
The Bull Pup looks interesting but witha larger caliber I wonder about the affect of the ejection port as close to the cheek. Especially if it is ambidextrious. I can just picture Bubba pumping discharges at his face.
I know it should be slelective fire and one shoud be full auto.
The 270 round has always had a place in my mind for a GOOD combat round.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #28 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:08:14 AM »

then the 276 peterson short

and a 40 S&W

teamnelson · « **Reply #29 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:13:19 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on February 08, 2011, 09:54:45 AM

TeamNelson what type/s ammo is used in the 9mm now I have hears of some odd stuff .

Issue ammo is 124gr Ball (FMJ). On soft targets, it passes through with limited trauma or energy dump. On hard targets, the energy is insufficient to penetrate a helmet, flak jacket, never mind SAAPI, car door, metal house door, etc.

The ammo you might have heard of was the LP-FMJ, with some sort of truncated nose that I think Federal was developing for testing. Darn that geneva convention.