Back to 7.62x51mm... is there a method to this madness?

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5299
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 20:05

pmi wrote:It's performance beyond 450m is poor & it does not provide an increase in armor penetration over current 5.56 loads. There is a reason that even 5th SFG (who sponsored it's creation in the first place) ended up passing on the round.


What about a 6.5 Grendel with a bullet configured like the M995? Wouldn't that give you the best of both worlds?

http://abesguncave.com/6-5-grendel-vs-3 ... ne-misses/
"There I was. . ."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 21:59

edpop wrote:Back when I was in Vietnam in 1967 as a Combat Engineer we used the M-14 while the Infantry used the M-16. It was more durable and less prone to jamming while running around in the mud and grass and the jungle. Granted it was heavier and more awkward to use but when we were given the chance to switch to the M-16 we chose to stay with the M-14.


A lot has changed, as others have said.

Some examples





Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 668
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 23:23

DI AR's have made a comeback. BCM, DD, and FN (there are others) all make quality DI AR-15's. Piston AR's were all the rage about 7-10 years ago (HK, LWRC); me personally I would rather have a SCAR 16 if I was to go piston.


However, today's DI AR's work just fine. I have fired a Colt SOCOM with a dirty BCG after 300 rds. and it has yet to jam.
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1071
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 06:59

f-16adf, I agree. The DI system is simple and reliable, even if it runs dirty. I just keep my rifles well-lubricated and they run like sewing machines. The M16 will run when dirty, but it won't run when dry.

Piston systems always struck me as a solution to a nonexistent problem. The front-heavy balance is also very distracting as well, especially when doing drills. My fiancee (5'0" blonde, for reference) borrowed a Ruger piston AR for a squad bounding-fire drill and was shortly cussing the front-heaviness of the thing. She had a point!
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 668
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 14:04

Southernphantom, yes, you are 100% correct.

Piston AR's are front heavy and their parts are also proprietary. And some of the cheaper makes I think still suffer from carrier tilt.

And DI just costs less ($15 to replace a simple gas tube vs all those proprietary piston parts). When I buy my AR it will be for sure DI.




I think the above posters may be talking about 6.5 Creedmoor, not 6.5 Grendel????
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 18:17

f-16adf wrote:I think the above posters may be talking about 6.5 Creedmoor, not 6.5 Grendel????


No, Sferrin is still thinking about alternatives that will fit in the current platform.

6.5 Creedmore is not an option anyone is looking at. If the Army decides does end up with a general issue 7.62 and later rechambers in a 6.5 caliber it is more likely to be .260 Rem.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 668
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 19:13

Awesome, thanks.

I'm a little ignorant when it come to those 6.xx rounds. All I deal with (shoot) is generally 5.56 or 7.62, since basically everybody sells them.




Could you make a 6.5g or 6.8spc hotter like M855A1, but would that have detrimental effects on AR-sized parts (the higher pressure)???
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5904
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 22:15

durahawk wrote:
Before all this the US Army put out a solicitation and RFP for something called the Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System (CSASS) which H&K won with their variant of their G28/HK417 (personally I would have thought the KAC's M110K1 better as it is already being used within SOCOM and has more parts compatibility with current M110) to move onto the next phase of trials. There is talk and mention within some circles however that the H&K submission is not performing to specifications and standards and that it is actually more expensive then initially pitched/advertised the US Army. The last part comes as no surprise as the M27 IAR (a variant of the H&K416) already cost 3k per unit... that is before the cost of optic, bi-pod, or what ever stuff that is attached to or issued with the weapon. That is double the base price of a standard M4A1. Personally I am seeing this as a push for the CSASS into a wider role as a way to cover up the failings and cost of the weapon.


H&K products being expensive yet underperforming? Never.
Image



The Marines love the IAR. Want to go full on with it.

Don't get twisted in knots about this interim rifle. They keep trying to replace, then improve, the M-4 all the time. This cycle has been going for the last 10 years.

I'll believe it when I see it
Choose Crews
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 22:24

XanderCrews wrote:The Marines love the IAR. Want to go full on with it.


So what's the difference between the H&K offering and a regular M-16A4 (other than piston vs. DI, which probably makes no difference in day to day operations of the rifle)? So much cost for what benefit? I understand that its role is different, but to the layman it's just another AR-platform with what appear to be virtually identical features and capabilities to M-16A4.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5904
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 22:29

southernphantom wrote:
Piston systems always struck me as a solution to a nonexistent problem. The front-heavy balance is also very distracting as well, especially when doing drills. My fiancee (5'0" blonde, for reference) borrowed a Ruger piston AR for a squad bounding-fire drill and was shortly cussing the front-heaviness of the thing. She had a point!


It weighs about as much as an M-16A4, which also has a front heavy barrel thanks to the .gov contours.

I don't get the (typically) civilian need to complain about "heavy" ARs. A whole not even 9 pounds? Christ here is a SAW, or a 240. People think the max weight of a combat gun is 7 lbs. If an AR weighs in at 8.5# people act like their hauling a complete M-2.

Carrier tilt isn't an issue so long as the tolerances are on too. And 416, M-27 and other piston make sense for a maritime force. M-27 is accurate AF. It's a SAW and a DM weapon. Think about that.

In the end the M-4A1 is a hard weapon to beat . It's solid reliable, and basically it keeps meeting all the specs. The only thing it doesn't do is....






Fire 7.62
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 22:35

According to Chris Bartocci, the main issue with the IAR / HK 416 is that the reliability of the IAR + M855A1 isn't that great because of the high chamber pressures caused by the new M855A1 which significantly causes wear & tear issues.

The high cyclic rate + high chamber pressures causes early breakage at rates far earlier than a standard M4A1.

The only solution I can think of is moving the gas port out as far as possible and lower the cyclic rate which in slows down the extraction rate.

A more optimum solution would be to use a Muzzle Mounted Gas Trap system instead of a Gas Port to cycle the operation (Doesn't matter if it's Direct Gas Impingement or Short-Stroke Gas Piston)

http://www.armstechltd.com/faq.php
http://www.armstechltd.com/products.php?id=compak16

Arms Tech Ltd uses what they call a "Adiabetic" cooled Gas Trap system for it's DI guns.

Lower Chamber Pressures, higher reliability for extraction, etc.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5904
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 22:56

arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The Marines love the IAR. Want to go full on with it.


So what's the difference between the H&K offering and a regular M-16A4 (other than piston vs. DI, which probably makes no difference in day to day operations of the rifle)? So much cost for what benefit? I understand that its role is different, but to the layman it's just another AR-platform with what appear to be virtually identical features and capabilities to M-16A4.



If comparing M-16a4: m-27 Is full auto capable, more accurate, more compact, telescoping stock, handles water and sand better (marines are maritime) more reliable and is replacing the M-4, M-16A4., SAW, and the DM rifles if the USMC gets them. It's very versatile.

The hk416 variant can get very compact at 10.4" barrel and that variant may equip vehicle crews etc if the Marines opt for it. Its Like the MK18 cqbr, but the MK18 had issues with dwell time leading to function issues. M-27 and 416 would have commonality except for the barrel and gas block basically. If the marines opt for that.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 23:01

XanderCrews wrote:
arian wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The Marines love the IAR. Want to go full on with it.


So what's the difference between the H&K offering and a regular M-16A4 (other than piston vs. DI, which probably makes no difference in day to day operations of the rifle)? So much cost for what benefit? I understand that its role is different, but to the layman it's just another AR-platform with what appear to be virtually identical features and capabilities to M-16A4.



If comparing M-16a4: m-27 Is full auto capable, more accurate, more compact, telescoping stock, handles water and sand better (marines are maritime) more reliable and is replacing the M-4, M-16A4., SAW, and the DM rifles if the USMC gets them. It's very versatile.

The hk416 variant can get very compact at 10.4" barrel and that variant may equip vehicle crews etc if the Marines opt for it. Its Like the MK18 cqbr, but the MK18 had issues with dwell time leading to function issues. M-27 and 416 would have commonality except for the barrel and gas block basically. If the marines opt for that.
What do you think of the SigSauer MCX Operating System which is also a Gas Piston based system?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5904
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 23:11

KamenRiderBlade wrote:According to Chris Bartocci, the main issue with the IAR / HK 416 is that the reliability of the IAR + M855A1 isn't that great because of the high chamber pressures caused by the new M855A1 which significantly causes wear & tear issues.

The high cyclic rate + high chamber pressures causes early breakage at rates far earlier than a standard M4A1.



IIRC bartocci said that was a problem regardless of type. That round is just beating weapons up regardless.

The only solution I can think of is moving the gas port out as far as possible and lower the cyclic rate which in slows down the extraction rate.

A more optimum solution would be to use a Muzzle Mounted Gas Trap system instead of a Gas Port to cycle the operation (Doesn't matter if it's Direct Gas Impingement or Short-Stroke Gas Piston)

http://www.armstechltd.com/faq.php
http://www.armstechltd.com/products.php?id=compak16

Arms Tech Ltd uses what they call a "Adiabetic" cooled Gas Trap system for it's DI guns.

Lower Chamber Pressures, higher reliability for extraction, etc.


The gas port on an m-27 is further out than an M-4 carbine already. It's closer to a mid-length AR actually. As for slowing the cycle you can use an A5 system. The fast cycle was of course a result of the carbine system, which the army went full on with when they adopted the M-4. It's just one of those trade offs you didn't have with the Rifle length.

Look I'm not a firearms expert, there are whole forums dedicated to these discussions with more knowledgeable and detail oriented people. I know the basics. I know the Marines want the M-27 in a big way and will probably get it, and it would not be bad if they did.

Most people compare guns on nice sanitized ranges individually, weapon vs weapon and there is a lot more to it. One of the reasons the marines Like M-27 over the M-249 for example is that the SAW is more distinct and prone to draw fire. That's not something a lot of people consider when they are pumping holes into paper targets. Not saying there are not a bunch of people who really really know their stuff but there are different considerations with military weapons.


The M-4A1 is a great weapon. It's basically impossible to beat. There probably aren't many better ways to hurl a 5.56 round. M-27 is one of the few. I don't know what a SOCOM M-4A1 costs but the price may not be that far away from an M-27. The last 10 percent of performance is 50 percent of the cost according to the old trope.

G-28s are expensive AF. No idea what the military rate is but the civilians who replicate then pay like 30K. The scope alone goes for 3k
Choose Crews
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2218
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 01:59

http://gizmodo.com/that-aim-assisted-ri ... 1678303048

Let's worry about getting first round on target, then worry later WHAT TYPE. I'd rather get more hits before i worry about if that one or two hits actually did anything significantly more than X, Y, or Z. In fighters we worked on first look first to shoot. Let's do that for the soldier.
PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests