Army trying to reinvent the 7.62 wheel. Again.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 45 of 46

Thread: Army trying to reinvent the 7.62 wheel. Again.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trying to get back to Texas
    Posts
    89

    Default Army trying to reinvent the 7.62 wheel. Again.

    https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...w-762-mm-rifle

    After fielding the SR-25/M110 and retrieving and refurbishing thousands of M14s, someone decided this is a good idea.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shooter5 View Post
    https://www.armytimes.com/articles/a...w-762-mm-rifle

    After fielding the SR-25/M110 and retrieving and refurbishing thousands of M14s, someone decided this is a good idea.

    you skipped the ar10...which saw desert time

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In my WVA mind!
    Posts
    27,506

    Default

    Decisions revisited are enlightens to what was turned loose and picked up by us already as surpluse!
    gives me hope for minute man home land security armies around country!

  4. Remove Advertisements
    GunBoards.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    central Ks
    Posts
    3,967

    Default

    The army, in it's finite wisdom, has spent 40 years or so removing all the serious wounding and lethality from the now badly overstabilized low-velocity 5.56 round (especially from the M4), that they have to look SOMEPLACE for a cartridge capable of actually putting an enemy combatant down.
    Ever heavier and heavier bullets requiring higher and higher spin stabilization rates, then ever shorter and shorter barrels to remove more and more velocity.
    They've created a rifle that functions like an icepick at anything over about 50 yards.

    People have spent the last 20 years trying to re-invent the 5.56 wheel (Grendel, Socom, Beowulf, how many others), to no success whatsoever (predictable because of the logistics realities) other than to create a few new niche cartridges for handloaders.

    Then there was the gawdawful 2-decade OICW waste-bordering-on-fraud............................................. .... 15 yrs, $25-grand each, even weaker 5.56 performance (9.8" barrel), a 20mm that was Less Lethal, big, bulky, heavy as hell..........................

    At least THIS effort stays within the logistics chain other than buying guns.
    I don't always venture out into the sub-freezing darkness, but when I do, it is hunting season, and I carry a Browning. Stay hungry my friends.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Hilliard, Ohio
    Posts
    6,616

    Default

    There has been a lot of such talk and articles recently. Some of the premise offered for a move back to the 7.62x51 seem rather faulty. Enemies carrying a larger caliber firearm etc. Not too many modern firearms for general issue carry larger than a 7.62x39 around the world.
    A limited production of a longer range, bigger cartridge for a squad weapon as a DMR etc., seems more likely.

    It would be a big surprise f the 5.56 or M4 disappeared. But then the prices and availability of parts and ammunition would get even cheaper if that happens.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    the simple math does not work.
    number of rounds carried.
    the 308 looses quickly to almost any
    smaller round.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldstuffer View Post
    The army, in it's finite wisdom, has spent 40 years or so removing all the serious wounding and lethality from the now badly overstabilized low-velocity 5.56 round (especially from the M4), that they have to look SOMEPLACE for a cartridge capable of actually putting an enemy combatant down.
    Ever heavier and heavier bullets requiring higher and higher spin stabilization rates, then ever shorter and shorter barrels to remove more and more velocity.
    They've created a rifle that functions like an icepick at anything over about 50 yards.

    People have spent the last 20 years trying to re-invent the 5.56 wheel (Grendel, Socom, Beowulf, how many others), to no success whatsoever (predictable because of the logistics realities) other than to create a few new niche cartridges for handloaders.

    Then there was the gawdawful 2-decade OICW waste-bordering-on-fraud............................................. .... 15 yrs, $25-grand each, even weaker 5.56 performance (9.8" barrel), a 20mm that was Less Lethal, big, bulky, heavy as hell..........................

    At least THIS effort stays within the logistics chain other than buying guns.
    So much fail

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Troy, MT
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldstuffer View Post
    The army, in it's finite wisdom, has spent 40 years or so removing all the serious wounding and lethality from the now badly overstabilized low-velocity 5.56 round (especially from the M4), that they have to look SOMEPLACE for a cartridge capable of actually putting an enemy combatant down.
    Ever heavier and heavier bullets requiring higher and higher spin stabilization rates, then ever shorter and shorter barrels to remove more and more velocity.
    They've created a rifle that functions like an icepick at anything over about 50 yards.

    People have spent the last 20 years trying to re-invent the 5.56 wheel (Grendel, Socom, Beowulf, how many others), to no success whatsoever (predictable because of the logistics realities) other than to create a few new niche cartridges for handloaders.

    Then there was the gawdawful 2-decade OICW waste-bordering-on-fraud............................................. .... 15 yrs, $25-grand each, even weaker 5.56 performance (9.8" barrel), a 20mm that was Less Lethal, big, bulky, heavy as hell..........................

    At least THIS effort stays within the logistics chain other than buying guns.
    I agree, the Vietnam issue 5.56 was the best ammo of that caliber ever issued and in most respect the m-16 of that era was a better rifle than the M-4. I can see the 7.62 for a designated marksman's weapon but I'd rather see it in 6.5mm. Trying to make the 5.56 into a long range weapon sacrifices its best qualities in exchange for nothing useful at all.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    45

    Default

    they also missed the SCAR 17 that is in use in the field right now. My 17s solves most of the shortcomings of other 7.62 rifles. It is light, piston driven, low recoil, ambidextrous, as accurate as my M24. The problem that can not be overcome is the weight of ammunition. With the gear laden troops of today, the 5.56 is like a dream to carry hundreds of rounds of ammo.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    45

    Default

    during my service time, I carried a GAU-5 much of the time. I am finishing a build of a (rifle?) right now to the same specifications. We carried it almost as a pistol. It was so light and quick that it didn't get in the way of other weapons or gear we were carrying. And even with the abbreviated 11.5 inch barrel is still more powerful with more accuracy and range than any 9MM pistol or sub gun.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4

    Default

    The SCAR 17 as mentioned above performed well in Spec-Ops service in SW Asia. What few fleas were found are easily fixed and the rifle has
    been shown at a recent exposition in 6.5mm. The barrel change is easy (lots easier than cranking on M14 barrels !!!) and this rifle needs a harder study
    As far as ammo weight, great strides have been made recently with composite case ammo, which now is borderline successful at 1/3 less weight
    so other than bulk the larger caliber won't be a greater weight burden than a conventional 5.56x45mm load-out.
    The finest round for the 5.56x45 is the MK262 Mod 1, with a 77 grain Sierra OTM bullet, the next is the SOST round now in issue. GREAT ammo
    CHEERS, Ye Ole CRAB

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    rightttttttttttt. call me when it becomes mil production general use.

    Quote Originally Posted by YeOleCRAB View Post
    As far as ammo weight, great strides have been made recently with composite case ammo, which now is borderline successful at 1/3 less weight
    so other than bulk the larger caliber won't be a greater weight burden than a conventional 5.56x45mm load-out.
    CHEERS, Ye Ole CRAB

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    100

    Default

    "the simple math does not work.
    number of rounds carried.
    the 308 looses quickly to almost any
    smaller round."


    That is correct, they should change over to the .22 Short and for longer ranges the .22 Long Rifle. Armor.....then the .22 Magnum.

  15. #14

    Default

    If one cannot hump the weight of a real weapon with real ammo, then one needs more PT, or to apply for clerk's school. I saw guys no more than 5' 2" and not tipping the scales at more than 120 lbs, humping the M1 rifle, plus a combat load. They did not complain about the rifle or ammo being too heavy, because they were motivated and had confidence in their rifle and ammo.
    STRAC all the way, Steven

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    2,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roysclockgun View Post
    If one cannot hump the weight of a real weapon with real ammo, then one needs more PT, or to apply for clerk's school. I saw guys no more than 5' 2" and not tipping the scales at more than 120 lbs, humping the M1 rifle, plus a combat load. They did not complain about the rifle or ammo being too heavy, because they were motivated and had confidence in their rifle and ammo.
    STRAC all the way, Steven
    were those guys wearing 60 lbs of body armor? Modern body armor , plus a full combat load can put over 100 lbs on a soldier before you add his rifle. Body armor has saved a lot of lives, it is not going away. Until technology comes up with lighter, but still effective armor , other ways to reduce weight must be found.

  17. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Lots of ammo is not going to do any good if it doesn't penetrate your target. Might as well carry a paintball gun.

  18. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    4

    Default

    In answer to ar10ar15man, I've had lots of experience with the plastic 50 training rounds (our Small Arms Training Team shot over 1 million rounds in about 8 years of crew served weapons training)
    and I too was questioning the new ammo. I'll be glad to let the "MOTLEY CREW" know when the stuff gets the green light. Might just happen this time !! Cheers, Ye Ole CRAB

  19. #18

    Default

    don't know why army didn't get a rifle with a folding stock instead of a shorter barrel.

  20. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    Because when you are indoors, in hall ways etc...you still want to shoulder and aim...

    Quote Originally Posted by slzy View Post
    don't know why army didn't get a rifle with a folding stock instead of a shorter barrel.

  21. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    GRINGO AND ROY are lost on modern warfare..pretty simple.

  22. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    The VietNam 55 grain was great when fired out of the original 1/14 twist barrel.
    Not so with the faster 1/12. Plus it was designed to go through skinny unarmoured VC at 200 yards.
    Not armoured Warsaw Pact at 300+, or Afghans at 500yds.

  23. #22
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    You can't have it both ways: heavy rounds and light weight... hence all kinds of "combinations". To my mind the 7.62x39 does about the best for distance (300 yds) and weight (not lots more than .556) without having to invent new weapons. If you need more distance then by all means use the 7.62 NATO of a designated marksman. If you expect heavy action at long distances, on a regular basis, then you'll need a battle rifle, not a Mattie Mattel. Hmmm...7.62x45???

  24. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    you should go look at the ballistics of the 7,62x39...
    massive drop from 100 to 300
    not so with the 223.
    in the 39 favor is 30/40% more energy at short range than 55/62 223.
    but is is just plain dead at any real distance.
    Quote Originally Posted by pop401k View Post
    You can't have it both ways: heavy rounds and light weight... hence all kinds of "combinations". To my mind the 7.62x39 does about the best for distance (300 yds) and weight (not lots more than .556) without having to invent new weapons. If you need more distance then by all means use the 7.62 NATO of a designated marksman. If you expect heavy action at long distances, on a regular basis, then you'll need a battle rifle, not a Mattie Mattel.

  25. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3

    wink2

    Quote Originally Posted by ar10ar15man View Post
    the simple math does not work.
    number of rounds carried.
    the 308 looses quickly to almost any
    smaller round.
    Maybe the Army should just cut straight to the .22 short and eliminate all this expensive experimentation.

  26. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    45

    Default

    to anyone with real life experiance, the bottom line is there is no single caliber or weapon that will accomplish everything. All military units use a symphony of tools to get the job done. It seems to me the Russians have realized the advantage of the 5.56 over the 7.62X39 when they abandoned the 7.62. The 5.56 has far superior penatration and long range ballistics taking the fight to a common AK while it is still out of its range. Add the advantage of lighter weight and recoil there is a lot going for it. In the middle eastern black markets, you can buy 3 ak47 for one m16. There are reasons for that too. So, in a 6 man squad......a good rifleman with a 7.62X51 along with 5.56 rifles and something that throws golf ball size ordinance. The mix is difficult to beat. With the over over 100 lbs of hi tech gear worn by our guys these days, specialization in weaponology has never been more important. In my day and job, we carried another 20 lbs of medical equipment and had to be able to extract an injured downed pilot. The little light SBR was ideal and lethal.

  27. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Argonaut View Post
    to anyone with real life experiance, the bottom line is there is no single caliber or weapon that will accomplish everything. All military units use a symphony of tools to get the job done. It seems to me the Russians have realized the advantage of the 5.56 over the 7.62X39 when they abandoned the 7.62. The 5.56 has far superior penatration and long range ballistics taking the fight to a common AK while it is still out of its range. Add the advantage of lighter weight and recoil there is a lot going for it. In the middle eastern black markets, you can buy 3 ak47 for one m16. There are reasons for that too. So, in a 6 man squad......a good rifleman with a 7.62X51 along with 5.56 rifles and something that throws golf ball size ordinance. The mix is difficult to beat. With the over over 100 lbs of hi tech gear worn by our guys these days, specialization in weaponology has never been more important. In my day and job, we carried another 20 lbs of medical equipment and had to be able to extract an injured downed pilot. The little light SBR was ideal and lethal.
    The weight of the gear that a soldier has to carry has always been a problem. Been true since the Romans. But at the very least you'd expect a soldier to be equipped with an effective weapon...

  28. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    45

    Default

    I assure you.........anyone encountering one of my units equipped with GAU-5's never wondered if they were equipped with effective weapons.

  29. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Argonaut View Post
    I assure you.........anyone encountering one of my units equipped with GAU-5's never wondered if they were equipped with effective weapons.
    I am relieved to know that your units were effectively equipped.

    Thank you for your service.

    Now what about the topic at hand, why then is the US Army looking for a "bigger" gun?

    I'd appreciate your insights...

  30. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    12

    Default

    I doubt they will switch from the 556, nothing wrong with it besides when you go past 500 meters which then it starts to suck. 6.5 creedmoor IMO would be the best thing to switch to but I know they wouldn't.

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Suwannee County, Florida
    Posts
    155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slzy View Post
    don't know why army didn't get a rifle with a folding stock instead of a shorter barrel.
    Bullpup design.
    Keep a decent length barrel.
    Shorter overall length.
    Aim small, miss small.

  32. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Hilliard, Ohio
    Posts
    6,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montana Bearbait View Post
    The weight of the gear that a soldier has to carry has always been a problem. Been true since the Romans. But at the very least you'd expect a soldier to be equipped with an effective weapon...
    The weight, and configuration of "the gear" has changed pretty dramatically in the last few decades. The PPE gear is part of the difference as well. In some cases the weapon, ammunition, food stores and other items are lighter., but PPE and other gear is much more common and adds weight. It is a problem., yep., effective weapon is subjective and has changed over time from spears to trench warfare to urban combat etc.
    More emphasis on survivability off small arms fire.

    Some reading>>

    https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/

  33. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    gentlemen,
    this is the sniper forum.
    if we are talking a new sniper rifle, lets continue,
    if we are talking an issue rifle, lets not.
    lets take the conversation elsewhere.

    somehow i do not see a bullpup as a sniper rifle.

    as far as a sniper rifle, now that we are rebuilding our
    military, "maybe" they will get the 338 LM they deserve.

  34. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBLUE View Post
    The weight, and configuration of "the gear" has changed pretty dramatically in the last few decades. The PPE gear is part of the difference as well. In some cases the weapon, ammunition, food stores and other items are lighter., but PPE and other gear is much more common and adds weight. It is a problem., yep., effective weapon is subjective and has changed over time from spears to trench warfare to urban combat etc.
    More emphasis on survivability off small arms fire.

    Some reading>>

    https://mwi.usma.edu/the-overweight-infantryman/
    Thank you for posting that link. It would appear to me that the main problem is getting priorities right. Perhaps if the people who dictate what the average soldier has to carry, had to carry the same load themselves, they'd quickly get their priorities straight. "The road to glory can not be followed with too much baggage" General John B. Gordon

  35. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    8,986

    Default

    Overheard - Army Quartermaster General:

    "Wait -I heard of this really cool .30 rifle that has done a good job since like 1947....uhh..don't tell me...Russian, I think.....had a weird name that started with a "K"....well, maybe we could kinda get some of those guns for our guys or, like, try out the ammo at least...I heard they work pretty well even in mud and dirt and they made lots of 'em...now, if I just remember what they are called....forget it, nobody wants cheap dumb Russian stuff anyhow. Let's invent something total new that nobody else has tried yet. Ought to be ready in four or five years and maybe even work OK."

    (A new higher BC bullet for the 7.62X39 cartridge, a hotter powder and a bit tighter tolerances ought to extend the range in rebarrelled ARs, a cheap solution, or try the lighter replacement Russian round with a few Yankee bullet upgrades and research.)

    ar - you are right that this is not sniper material, just having fun.

    As to our "new" sniper rifle being .338 LM, I am told that the Army is making major upgrades all around to the .300 Win Mag using new higher BC bullets and different powder and claim to have done as well in long range tests using some sort of new chassis rifle. Let's see what happens - might be true that instead of swapping cartridges they will stick to a .300 upgrade.

    With all the crazy weight our guys are carrying these days, it seems that humping 80-100 pound packs up steep hills and mountains in heat for weeks on end is getting pretty much impossible for ankles and knees, as is the sort of silent and rapid long range foot patrols that have served us and others well in history from back in Roger's Rangers days and still serve our Talib enemies well in ambush and rapid movement. The days of American "Lightfighters" is fading fast!

    "He travels best who travels light."
    Last edited by Stalin's Ghost; 06-15-2017 at 03:08 PM.

  36. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    go read my modern sniper rifle thread.
    this is a bandaid not a problem solver.
    testing showed that without a doubt, 338 LM had better ballistics and accuracy,
    but we could not afford it under o"bombma.
    that is how we ended up with a hot rodded 300 win mag with a 220 gr bullet.
    i have one.
    as i recall the russians tried light and fast against the finn's, did not work out well back then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stalin's Ghost View Post
    ar - you are right that this is not sniper material, just having fun.

    As to our "new" sniper rifle being .338 LM, I am told that the Army is making major upgrades all around to the .300 Win Mag using new higher BC bullets and different powder and claim to have done as well in long range tests using some sort of new chassis rifle. Let's see what happens - might be true that instead of swapping cartridges they will stick to a .300 upgrade.

  37. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by roysclockgun View Post
    If one cannot hump the weight of a real weapon with real ammo, then one needs more PT, or to apply for clerk's school. I saw guys no more than 5' 2" and not tipping the scales at more than 120 lbs, humping the M1 rifle, plus a combat load. They did not complain about the rifle or ammo being too heavy, because they were motivated and had confidence in their rifle and ammo.
    STRAC all the way, Steven
    "STRAC" - sweet Jesus, I haven't heard that word since 1970 !

  38. #37
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    203

    Default

    When I saw this article in military com I receive I wrote my Senator on armed forces committee and told him the Scar was already doing well so why are searching for a new weapons. I have a scar 17 and M1A in desert sage stock but much heavier. As much as I love the M14 and M1A. They are getting long in tooth and the Scar 17 IMHO is a better battle rifle and has already proven itself

  39. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    372

    Default

    I read an interesting account of soldiers complain about the weapons not killing the enemy effectively, sometimes even with head shots. Before everyone climbs on the anti-5.56mm bandwagon, the account was from the British 17th Infantry Division fighting against the Japanese in Burma in WWII. British OR (Other Ranks) were armed with SMLE's or No4's, and Bren Guns, the SMG at that time was the Thompson. Minor revolt supposedly occurred when Higher's wanted the soldiers to turn in their Thompson's for Sten guns. I have never heard that the MKVII .303 round was a bad killer, or for that matter a .45 out of a Thompson. Someone pointed out before that there is no "Magic" round. Long out of the business but still occasionally working with men who are going Down Range, they tell me the M855A1 is quite effective in killing people. I read yesterday that the USMC (with Congressional pressure) is about ready to adopt the M855A1 round. Had problems using the M855A1 with the M27, but reportedly cured by using the MagPul Pmag. Talk at the SHOT Show last January, from men who are snipers in SOCOM was that is several years they would not be shooting 7.62 NATO at all, the 6.5 Creedmore was mentioned. The New ASR (Advanced Sniper Rifle) is supposedly going to be in .338Norma, which means that going down range and working with the what 58 other nations that use the .338LM, now you cannot get ammunition from allies. Why the USA has not fielded a .338 sniper rifle after some 8 years after the USMC issued a Urgent User Request for one is still beyond me? I am not holding my breath on how long it will be to field the ASR. John

  40. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    john,
    let me ask you a simple question..
    who was president and what was he doing to the military ?

    see my earlier posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by John A. Larsen View Post
    why the USA has not fielded a .338 sniper rifle after some 8 years after the USMC issued a Urgent User Request for one is still beyond me? I am not holding my breath on how long it will be to field the ASR. John

  41. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    372

    Default

    I am no fan of our former President, but cannot blame this on him. The acquisition process and the military did it to themselves. John

  42. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ar10ar15man View Post
    the simple math does not work.
    number of rounds carried.
    the 308 looses quickly to almost any
    smaller round.

    The 300 Super, a slightly longer version of the 300 BLK, AKA 300 Whisper, should fit the bill.

  43. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    sorry see if you can find the ORIGINAL report on mk248mod1.
    they recognized two things..in writting.
    338 LM was what we needed.
    there were NO funds to outfit all 300 mag shooters with new 338 LM's.
    you are so wrong this time

    Quote Originally Posted by John A. Larsen View Post
    I am no fan of our former President, but cannot blame this on him. The acquisition process and the military did it to themselves. John

  44. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    372

    Default

    I do not understand your comment? Are you saying the former president reached out to the military and told them to buy .300 Win Mag rifles? The military decided where to spend the money that had gotten in the budget, and it was not for the .338LM. Another point. Worklng the Infantry conference and talking with people in Building 4, I was floored to find out that you could fire a .50 BMG on Ft Benning, but they did not have an approved range for the .338LM, Go figure that out. Also at that show, we had our display up, talking to soldiers who stopped by. We had three different Colonels stop, ask us questions, and all three of them said THEY were in charge of the Sniper Rifle acquisition process. If that is not a recipe for problems I do not know what is. John

  45. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    john,
    the COST to replace ALL 300 win mag rifles with complete new 338 LN kits
    was not in the budget under the last press with his severe cutbacks.
    across all services..not just army.
    colonels maybe in charge of acquisition in some part of the army, but not
    across all services too make the decision to replace ALL in all service.

  46. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Adirondacks
    Posts
    10

    Default Lighting Fast

    Remember we are talking about an organization that continued with muzzle loaders, trap door, & bolt rifles because they were afraid the troops would use too much ammo. I saw the conversion from the M-14 to the M-16 = Horse cookies. AND the M-4 Zucked in the sand. I am the kind of troop(X), that if given a Mag fed 45/70 with a decent cyclic rate, would have given up wet dreams.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •