Posted: 3/30/2013 5:24:42 AM EDT
| I was wondering if anyone knows if the DOD has/will adopt any of the new wildcat (or new calibers that seem to be getting popular). I'm supply in the AF but Munitions runs a whole differnt system for their logistics. I honestly based of what articals I've read with the creedmoor, grendel, and SPC would have to say that SOCOM has to deal away with 556, granted I already know that many SOCOM units have an arsenal with varity of calibers. But wondering if they have or will have any plan to choose a standard round behind the 556 for people who are on the frontlines. Just curious if anyone has info, that's all. I heard all arguments that 556 won't be replaced completely just because the avalibility and cheapness of the round, but the 308 is due . |
|
Quoted: I was wondering if anyone knows if the DOD has/will adopt any of the new wildcat (or new calibers that seem to be getting popular). I'm supply in the AF but Munitions runs a whole differnt system for their logistics. I honestly based of what articals I've read with the creedmoor, grendel, and SPC would have to say that SOCOM has to deal away with 556, granted I already know that many SOCOM units have an arsenal with varity of calibers. But wondering if they have or will have any plan to choose a standard round behind the 556 for people who are on the frontlines. Just curious if anyone has info, that's all. I heard all arguments that 556 won't be replaced completely just because the avalibility and cheapness of the round, but the 308 is due . First - Welcome to ARFCOM, i am not the grammar police but spell check would be good before you hit post (i was a victim of doing the same thing and had to learn - no harm / no foul) Short answer - Not any time soon, if at all Longer answer - the current cartridges are effective enough / have a dedicated supply chain / procedure / quality control mechanisms / etc to ensure continued usage as well as millions of dedicated weapons platforms that function using these cartridges (when properly cleaned). Additionally we don't fight wars in a vacuum or by ourselves, so unless we want to greatly increase our logistics cost, supply chain interruptions we probably need to maintain some standards between us and our coalition partners / NATO partners / etc. The "if at all" comes from a possible future technological breakthrough that renders bullets in their current form obsolete. Also - i would ask why "308" (or 7.62 NATO - because they are technically not the same) is due more than say .50 BMG?
|
|
Quoted: I'm still waiting for the .338 Lapua M240B. That would be great for a static fighting position or on a gun truck, but that's not very practical for guys who have to carry their shit. That would probably cut the combat load in half for the same amount of weight they have to carry. Or would divert more manpower to the gun and less guys for you maneuver element. I dunno about you, but I never want the 240 to be go silent during a fire fight. You can suppress an enemy out at 1200 meters with 7.62 NATO, it's not like the round loses it's ability to kill after 800 meters. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm still waiting for the .338 Lapua M240B. That would be great for a static fighting position or on a gun truck, but that's not very practical for guys who have to carry their shit. That would probably cut the combat load in half for the same amount of weight they have to carry. Or would divert more manpower to the gun and less guys for you maneuver element. I dunno about you, but I never want the 240 to be go silent during a fire fight. You can suppress an enemy out at 1200 meters with 7.62 NATO, it's not like the round loses it's ability to kill after 800 meters. General Dynamics has developed a machinegun in .338 Norma Mag and it's lighter than a standard M240. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Medium_Machine_Gun |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm still waiting for the .338 Lapua M240B. That would be great for a static fighting position or on a gun truck, but that's not very practical for guys who have to carry their shit. That would probably cut the combat load in half for the same amount of weight they have to carry. Or would divert more manpower to the gun and less guys for you maneuver element. I dunno about you, but I never want the 240 to be go silent during a fire fight. You can suppress an enemy out at 1200 meters with 7.62 NATO, it's not like the round loses it's ability to kill after 800 meters. General Dynamics has developed a machinegun in .338 Norma Mag and it's lighter than a standard M240. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Medium_Machine_Gun The gun weight isn't the problem, the ammo weight is the problem. The gun is a big paper weight without ammo, that's why you can't just lightly make the decision of going to a round that is something of the order of twice the weight of 7.62 NATO for a SBF weapon system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm still waiting for the .338 Lapua M240B. That would be great for a static fighting position or on a gun truck, but that's not very practical for guys who have to carry their shit. That would probably cut the combat load in half for the same amount of weight they have to carry. Or would divert more manpower to the gun and less guys for you maneuver element. I dunno about you, but I never want the 240 to be go silent during a fire fight. You can suppress an enemy out at 1200 meters with 7.62 NATO, it's not like the round loses it's ability to kill after 800 meters. General Dynamics has developed a machinegun in .338 Norma Mag and it's lighter than a standard M240. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Medium_Machine_Gun The gun weight isn't the problem, the ammo weight is the problem. The gun is a big paper weight without ammo, that's why you can't just lightly make the decision of going to a round that is something of the order of twice the weight of 7.62 NATO for a SBF weapon system. True. |
|
Quoted:
The gun weight isn't the problem, the ammo weight is the problem. The gun is a big paper weight without ammo, that's why you can't just lightly make the decision of going to a round that is something of the order of twice the weight of 7.62 NATO for a SBF weapon system. ROF is reduced by about 30%, so the problem isn't as big as it seems when you consider that machinegun rates of fire are based on time. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The gun weight isn't the problem, the ammo weight is the problem. The gun is a big paper weight without ammo, that's why you can't just lightly make the decision of going to a round that is something of the order of twice the weight of 7.62 NATO for a SBF weapon system. ROF is reduced by about 30%, so the problem isn't as big as it seems when you consider that machinegun rates of fire are based on time. I still think if your gunner can now only carry 400 rounds instead of 800, that's a pretty big chunk to take out of his combat load for a gun that is critical in a fire fight that can often turn into a sustained engagement. I'm not saying I would rule it out, because there are some situations it would make good sense. But I think for a mobile unit without gun trucks; it's a pretty risky idea. I'd rather see improvements in the IDF deparment before seeing a major change at the Weapons squad. We fucked up alot more taliban and other insurgents using IDF and CAS than anything else. |
| Sorry about spell check. Tryped that up on my phone. That is true about IDF and CAS. A10's and f15's are always taking off and always a quick turnaround if they land. I do find it disappointing with all the request for DOD to find another round thats superior to the 556 and so many have been found and not even a hint of acceptance. Everyone keeps saying its just not logistically availible yet but if the dod said they were switching im 300% sure they will become availible. There just isnt a point for manufactuers to mass produce these wildcat rounds if its not as popular enough to sell. But if the dod did switch they would be popular enough. |
|
Quoted:
isn't the military required for the most part to run NATO rounds? so before something like grendel or SPC could be adopted by the .mil wouldn't NATO have to allow it, or do they only limit you to ball ammo and not specific caliber? NATO doesn't get to veto those things. Besides, NATO is an organization built around American muscle. We can do as we please with equipment. |
| The "next big thing" won't be a brass-cased nitrocellulose-propelled jacketed lead-thrower. We've taken that technology about as far as it's going to go... none of the "hot new" chamberings have represented nearly enough of a leap in real world performance (i.e., stopping enemy threats) to make the logistics nightmare of a change worthwhile. Some have been a little more accurate, or a added a little range, or had a little better terminal ballistics, but there just hasn't been a really significant improvement since the advent of the intermediate rifle (assault rifle) cartridge. |