Well, now I see that the SEALS have sponsored the re-development of the M-249 SAW chambered for the 7.62 (forgot the Mil designation)...the M-240 is a great gun, but it is very heavy...so, if you can get a 7.62 machinegun weighing almost 10 pounds less, why bother with the M-240? Why should Spec Ops units only get light weapons...wouldn't a lighter MG be a good thing for the regular infantry?

Now we have this 6.8mm round that will only be for Spec Ops use...what a waste! If a 5.56 AR will not get the job done, why not use a 7.62 AR instead of introducing another cartridge? I know most of you are all ga-ga over the "SPR", but its a case of "The Emporer's New Clothes" to me...why not just use the AR-10?

First the M-4 is all the rage, now some faction is pushing the XM-8...is any single responsible entity in charge of small arms, or is it just a bunch of un-coordinated groups pursuing their own agenda? Are we going to end up with twenty specialized infantry weapons, with each service going their own way, and folks like the Spec Ops guys thinking their operational skill makes them engineering and technical experts as well?

The SEALs, as a direct action unit, have very diffferent requirements than an infantry unit, and as such, have some specialized equipment needs.

The 6.8mm will perform better than the 5.56mm and most likely will see more wide spread use over time.  Do we really need to rehash the 7.62mm NATO is uncontrolable and you cant carry as much ammo arguements that were resolved when the M16 replaced the M14?

The XM8 is getting pushed.  Big deal.  There have been numerous attempts to design a replacement for the M16, pretty much since it was first adopted, and all of them have gone down the drain.

The argument that the 7.62 is uncontrollable in full auto from a rifle illustrates the problem here...we are still looking at these weapons individually instead as part of an integrated system...which makes the 6.8 look rediculous, because WHO THE HELL NEEDS A FULL-AUTO SNIPER RIFLE! Again, if the 5.56 doesn't meet the range requirement, the 7.62 sure does! So why the 6.8? Why the "magic" 18.5 inch barrel? The SPR is just a dumb idea all around, once you get past the "glamour" of the Spec Ops guys...

The 6.8 isn't really intended as a sniper round. It's a general purpose replacement for 5.56.

[url]http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html[/url] for an ongoing discussion.

it's optimized for 0-400 yards. The terminal ballistics are apparently less dependent on velocity than the 5.56. Gelatin block photos on the last page.

You seem to have missed some of the points.  Spec Ops units are not set up to and don't want to fight pitched battles.  They want light and need to get in and out and optimally never to pull a trigger in combat.  If they get caught in a battle with any kind of effective regular combat units they are going to be in deep kimchee.  So they want and need more specialized weapons, and they get them.  They usually carry everything in and out so if they decide to take a heavier weapon or ammo they make the decision and lighter is usually better.

Regular troops are for the most part mechanized.  larger guns, heavier ammo will travel in the vehicles with them.  If they need an mg heavier makes sense.  They need the range and the punch

Is the 7.62 uncontrollable in full-auto??? ehhhh, might be, might not be.  I'm 6'4" "big build" and in my past have fired both BARs and M-14s in full auto, for fam fire only.  With practice I could probably do it. It's fun but not without some physical pounding.  Could a 5'6" slender soldier do it.  Not very likely.

No single caliber is going to be right for all missions.  The 22s are good for the average soldier for oh 300 yds.  The 30's in the hands of a skilled Marine or Soldier was good to about 900 yds.  OK most engagements are below 300 yards.  We are seeing now in the MidEast and especially Afghanistan the need for a longer range rifle, hence the return of M-14s and "larger" bore sniper weapons.

System guns may allow for 20 different infantry weapons.  Will it get there?  Probably not, but the idea that any single "rifle" will be optimum in all situations is ludicrous.

Why not use the AR-10"  Well for one thing it isn't in the inventory.  The M-14 is and frankly the heavier rifle is more controllable for the cartridge.

My Reserve Unit (Navy) went for years only getting pistol quals.  With the help of our gaining command we finally got the OK and funding for a rifle shoot.  guess what we got in 1988?  M-14s  The guys who had VietNam service and me (I have a Garand) had no problems.  we were all physically larger, all our females and the smaller guys, all of whom had never fired rifles had big time problems.  the unit (I stay in touch) fire M-16s of some variant annually now.  Very few problems.

Oh btw, most of the Spec Ops types are technical experts.

This thread simply tells me that you have no clue what you're talking about.

I will second that.

Make that a third. Do we have a quorum yet?

Ive caused enough trouble in the last 48hrs.

I'll just watch [:D]

SS,

 To address your issues
1. The SEALs had the M60E3 (lightweight)MG for a reason, the M240 is heavier than a standard M60.  No a lighter MG won't be good for a regular unit do to durability (reg units abuse stuff more).

2. Because we can modifiy M4 all we want (mod system) and turn it back it to mother Army.  SR-25 are heavy.  6.8 fits into the M16/M4 reciever and is controllable on full auto.

3.  We know want we're doing.

4.  As far as a full auto sniper rifle apparently you never been ambushed at close range with a bolt action M24!  I'll worry about rebarrelling the gun after I survive.  Again weight issue of # rounds you can carry.  Plus you can use the same mags and pouchs with the 6.8 reducing logistics.

He's just another one of those types that thinks there is one gun that will be the end all do everything weapon.

And until we have energy weapons I dont think that will happen.

But we do have that weapon, or the capability to. Well kinda anyway. The M16/AR15 is moduler, thats it's advantage. It can be set up to handle anytype of situation. Will it be the best choice not all the time it won't be, but it could do it. look at all the different uppers and configurations of those uppers. It may not be the best in each role but it could play those roles.

I think introducing another round (6.8mm) will present a logistics problem. However, I believe it needs to be done. As fond as we are of the 5.56mm, it has serious limitations. If this new round could be used in modified M16/M4 rifles atleast our boys wouldn't be forced to familiarize themselves with an entirely new weapon system as well.

[url]http://www.infantry.army.mil/infforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=189&whichpage=1[/url]

Read down to the 4th post by "Doctrine" (there is a reason he goes by that name that should be obvious) pretty well sums it up.

Thanks for the replies guys...I mean, thanks for the ones that used facts and logic, not the typical ARFCOM "my dick is bigger than yours" a-holes...

In the main I stand beside my points.

The argument about Spec Ops taking better care of their gear is a little curious; the poor bloody infantry handled the switch from the He-Man rugged M-14 to the plastic M-16 well enough...

As for me believing that one rifle can do it all, of course not, but how many specialized calibers do you guys want? What happens when the Spec Ops types get in a tight spot, and try to replen from a lowly leg unit? The Enemy will not be impressed with your Elite status if you've got empty guns. Either get rid of the 5.56 altogether, or accept a slight weight increse for a 7.62 weapon.

[lolabove]

That reminds me, we have to get GB on that dckwaving smilie.