What is it about the .dotmil that it hasn’t been able to field a proper battle rifle since 1942? (In case anyone’s missing my point, that would have been the M1 Garand.)
Now I’m not going to fall into that “they could still use that today without too much problem” trope (although they could, in a pinch); getting the best-available rifle for whatever the technology can produce at the time is a laudable goal.
But right out of the gate, the U.S. Army has fucked it up since WWII. Yes, soldiers needed to be able to carry more ammo — but did anyone of sound mind think the best plan for that goal would be in reducing the weight of the ammo by shifting to a .22-caliber bullet?
What gets up my nose is that the answer, even back then, was quite clear: drop from a .30 bullet to, say, a .275-grain bullet — lighter than a .30, not as light as a .223, but still wonderfully effective against human targets. Flat-shooting cartridges had been achieved before, when armies moved from the ~11mm- or .4x bullet to a 7mm/.30 bullet. (Even that was not far enough; back then the .dotmil wanted maximum punch from their bullets and the 7mm/.30 certainly did that.)
Funnily enough, the Brits came closest when they suggested a .276-caliber bullet, after the Great War, but the U.S. was still wedded to the .30, so thence to the .308/7.62mm which was shorter and lighter than the .30-06, but not enough. With the .22 bullet, though, not only would the ammo be lighter but the “platform” (what used to be less-pretentiously called the “rifle”) could also be much lighter than the weighty Garand and M-14, and hence the Mattel plastic M-16 / M4 / M-whatever they call it now.
Leaving the cartridge aside for the moment, the next wave was the fascination with geegaws that would supposedly make infantrymen more effective: red-dot scopes instead of iron sights, flashlights and so one.
I have no quibbles with this development, mind you. Modern dot-scopes are far better than iron sights, as long as battery life is not an issue.
The issue with these new mil-specs for the battle rifle is that the things become more complicated both to operate and to manufacture. No problem with the latter, of course, because we’re Americans, and with proper equipment training (at which our .dotmil excels, by the way), the first issue becomes likewise moot.
No; the real problem comes when the people who are drawing up the mil-spec requirements get carried away, and start adding features to both cartridge and rifle of ever-increasing ambition and scope.
Which is what we face today with the latest “generation” of battle rifles, which quite frankly has become a cluster-fuck of absolutely epic proportions, where ambition and wishful thinking have combined to grind the gears to a complete halt.
On all key technical measures, the Next Generation Squad Weapons program is imploding before Army’s very eyes. The program is on mechanical life support, with its progenitors at the Joint Chiefs obstinately now ramming the program through despite spectacularly failing multiple civilian-sector peer reviews almost immediately upon commercial release.
Civilian testing problems have, or should have, sunk the program already. The XM-5/7 as it turns out fails a single round into a mud test. Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas, as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris from the eject port. Possibly aiming to avoid long-term health and safety issues associated with rifle gas, Army has selected an operating system less hardy in battlefield environments. A choice understandable in certain respects, however, in the larger scheme the decision presents potentially war-losing cost/benefit analysis.
The new bullet is a waste of time:
The slight increase in ballistic coefficiency between the 6.8x51mm and 7.62x51mm cartridges neither justified the money pumped into the program nor does the slight increase in kinetic energy dumped on target. Itself a simple function of case pressurization within the bastardized 7.62mm case. Thus the net mechanical results of the program design-wise is a rifle still chambered in a 7.62×51 mm NATO base case (as the M-14), enjoying now two ways to charge the weapon and a folding stock.
…and we’re not even going to talk about the scope:
Another problem is the weapon sight. The Vortex XM-157, which may have critical components made in China, is most definitely not an ‘auto-aiming’ sight. For guaranteed hits, the shooter still must manually ‘ping’ the target. This takes back usable seconds and makes shooting 100% accurately on the fly, as envisioned under the program to justify the reduced available round count, an utter pipe dream. The scope is otherwise a normal scope.
And the conclusion:
Starting from a highly dubious intellectual, strategic and tactical baseline, the NGSW program is now failing mechanically and ballistically at once. Army came out hard with the program’s aims and expectations, unreasonably so, practically declaring a War on Physics from the outset. Unfortunately, like so many other antecedent programs Army has lost the war again, badly. In terms of weight, recoil, durability and ballistics, expectations vs reality are crashing down on Army right now, hard.
I don’t claim to be a military firearms expert, but even I can tell a horrowshow fuckup when I see one.
What I can see is that the answer to the cartridge issue is simple: 6.5×40-something mm, e.g. the 6.5 Creedmoor. (As a traditionalist, I’d say the 6.5x55mm Swede is superior in every respect to the Creedmoor except length — but action length is a big deal, so the Creed is a better option.) What I haven’t seen is a rationale for why the U.S. Army hasn’t adopted a 6.5mm bullet, and is now pushing for a 6.8mm one (almost, once again, something akin to a .30 bullet, long since discarded). Why?
Here’s what I do know. The current procurement cock-up is going to end with our kids using a next-generation junk rifle (just like they had to do with the original Armalite, and the Brits had to endure with their first-generation SA-80). We’re better than that, and our kids deserve better than that.
As for the Army procurement staff, they deserve a collective kick in the ass.
You didn’t even mention the specialized three piece ammo casings required, described as “a steel case head and brass body connected by an aluminum locking washer to support the high chamber pressure of 80,000 psi…”
What could go wrong there?
This combat rifle SNAFU is brought to you by the spiritual descendants of Robert McNamara, who thought using low IQ troops as foot soldiers was a good idea: https://www.amazon.com/McNamaras-Folly-Hamilton-Gregory/dp/1495805484
Along with his idea that the F-111 was actually a fighter. https://www.key.aero/article/f-111s-disastrous-operational-debut-vietnam.
Fortunately for the USA, the F-111 became the FB-111, a very good low-level deep penetration bomber/attack aircraft.
The FB-111s were modified F-111s and were only used by SAC for nuclear strike. They were basically gap fillers after the cancellation of XB-70 and the retirement of the B-58s until the B-1s came online. I think they only ever set alert and flew practice/training missions.
The F-111s were the work horses for deep penetration conventional strikes from Vietnam through DESERT STORM. As a targeting officer they (along with the Navy’s A-6) were my first choices for such missions.
The certainly had their issues. One of my training classmates was the WSO of one that hit a butte at 0.9 Mach one dark night during low level practice.
One of my bosses was an F-111 jock, and a sure was to spin him up was to refer to him as an “FB-111 pilot”.
At least the F-111s carried guns and Sidewinders, so they had some Air to Air capability. Unlike the “F”-117 which had nada in that arena. But the Fighter Mafia could not abide so much money being spent on a mere Attack aircraft.
Kim, Kim, Kim. The purpose of the Army Procurement is not to source and supply an improved battle rifle for the troops. Why would you even think that? Nope, their only purpose is to support the graft.
Given that our current military is:
a) never going be used to actively protect the USA (see southern border),
b) generally going be sacrificed abroad for the select benefit of the ruler elites, and
c) potentially going be used to suppress the American people who are tired of this shit,
then I think the best possible course of action is to arm our troops with Daisy BB guns. Prove me wrong!
Gonna post the same thing. You beat me to it.
Don,
You’re spot on .. go back and listen to what Pierre Sprey had to say about procurement for the F-35 series. That man was not afraid to ruffle some feathers.
Yeppers, going to add my voice to this here. It’s all about transferring millions or billions of dollars from the taxpayer’s wallet to a favored political ally, as well as securing seven-figure jobs at the various defense contractors for all those generals when they retire. You don’t think Lockheed Martin or Raytheon pay out millions just to have those generals actually WORK, do you? Nope, that’s payment for all the shekels that the generals poured into their coffers while they were on active duty. This shitshow is just ANOTHER round of “Let’s pay our people now so they can pay us later.”
To me, the really weird thing is that there’s a 6.5 round (not the 6.5C, which is still a 7.62×51 sized cartridge, thus requiring an AR-10 sized rifle) available, and IT WAS EVEN DEVELOPED BY THE ARMY (Marksmanship Unit): the .264 USA (6.5×46). At least in gross dimensions, it’s not far off from a necked down version of the old Czech 7.62×45 from the vz-52 rifle.
I do think the Army’s trying to get first shot penetration capability of Level IV body armor (the ceramic plates) is the main cause of over-driving the round. Level IV, IIRC, is supposed to stand up to .30-06 AP ammo.
I’m also confused about the fact that the Army is seeminly OK with such a major reduction in the basic load – from 210
IIRCC, the 6.5×45 will not fit in the M-16/M4/AR15 platform.
However, there is a cartridge that will: the 6.5×39 Grendel. Apparently the 6.5 Grendel can even use the 5.56/.223 AR magazines, changing only the follower. However, I believe you give up some capacity, a 30rd .223 mag holds 25 rds of 6.5 Grendel
That was taken from an Army Times hit piece.
Note that the Army Times (and the rest of them) are not actually run by the military.
Nothing in the following should be construed as *supporting* the new weapons system. I don’t know enough about it.
Consider part of what you quoted:
> Given the platform is a piston-driven rifle it now lacks gas,
> as the M-16 was originally designed, to blow away debris
> from the eject port.
The implication being that piston driven rifles are less reliable than gas impingement rifles.
Piston driven rifles. Like the M1-Garand, the M-14 (short stroke), and all of the AKs out there.
Yeah, the author is implying that the AK is less reliable than the M16 because the M16 is designed to blow crud out of the “eject” port.
And again:
> is most definitely not an ‘auto-aiming’ sight.
I don’t think anyone with a brain even thinks it is.
> For guaranteed hits, the shooter still must manually ‘ping’
> the target. This takes back usable seconds and makes
> shooting 100% accurately on the fly, as envisioned under
> the program to justify the reduced available round count,
> an utter pipe dream. The scope is otherwise a normal scope.
The XM-157 scope is a decent quality LPVO with a computer that can do windage and elevation calculations. You don’t *have* to use those features, so when you’re in door kicker mode you use it as a normal LPVO. When you’re 400 or so yards out from your target YOU HAVE THOSE SECONDS.
The author of this piece is, again, deliberately distorting the truth.
Yeah, having bits made in China is dumb as, but that should have been part of the contract. Of course between the EPA and OSHA it might not be possible with current technology to build that stuff in the US…but that’s a different conversation.
I don’t think the Army is doing the right thing, I think the whole idea of “one cartridge to rule them all” is stupid.
We are unlikely to face trench warfare anytime soon, and aside from that, your military units are highly mobile, moving from open areas into built up areas and then into buildings, and back over and over again.
That means you need a mix of weapons “platforms”, not one cartridge to rule them all.
A hit piece?
The rifle does not apparently function under adverse conditions.
The rifle is excessively heavy.
The ammo is expensive, complex, and overpowered.
The ammo inflicts excessive wear on the rifle due to the high pressures.
The ammo, despite the complexity and expense, apparently does not reliably penetrate level 4 body armor at close range.
The magazines are heavier and bulkier than M4/M16 magazines, resulting in less than 50% ammo supply for the same weight.
The blast of the ammo out the 13″ barrel is apparently so great that it requires a permanently affixed suppressor to help desk with the noise, as well as the overly complex action to deal with recoil.
The scope is heavy and bulky.
The scope takes precious seconds to Do Its Thing, rendering it less than optimal under combat conditions.
There are no iron sights for when the scope breaks, or are least were not last time I saw reference.
And the whole thing was developed according to pipe dream specifications that wanted one rifle for everything from CQB to cross canyon sniper battles to engaging heavy machine gun emplacements crewed by armor plated super soldiers, a pipe dream requirement list drawn up by people far from any from line of combat.
All of these are criticisms. Some have already been borne out as true.
So what part is a “hit piece”?
Australian forces lost the hard-hitting FN-FAL L1A1 in 7.62 x 51 NATO when it was replaced with the Steyr-AUG F88 bullpup in 5.56 x 45 NATO.
The surplus stock of SLRs were ordered to be melted down by our psychotic, gun-hating Prime Minister of the time, John (spit) Howard.
I believe that John Garand had designed the M1 rifle in a caliber smaller than .30-06 and the clip held ten cartridges but the army brass demanded the rifle be made in .30-06 caliber since there was a lot of that ammunition was on hand from WWI. I believe that Garand’s caliber of choice was similar to the British use of .276 or so.
The government can’t get this anymore FUBARed. They appointed a committee, and that committee is staffed by government bureaucrats and careerists who are very removed from production, procurement, and most of all firsthand use of the item. Call it a blue ribbon task force or committee and that will be the coup de grace.
JQ
The Army Brass was convinced to switch to M1 and M2 Ball by General Douglas McArthur.
Yep, Dugout Doug.
The round that Garand used originally to design the rifle was the .276 Pederson. Gen. MacArthur ordered the development and testing of the Garands in .276 stopped and development focused on the 30.06 variant. Scaling the M1 Garand up to 30.06 caused a number of design compromises, perhaps the worst of which was having to reshape the op-rod, creating a weakness in the op-rod that has been a problem with the rifles ever since.
The Army has a habit of arming to fight the last war. In this case, Afghanistan, where the terrain favored 800m shots. So they want a 7.62×51 battle rifle, but want a New And Improved cartridge so the countries that issued FALs and G3s can’t say “We told you so.” Throw in a desire for a suppressor…which drives the barrel length down, compensated for by going to a super-high-pressure cartridge.
I’d love to see what the average solider can actually deliver in the way of accuracy. Not just with this, with ANY rifle. 800 meters is a long way for anything but a dedicated sniping rifle fired from prone…or a machine gun on a tripod.
Dig up Kalashnikov, dust him off and tell him you want him to design a a rifle to kill Germans.
Two, three weeks, tops.
Might I suggest the .260 Rem?
Since the primary purpose of this rifle is to penetrate the level 4 armor plates owned by civilians in the US, *spit* I’m glad it’s not going well for them.
https://ifunny.co/picture/found-out-that-a-company-produces-m1-garands-chambered-in-Hjt6LBUM6
Just saying.