Corps moves to replace M249

[JohnP]

Corps moves to replace M249

Staff report
Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 15:46:38 EST

The Corps has awarded four contracts to three companies to produce prototypes of the 5.56mm Infantry Automatic Rifle, which is slated to supplant the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, according a Dec. 26 Marine Corps Systems Command announcement.

The three firms will compete for a contract that could be worth up to $27 million. The firm selected will manufacture between 4,476 and 6,500 rifles.

The three companies are:

• FN Herstal of Herstal, Belgium.

• Heckler and Koch Defense of Ashburn, Va.

• Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn.

Colt received two contracts because it has two candidate weapons sufficiently different to warrant separate evaluations, according to SysCom.

“Each [company] will produce and deliver a minimum of 10 weapons. The Marine Corps will next evaluate these weapons and then intends to select one weapon system from one company to meet the IAR requirement,” Marine officials said in a news release.

The IAR is a lightweight, magazine-fed weapon. It will provide a one-for-one replacement of the M249 in Marine rifle squads within infantry battalions and in the scout teams in light armored reconnaissance battalions.

The weapons will be tested by infantry Marines as SysCom works to solicit input from throughout the operating forces, the release states.

[JohnP]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

I'm not a big fan of the .223 round. Though I spent my 20+ year career carrying this round, I find the knock down power lagging as compared to a .308 and the 30.06. Articles that I've read from the War on Terrorism from the line soldiers confirm what we old-timers have been saying for years. The little round does not stop the action.

As with the Negritos in the Philippines 100 years ago, the current opponent is not being stopped by a single shot from the current, primary rifle. When shot by a heavier bullet, the opponent stopped.

The next question, should the military contract strictly with a US company? I haven't heard arguments in recent times about this procedure. Is it time to bring up pros and cons about using companies outside the United States supplying our Armed Forces with primary weapons?

[PhilK]

While I am a fan of the SAW, I do wish it had more dropping power.

I do think that the we should look at a 7.62 alternative as opposed to going with a new type of round (ie. 6.8mm). The one thing I do like about the 5.56, 7.62 and the 9mm is that there are plenty of rounds to be found in all the different theaters because not only the US but pretty much all our allies carry the same rounds.

For me, if they could develop a weapon with the size and weight of a SAW, but with a 7.62 instead of a 5.56 round it would be the best of both worlds.

The other thing I want the researchers to keep in mind is that the SAW is an AREA weapon. I don't care if my SAW gunner can drop a dude at 300 meters with one shot...I want him sending rounds down range for the enemy to keep his head down. I'll let the other 7 guys in the Squad worry about picking off one target at a time. (Of course this is a whole other discussion.)

I am also not a fan of the fact that they are looking at a magazine fed weapon. While I realize belt fed weapons have drawbacks, I would rather have a 100 round drum of linked ammo as opposed to a 100 round magazine.

As for the US vs. Foerign venders, I would look at either a US vendor or a Foerign vendor with a US plant. Once these start coming off the assembly line, I don't want outside influences getting in the way of us getting the weapons.

[Billyd]

I am of the school that if it's for the United States Military, it should be produced by a United States entity. Not one with a presence in the United States.

[JohnP]

While I am a fan of the SAW, I do wish it had more dropping power.

I do think that the we should look at a 7.62 alternative as opposed to going with a new type of round (ie. 6.8mm). The one thing I do like about the 5.56, 7.62 and the 9mm is that there are plenty of rounds to be found in all the different theaters because not only the US but pretty much all our allies carry the same rounds.

For me, if they could develop a weapon with the size and weight of a SAW, but with a 7.62 instead of a 5.56 round it would be the best of both worlds.

The other thing I want the researchers to keep in mind is that the SAW is an AREA weapon. I don't care if my SAW gunner can drop a dude at 300 meters with one shot...I want him sending rounds down range for the enemy to keep his head down. I'll let the other 7 guys in the Squad worry about picking off one target at a time. (Of course this is a whole other discussion.)

I am also not a fan of the fact that they are looking at a magazine fed weapon. While I realize belt fed weapons have drawbacks, I would rather have a 100 round drum of linked ammo as opposed to a 100 round magazine.

As for the US vs. Foerign venders, I would look at either a US vendor or a Foerign vendor with a US plant. Once these start coming off the assembly line, I don't want outside influences getting in the way of us getting the weapons.


I too, like the SAW for the ability to law down suppressive fire. The term SAW was not only the acronym for Squad Automatic Weapon, but it was synonymous with the "buzz-saw" effect of cutting down everything in front of it.

On of the biggest, progressive, positive attributes about this weapon was the ability to swap between different types of ammunition feeds. Drum, belt and magazine feed ability gave it a flexibility that hadn't been seen in many years. This ability should be taken into consideration when selecting the next weapon

[03_SHOOTER]

Having never carried or fired either of the new generation of weapons (M-240 or the M-249) but having tens, if not hundreds of thousands of rounds of experience with M-60, I say dump the 5.56 in ANY iteration as an area support weapon and go back to 7.62 for that purpose. The biggest drawback to 5.56 in that role, to my way of thinking, is the fact that you're sacrificing range and energy on target at that range. I'm aware of the fact that the newer 5.56 rounds are supposed to be good out to 600 meters, but the 7.62 is good out to over 1000, so why would you give the enemy that extra 400 meters? Also, the 7.62 can blow through light cover that the 5.56 simply bounces off of, so again, why would you give the enemy any edge?

Oh, and for something completely different, what's with this new frangible ammo? It may still work on personnel, but if you have to shoot through a vehicle to get to those personnel, it's not exactly going to do you much good if your rounds turn to powder when they hit the door panel!

[JohnP]

Oh, and for something completely different, what's with this new frangible ammo? It may still work on personnel, but if you have to shoot through a vehicle to get to those personnel, it's not exactly going to do you much good if your rounds turn to powder when they hit the door panel!


Frangible? That's a term I've never heard before. It sounds like a piece of crap.

[03_SHOOTER]

Frangible? That's a term I've never heard before. It sounds like a piece of crap.

Well, I tell ya pilgrim, IMNSHO, they are. They were originally envisioned by the tree-huggin' bunny-lovers because of all of the "evil lead" in conventional rounds. I caught a piece on them (History Channel I believe) and the enviro-whacko's have pushed this so hard that the military is being forced to spend hundreds of millions, if not billions by the time it's all over with, cleaning up their ranges to get rid of all of the "evil lead" because it's "killing the earth". I guess they don't know that the Earth is where we got the lead to begin with!

Anyway, here's part of a write up on them from GlobalSecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm) with some commentary added, just for fun! :D

Frangible Ammunition

Frangible, or “soft,” rounds are designed to break apart when they hit walls or other hard surfaces to prevent ricochets during close-quarters combat. (and to allow the bad guys to safely hide behind those walls or other hard surfaces while tearing you to pieces with their NON-Earth friendly ammo) Frangible ammunition represents the first viable revolutionary change to firearms science in the past 100 years. (I thought the self loading main battle rifle was the first viable revolutionary change to firearms in the last 100 years :() Frangible ammunition is a relatively recent development in bullets, presenting a departure from the standard projectiles in use for both range shooting and personal protection. With the advent of modern hostage rescue tactics in the 1970s and 1980s, the military and police agencies began to look for ways to minimize overpenetration risks. One widely-accepted solution was the frangible round, also known as the AET (Advanced Energy Transfer) round. (You mean that it was accepted after the idiot politicians in Washington, bowing to pressure from the Enviro-whackos COMPELLED the military to "accept" them.)

Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible ammunition is much less effective in rifles. It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance in actual combat is dubious. (YA THINK?!?!?!?!?) There are two frangible rounds that have been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a 5.56. Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission requirements (the military necessity) for the round. (OH PUHLEEZE)

Frangible bullets are not made from a lead projectile covered with a copper jacket, but are composites of hybrid materials either pressed together at high pressure or glued together with adhesives. Frangible bullets are designed to break up into smaller pieces upon contact with harder objects or surfaces. (like the places the bad guys like to hide) The polymer-compound round produces no splashback and vastly decreased ricochets.
You can read the rest of it at the link provided, but needless to say, not only has the military in general become "kinder and gentler", but the limp-wristed, left-wing, cheese-eating, gutless, barking moonbat, surrender-monkeys are even trying to make the ammunition "kinder and gentler" too! The next thing ya know, we'll be fielding a military whose most deadly weapons are harsh looks and nasty words....never mind, I forgot that they already disapprove of the nasty words.

[HairyEyeball]

The frangible round is the b*st*rd child of two separate philosophies, neither of which has any place on the battlefield: First, many who trust in large caliber or high energy 'personal anti-assault tools' for home defense were faced with the need for a round to dissipate its energy in the 'gremlin', not continue through the walls and any innocents unfortunate enough to be in its path, as well as the relative handful of 'Sky Marshals' who had to deal with the irrational presumption that a hole in a fusilage, less than a half-inch in diameter, would somehow bring down an aircraft - and, of course, the same concern a 'through-and-through' might have on non-hostile passengers. Second, almost all frangible ammunition is lead-free, a major talking point of those convinced that a shark swallowing a lead sinker off Bermuda will cause the death of a dozen Alaskan eagles of lead poisoning, or that cupro-nickle TMJ rounds leave a permanent cloud of lead dust in the atmosphere.

Despite its astronomical cost (even as compared to the skyrocketing costs of 'standard' ammo), its 'home safety' factor and its performance on clay blocks has given it cachet - many have purchased it for 'home defense', but never practice with it. The rationale, despite its external ballistics differing greatly from 'standard' personal defense ammo, is that, aside from cost, the range at which it will be used - the length of a room - presumes that any difference between point of aim and point of impact will be negligible.

As to its adaptation for combat loads, this could only be attributed to advanced cranio-rectal inversion in the procurement process: Given 03's point as one factor, the price being approximately double that of 'standard' rounds another, the minimal possibility of a wounded enemy surviving long enough unattended to die of lead poisoning yet another, the practicality of frangible ammo on the battlefield is analogous tothe 'practicality' of inviting Mikey Moore-on, BaaBaa Streisand and Alec BaldFacedLiar to a 'celebrity shoot' (at least until we figure a way to keep them downrange).

[03_SHOOTER]

About the only "silver lining" to this incredible large, and very black cloud would be that you could simply throw a few thousand of these powder puff bullets at the enemy and they would surrender from CHOKING ON THE DUST!

The thing I'm waiting for are the long term studies that are going to conclude that breathing the dust from these "environmentally friendly" rounds causes CANCER and birth defects, and must therefore be discontinued, and the multi-BILLION dollars in judgements that are going to be handed down against everyone except the aforementioned idiot children who foisted this abortion on Police Departments and the military.

[Javelin66]

The SAW and the new IAR is/was not intended to replace the M60 or the 240. When the M16A2 came on line we lost any automatic weapon at the squad level, so the SAW filled that void. With the bipod and the capability to fire from the drum, it was/is a great capability at the squad level. Can't speak for the Marines, but the Army has always maintained the 7.62 machine guns at the platoon level, and only briefly considered (and quickly discarded) the concept of replacing them all with SAWs, for all the reasons cited here.

[03_SHOOTER]

If that's the case, then there's a real easy way to resolve it, simply get rid of the 3 round burst and go back to full auto sears and training the troops "trigger discipline", or make it a 4 position safety with Safe, Single Shot, Burst, and Full Auto. Of course they could simply include a few of the older style Safe/Semi/Full Auto versions with 100 round drums (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG056-36.html) and issue them to certain members of each Squad. No sense reinventing the wheel when the round ones that are already around work just fine.

[Javelin66]

I'm not sure how many rounds you could squeeze out of a single M16 barrel at the cyclic rate, not to mention the fact that most troops carry M4s now- M16s look freakishly long to me these days.

Regardless, this is really about force design, or what is often called 'operational architecture'. We are never going to have the best weapon out there, but we will have a pretty good weapon that meets the needs of the most units in the conventional Army (or Marines).

SOF (and to some degree the Marines) has much more flexibility to get smaller batches of special purpose equipment and weapons and train the troops to use them. The Army, with over a million troops, does not have that luxury.

Look at the ACU. Not the best uniform idea, but it's 'about right' for most troops, and it is cheap. Those that need something special (SOF, snipers, other cool guys) just go out and make or buy what they need.

[Des]

If that's the case, then there's a real easy way to resolve it, simply get rid of the 3 round burst and go back to full auto sears and training the troops "trigger discipline", or make it a 4 position safety with Safe, Single Shot, Burst, and Full Auto. Of course they could simply include a few of the older style Safe/Semi/Full Auto versions with 100 round drums (http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MAG056-36.html) and issue them to certain members of each Squad. No sense reinventing the wheel when the round ones that are already around work just fine.

I'm not a big fan of the idea of the Beta C Mags (100 round drum) on an assault rifle.

The only reason you would need it, in my mind, is if you're planning on sustained automatic fire, and if you are, I'd rather have a belt-fed SAW/GPMG, than a mag-fed M-16/M-4.

If you are using a rifle in an Automatic weapon role, especially if mag-fed, you need a piston-driven gas system, as opposed to the AR series Direct Impingement system.

On a side note, our C7/C8 rifles (M16/M4 type, originally made by diemaco, now Colt Canada) are all Safe/Semi/auto. I'd rather have the auto capability, and have people trained in being able to properly control their fire, than need the capability, and only be able to fire bursts.

[03_SHOOTER]

I'm not a big fan of the idea of the Beta C Mags (100 round drum) on an assault rifle.

The only reason you would need it, in my mind, is if you're planning on sustained automatic fire, and if you are, I'd rather have a belt-fed SAW/GPMG, than a mag-fed M-16/M-4.

Yet this is the issue as posed by the Corps. They want to do away with the SAW and go to a mag fed weapon that can be used for sustained fire when needed. My only point was that such a weapon already exists, and could be simply modified to handle a sustained fire role by utilizing a 100 round drum, although it would probably be a good idea to put a much heavier barrel on than the standard issue.

If you are using a rifle in an Automatic weapon role, especially if mag-fed, you need a piston-driven gas system, as opposed to the AR series Direct Impingement system.

I agree, which is why they're not getting rid of the M-240's, but it would appear that they also feel the need to have a fully automatic capability at the squad level without having to resort to a dedicated full time automatic weapon like the SAW.

On a side note, our C7/C8 rifles (M16/M4 type, originally made by diemaco, now Colt Canada) are all Safe/Semi/auto. I'd rather have the auto capability, and have people trained in being able to properly control their fire, than need the capability, and only be able to fire bursts.

Again, I concur, but then again I'm from the old school where we were taught trigger discipline to get the 3 to 4 round bursts when needed, and if you had to go full out "spray and pray" to get the bad guys heads down, you had that ability as well.

[reddog]

Can't speak for the newer weapons, my experience lies with the M14 (.308/7.62) and the M16 (.223/5.56) sometimes referred to as the Mattel. The M16 served me well and a bunch of us truly liked it, but in different parts of Vietnam it wasn't highly regarded. Lots of opinions on this rifle and it depended on who you talked too. We rarely saw our enemy in Southern Vietnam and 'spray and pray' was the order of the day. The early versions of this weapon were fully auto and the piece did that well. No question the 7.62 has superior stopping power and as mentioned, it would do you no good to hide behind dead rotting logs. Dead is dead though and kill they do.
One issue I didn't see mentioned is the added weight of the two rounds and believe me, 250 rounds of 7.62 is noticeably heavier than 5.56.
Fabrique Nationale makes awesome weapons, but so do we. In this slow economy that should be a no-brainer. Parts, weapons and ammo should be made here. The hell with shipping any more jobs over seas.
Hope they do give the Marines or Army Grunts the chance to take them around the block, not some General or politician who've never pulled a trigger.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

[Woody]

You cant do sustained fire with magazine fed weapons .Our Army tried and failed with the bren gun in WW2 . Which is a good weapon accurate and well made just not as good as a belt fed weapon .
Then we got the gpmg or fn mag or m 240 what ever you want to call it .
Heavy but it works .
Then we kinda lost it and produced the worst weapons the world have ever seen in the sa 80 family .Replacing the gpmg with the LSW light support weapon . A long barreled 5.56mm rile with a bipod . Aka the long silly weapon or the crow cannon . Its very accurate but it aint a machine gun and countless doctrine
lecutres about supplying support fire by highly accurate fire instead of inaccurate auto fire convinced no one .And when we finally had a shooting war to fight lo and behold we brought minimi . Buy new minimi you can get a shorter barrell and a folding stock for it .
Maybe its a culture thing of those soldiers I know who have actually used their weapons in anger none of them have complained of lack of stopping power from 5.56mm fired from sa 80 ,but,then it does have a longer barrell than a m4 .Also majority of times its been rapid shooting and training is keep shooting till target goes down which was the same with 5.56mm as it was with 7.62mm .

[Des]

You cant do sustained fire with magazine fed weapons .Our Army tried and failed with the bren gun in WW2 . Which is a good weapon accurate and well made just not as good as a belt fed weapon .
Then we kinda lost it and produced the worst weapons the world have ever seen in the sa 80 family .Replacing the gpmg with the LSW light support weapon . A long barreled 5.56mm rile with a bipod . Aka the long silly weapon or the crow cannon

Tim, I was wondering how long before someone brought up the ugly duckling that is the LSW.

You just will not get the same rate of fire from a mag-fed full auto weapon, as you would from a belt-fed pig.

[Woody]

Ugly duckling grow up to be swans .The long silly weapon .Got cut down by heckler koch and turned into a carbines.
Best thing I ever did in Iraq is let some idiot convince my section commander
he was the better shot .So he got the LSW 6 months of laughing every time
I saw him can become a bit irksome :D
Hateful piece of crap great on the range though.

[Murray B]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

I'm not a big fan of the .223 round. Though I spent my 20+ year career carrying this round, I find the knock down power lagging as compared to a .308 and the 30.06...The little round does not stop the action.

Colonel David Hackworth wrote about the lack of power many years ago. Sadly, the .308 and .30-06 are really just too large. A .308 version of the SAW would be as heavy as an M-60 and wouldn't be very portable. What is really needed is something between the .308 and .223. Lack of knock down power is technical but this problem really seems to be more of a political one.

Look at how they replaced the .45 calibre 1911s with known ineffective 9 milli. Where is the sense in that? The obvious thing to do was to go to a .40 which would be 10mm or something. 9mm was some kind of political decision.

Anyway, a modernized Thompson with a hot .40 would be something to see and so would a SAW with a little more momentum.

[03_SHOOTER]

Sadly, the .308 and .30-06 are really just too large. A .308 version of the SAW would be as heavy as an M-60 and wouldn't be very portable.

REALLY??? I wish you had told me that 30 years ago, and I wouldn't have spent all that time "humping the pig" all over the place! What's really funny to me is that the complaint about the M-60 was it's 23 lb. weight, so it was modified throughout the late 80's and into the 90's to the M-60E4 that weighed around 21 lb's., but it has since been replaced with the heavier 28 lb. M-240!

Look at how they replaced the .45 calibre 1911s with known ineffective 9 milli. Where is the sense in that? The obvious thing to do was to go to a .40 which would be 10mm or something.

While it's true that the 9mm was a political decision rather than a military one, there's no need to go to some intermediate. The Marines and (as far as I've been able to discover) ALL "special ops" units have already gone, or are in the process of going back to the tested, tried and proved 1911 style .45's, because it works.

[HairyEyeball]

The weight of the 'pig' - or the M-14 - and ammo didn't become an 'issue' until the continually lowered physical standards made it one. The Mattel toy was designed to be reasonably effective as a close-combat rifle with ammunition traveling 200-400 fps faster than that issued, relying on hydrostatic shock, rather than 'knockdown power'. It was a brief venture 'outside the box' - as was 'caseless' ammunition, which didn't survive the demonstration stage. The 'weight' issue was as much due to the ammunition as the firearm; unfortunately lighter ammunition led to more being carried, and in many cases the deterioration of marksmanship in favor of 'spray and pray'.

We've seen how NASA developments have been incorporated into everyday life, and how 'thinking outside the box' has - at least sometimes - come up with 'why didn't I think of that - it's so obvious (now that someone did)' solutions. We have ceramics that are stronger and lighter than steel - why not craft recievers of them? Why not ceramic bullets of adequate design and caliber? Or - with damned near everything else battery-reliant, an integrated system that utilizes electronic ignition?

The .30cal round was used for a few decades because it was optimal for its purpose: Inflicting unsustainable casualties on the enemy, often through hasty battlefield 'shields' and cover. It was a matter of the simple physics of exterior ballistics. The 'next generation' combat rifle - or machinegun - needs to be 'purpose-built', and what goes on beyond 'the end with the hole in it' must take priority over, but not discount, the operator.

As to the politics of the mousephart nine replacing the venerable 1911-style .45, that was the price we paid for Pershing missiles in Italy: Interchangeability with our NATO allies, and a fat contract for Beretta. Combat effectiveness took a back seat to political 'reality' - for neither the first nor last time.

If we're to arm our undersized and shrinking military optimally, it would be wonderful if we could come up with something as 'effective' as the Ma Deuce John Wayne could fire from the hip with such devastating effect - but that ain't happening in this space-time continuum. What should happen is a rifle and machinegun that use the same ammunition, as effective as the .30-06 or .308, lighter than either, in a size and configuration that enhances the capability of the troops using them. We have arguably the finest military in the world - they should wield a weapon worthy of them.

[Murray B]

REALLY??? What's really funny to me is that the complaint about the M-60 was it's 23 lb. weight, so it was modified throughout the late 80's and into the 90's to the M-60E4 that weighed around 21 lb's., but it has since been replaced with the heavier 28 lb. M-240!

Well, maybe you are on to something. It should not be too difficult to take a belt-fed .30 cal. and add a stock, pistol grip and forearm and a plastic bucket for 200 rounds. That would be a super-SAW.


While it's true that the 9mm was a political decision rather than a military one, there's no need to go to some intermediate. The Marines and (as far as I've been able to discover) ALL "special ops" units have already gone, or are in the process of going back to the tested, tried and proved 1911 style .45's, because it works.

Old timers like Elmer Keith used to rely on momentum to measure knock-down power. Young whippersnappers insisted it was kinetic energy that was most important. This is why there are so many of hot 6 and 7mms around. The problem with the kinetic energy approach is that there must be reliable expansion of the bullet for it to work. The Geneva Convention prohibits expansion so I will go with Elmer when it comes to military weapons

The weight of the 'pig' - or the M-14 - and ammo didn't become an 'issue' until the continually lowered physical standards made it one.

Okay, I know you are familiar with the M-14 and so do you think an M-14 would make a good SAW? Can it lay down sustained and accurate full-auto fire?


The Mattel toy was designed to be reasonably effective as a close-combat rifle with ammunition traveling 200-400 fps faster than that issued, relying on hydrostatic shock, rather than 'knockdown power'.

Many veterans that have experience with the rifle have said much the same thing. It is my understanding, however, that the round was McNamara's choice and not the military's. Also, for the younger readers, I think we should clarify that “Mattel” was probably not a contractor for any part of the weapon.

We've seen how NASA developments have been incorporated into everyday life...

My fear is that inflation will make all costly solutions impossible. Methinks it is time to apply what I call the Parrish [Gary L.,]principle, “When confronted by the reality of defeat, a nation will modify systems in their inventory to meet the challenges of their adversaries.”

It is time to take the little “rabbit shooters” [quoted from David Hackworth] and, with minimal changes, modify them so they can be more effective.

[Pavone]

Why not skip frangible ammo all together and KEEP the penetrative power... or even ENHANCE the penetrative power of the military's ammo.... With tungsten-core rounds? (such as the 7.62x54R)

It appeases the hippies, and gives us more lethality... all in one package. Sure, it might be the most expensive option - but why skimp on one of the most important factors of combat?

[Murray B]

Why not skip frangible ammo all together and KEEP the penetrative power... or even ENHANCE the penetrative power of the military's ammo.... With tungsten-core rounds? (such as the 7.62x54R)

Penetrative power is not the same as knock down power although something that does not penetrate can't knock anything down.

Imagine a rail gun with a 1mm diameter depleted Uranium projectile. Lets say it is so fast that it has 12,000 foot pounds of energy at the target. It would penetrate practically anything but would have very little knock down power.

It appeases the hippies, and gives us more lethality... all in one package. Sure, it might be the most expensive option - but why skimp on one of the most important factors of combat?

Perhaps it will make some hippies happy but others will only be happy when you become vegetarian and start drinking rat's milk.

I always figured the solution would be morphine coated solid gold bullets. This would make it far more likely that the enemy will want to get shot.

Many hippies also object to the styling of military weapons. That is why they try to ban the Colt rifle and not the technically identical Ruger.

Overall I think it is impossible to please everyone and especially so for those that are total nutbars.

[HairyEyeball]

Leaving the fruitcakes and what they 'want' for the people they can never understand (our side or that of our enemies), no, the 14 would not make a 'good SAW' - for it to be controllable in full auto mode, it would need more weight and a solid mount, defeating the purpose. Unfortunately, we haven't yet repealed the laws of physics - throwing a projectile large enough, traveling rapidly enough to do adequate damage far enough downrange - with the accuracy necessary to obviate a string of parabolic computations coupled with Kentucky windage requires a large explosion in a confined area, and the more weight around that explosion, the less point of aim will be affected. It's one of the reasons they took the selector switch off most 14s - they were uncontrollable (as in 'couldn't be held on target) in full auto mode.

The idea of an electric 'rail gun' has been around (at least in science fiction) for years - they would eliminate the weight of cartridges and powder, as well as recoil - but the batteries to activate them would hardly be man-portable. Additionally, while 1mm may not be much of a wound channel, the accompanying hydrostatic shock (which was a major factor in adoption of the 5.56 round at the intended velocity) would be catastrophic...which leaves us back at the choice of a round large enough to be individually effective (and the concomitant marksmanship) but light enough to be carried in adequate supply, a firearm heavy enough to provide a steady platform for automatic fire but light and short enough for close engagement and the accurate range and power to be equally effective at 'traditional' ranges.

One possibility currently being explored is the Barrett 6.8 - close enough to the 'traditional' .30cal to possess similar external ballistics - and the accompanying 'top end' which interchanges on the M-16 (and clones) lower receiver: Essentially coming full circle from Stoner's 'weapons system' the Mattel toy grew from.

The Thompson, Reising, and similar .45acp arms were reasonably accurate and controllable for CQ combat, and had the close-range knock-down power of a big, fat, slow-moving, un-'streamlined' slug that tore a wound channel almost a half-inch across. Fat, round-nosed projectiles are not known for their extended range, nor for accuracy at extended ranges. A lighter weight bullet of only slightly smaller cross-section, with optimal forward balance and more aerodynamic form - but still 'blunt' rather than spire-shaped - would require less propellant for higher velocity, resulting in a smaller casing, reducing both weight (of ammunition and arm) and diminished recoil. There is, in fact, a firearm currently in production utilizing the motion of the bolt to 'cancel' perceived recoil, which might well handle the eqivalent of a .308 (with a heavy enough bolt and sturdy enough components to withstand sustained full-auto fire).

There was also a discussion, on the last iteration of this forum, that dealt with a theoretically practical round, and platform, that went off in another, equally possible direction.

[ingbda01]

As far as frangible bullets go, they are probably good in hostage rescue type situations, but other than that I wouldn't want them.
As far as the USMC replacing the SAW, I'm happy they might be moving to something bigger. It would make me feel a whole lot better once I get to the fleet. As far as if its American designed or not, I don't give a damn. All the weapons will be produced here, so there is no need to worry about some bizarre scenario where we go to war with Belgium or Germany. I just want to have the best equipment available. Insisting on using American companies would directly affect the combat effectiveness of American forces. This is a major move, since it may prompt the Marines to finally replace the M16 with something better, like the HK 416, the M8, or the SCAR. So far as calibers go, 30-06 would be amazing, the BAR proved what it could do in an automatic weapon, but I suspect they will go with 7.62, or maybe some new round. It really says something that old army manuals on the m1 recommended a single shot in the chest, while new manuals reccoment one in the head and two in the chest.

[SGM]

Cutting my teath on the M60, I was disappointed in the effectiveness of the M249. Was almost like going to a kiddy play toy. At least with the M60 you could reach out and touch someone at a good distance. I fired on an M60 team for a while and really got to love the pig. I have never fired the 240 so I can't comment on it.

[Murray B]

...the 14 would not make a 'good SAW' - for it to be controllable in full auto mode, it would need more weight and a solid mount, defeating the purpose... It's one of the reasons they took the selector switch off most 14s - they were uncontrollable (as in 'couldn't be held on target) in full auto mode.

Yes, I knew that but I did not want to appear rude.

The idea of an electric 'rail gun' has been around (at least in science fiction) for years...

Large versions do exist now but my point is not about the EM rail guns but that penetration is not the same as knock-down power. Old timers often used momentum to measure knock-down power and it seems to me that old ballistic tables usually listed momentum.

... the accompanying hydrostatic shock (which was a major factor in adoption of the 5.56 round at the intended velocity) would be catastrophic... .

This “hydrostatic shock” is something I am not familiar with but it sounds theoretical. The lack of knock-down power of the 5.56 is something I have known about since ’73 but I understand that Col. Hackworth reported about it in ’65. That is 43 years to fix the problem but yet it somehow manages to continue.

One possibility currently being explored is the Barrett 6.8 ...

This was possible up until recently but will be impossible now and into the near future because of the cost. Any solution will have to be very low-cost now. The 6.8 PPC will require at least a different bolt face and that makes widespread use more expensive.

The solution will have to based on something with the same base diameter as the current 5.56 NATO. The calibre needs to be larger, but not too large, because of the limited case capacity. If you split the difference between a .223 and a .308 you get .2655 or 6.59mm. The nearest standard size looks to be 6.5mm. So the cheapest solution would be a .223 necked out to 6.5mm [which was the smallest practical military bore until this hydrostatic stuff came along]. I’m pretty sure the new round can be loaded to 1800 foot pounds of muzzle energy since the old .223/338 wildcat delivered that much. The nice thing about this solution is that it only requires increasing the bore and reaming the chambers of existing rifles. The solution seems obvious technically but I expect the real problem is political since they did not fix the thing in 43 years.

The Thompson, Reising, and similar .45acp arms were reasonably accurate and controllable for CQ combat, and had the close-range knock-down power of a big, fat, slow-moving, un-'streamlined' slug that tore a wound channel almost a half-inch across...

If the U.S. was using .45 and other NATO countries the 9mm and the 9 milli was known to lack knock down power then obviously they should have gone to something in-between like a .40 cal or 10mm or a lengthened 9 milli. Parabellum means “prepare for war” as I understand it but it was a preparation for WWI and became obsolete soon after.

There is, in fact, a firearm currently in production utilizing the motion of the bolt to 'cancel' perceived recoil, which might well handle the eqivalent of a .308 (with a heavy enough bolt and sturdy enough components to withstand sustained full-auto fire).

I heard of an FN design for a lightweight .50 Browning that was supposed to reduce the recoil mechanically somehow. An interesting concept.

There was also a discussion, on the last iteration of this forum, that dealt with a theoretically practical round, and platform, that went off in another, equally possible direction.

The only thing I see happening now are the near zero-cost options.

[HairyEyeball]

Recognizing fact is never rude, Murray, unless you do it by mocking those intentionally unaware of those facts. Unfortunately, people who choose to disregard fact abound (and generally find their way into government). Other random thoughts:

I'm no expert on the 'scientific' end of the subject, but some things should be obvious: A projectile has a specific amount of kinetic energy. It can either keep speeding through what it encounters - 'penetrate' - or expend that energy in what it encounters: Why does the fat, slow .45acp round knock people down with (usually) one round, while the mousephart nine requires multiple hits to accomplish the same purpose? The projectile transfers that energy to the target.

Colonel Hackworth's observations were on the Mattel toy and ammunition as issued. As designed, however, with the projectile traveling a few hundred fps faster, it tested as highly effective against living tissue. Unfortunately, there were issues with propellant, and the use of MIL-SPEC powder reduced both the velocity and subsequent effectiveness. Early (as in Vietnam era) models were also plagued by the fact that the flash suppressor (whether or not used as a bottle opener) was subject to distortion and misalignment - with obvious consequences to accuracy - and the fact that when used in 'bayonet drill', as in a buttstroke, the rifle would devolve into three main components: The barrel and receiver group, the stock 'group', and a handful of scrap plastic.

The observation that any 'solution' must be achieved 'on the cheap' is valid, but only because (and anyone is free to check the national budget) the segment of that budget devoted to national defense pales beside the 'untouchable' segment devoted to sustaining the parasitic class: The health and welfare of the indigent and useless, and preserving their 'right' to procreate and 'stone out' has a much higher priority than those who contribute by offering their lives to insure the continued existence of a nation dying under their noses from within by the hand of the government they swore allegiance to.

For those who neither remember MacNamara's 'more bang for the buck' philosophy nor are too young to have heard of it, 'cost effectiveness' meant that if your squad was being attacked by twenty-seven VC and one bomb would kill an average of 10, air support was only 'authorized' two expend two - the third would result in 'unacceptable waste of assets'. The current policy echoes this approach: The number of inadequate rounds expended to secure a kill have a value of 'X'. There are 'Y' million rounds of .223 currently in the inventory, and production of more is the 'standard'. It would cost 'Z' dollars to switch to and manufacture an effective round, and a 'top end' for current rifles (or a new rifle) to handle it - 'but what would we do with all the ammunition in supply and in the pipeline?'

The 10mm was originally a 'compromise' between the .45acp - with its known effectiveness - and the mousephart 9 (and its lack thereof), undertaken to provide a certain government agency with a more concealable, more controllable (for agents recruited under lowered physical standards) handgun. It proved 'too much' for many of them, and was 'powered down' to become the .40 - where the 10 was a nine on steroids, the .40 is effectively a 'bigger nine' with few (if any) of the intended advantages, and all of the drawbacks. It owes much of its popularity to the fact that it is smaller and lighter than the .45, with less recoil, and comes in many 'sexy' tupperware models.

There is a firearm currently under development, the TDI Kriss Super V™ submachine gun - featured, in fact, in an episode of 'CSI-NY' as well as in a recent issue of 'Small Arms Review' - that uses a radical design for the bolt track to effectively cancel out recoil. It has been successfully - and repeatedly - tested with handgun-caliber ammunition. Given that the biggest problem with rifle-caliber 'machine guns' is the tradeoff between weight and controllability, this development would obviate it - and the 'expensive' part, the research and development has already been done.

Oh, and ingbda, as to your "...bizarre scenario where we go to war with Belgium or Germany..." you might want to pick up a history book that covers the last century: Both 'world wars' began with...Germany! Geopolitics being what it is, and the islamofascist expansion being what it is, war in, or subjugation of, Europe is a distinct, albeit unpleasant possibility - if not a certainty.

[Pavone]

Recognizing fact is never rude, Murray, unless you do it by mocking those intentionally unaware of those facts. Unfortunately, people who choose to disregard fact abound (and generally find their way into government). Other random thoughts:

I'm no expert on the 'scientific' end of the subject, but some things should be obvious: A projectile has a specific amount of kinetic energy. It can either keep speeding through what it encounters - 'penetrate' - or expend that energy in what it encounters: Why does the fat, slow .45acp round knock people down with (usually) one round, while the mousephart nine requires multiple hits to accomplish the same purpose? The projectile transfers that energy to the target.

Colonel Hackworth's observations were on the Mattel toy and ammunition as issued. As designed, however, with the projectile traveling a few hundred fps faster, it tested as highly effective against living tissue. Unfortunately, there were issues with propellant, and the use of MIL-SPEC powder reduced both the velocity and subsequent effectiveness. Early (as in Vietnam era) models were also plagued by the fact that the flash suppressor (whether or not used as a bottle opener) was subject to distortion and misalignment - with obvious consequences to accuracy - and the fact that when used in 'bayonet drill', as in a buttstroke, the rifle would devolve into three main components: The barrel and receiver group, the stock 'group', and a handful of scrap plastic.

The observation that any 'solution' must be achieved 'on the cheap' is valid, but only because (and anyone is free to check the national budget) the segment of that budget devoted to national defense pales beside the 'untouchable' segment devoted to sustaining the parasitic class: The health and welfare of the indigent and useless, and preserving their 'right' to procreate and 'stone out' has a much higher priority than those who contribute by offering their lives to insure the continued existence of a nation dying under their noses from within by the hand of the government they swore allegiance to.

For those who neither remember MacNamara's 'more bang for the buck' philosophy nor are too young to have heard of it, 'cost effectiveness' meant that if your squad was being attacked by twenty-seven VC and one bomb would kill an average of 10, air support was only 'authorized' two expend two - the third would result in 'unacceptable waste of assets'. The current policy echoes this approach: The number of inadequate rounds expended to secure a kill have a value of 'X'. There are 'Y' million rounds of .223 currently in the inventory, and production of more is the 'standard'. It would cost 'Z' dollars to switch to and manufacture an effective round, and a 'top end' for current rifles (or a new rifle) to handle it - 'but what would we do with all the ammunition in supply and in the pipeline?'

The 10mm was originally a 'compromise' between the .45acp - with its known effectiveness - and the mousephart 9 (and its lack thereof), undertaken to provide a certain government agency with a more concealable, more controllable (for agents recruited under lowered physical standards) handgun. It proved 'too much' for many of them, and was 'powered down' to become the .40 - where the 10 was a nine on steroids, the .40 is effectively a 'bigger nine' with few (if any) of the intended advantages, and all of the drawbacks. It owes much of its popularity to the fact that it is smaller and lighter than the .45, with less recoil, and comes in many 'sexy' tupperware models.

There is a firearm currently under development, the TDI Kriss Super V™ submachine gun - featured, in fact, in an episode of 'CSI-NY' as well as in a recent issue of 'Small Arms Review' - that uses a radical design for the bolt track to effectively cancel out recoil. It has been successfully - and repeatedly - tested with handgun-caliber ammunition. Given that the biggest problem with rifle-caliber 'machine guns' is the tradeoff between weight and controllability, this development would obviate it - and the 'expensive' part, the research and development has already been done.

Oh, and ingbda, as to your "...bizarre scenario where we go to war with Belgium or Germany..." you might want to pick up a history book that covers the last century: Both 'world wars' began with...Germany! Geopolitics being what it is, and the islamofascist expansion being what it is, war in, or subjugation of, Europe is a distinct, albeit unpleasant possibility - if not a certainty.



:satisfied: Now THAT is what I call squared away.

[JohnP]

Other random thoughts:

There is a firearm currently under development, the TDI Kriss Super V™ submachine gun - featured, in fact, in an episode of 'CSI-NY' as well as in a recent issue of 'Small Arms Review' - that uses a radical design for the bolt track to effectively cancel out recoil. It has been successfully - and repeatedly - tested with handgun-caliber ammunition. Given that the biggest problem with rifle-caliber 'machine guns' is the tradeoff between weight and controllability, this development would obviate it - and the 'expensive' part, the research and development has already been done.


The TDI Vector is a prototype .45 ACP submachine gun developed by Transformational Defense Industries. It utilizes asymmetrical recoil and in-line design to reduce recoil and muzzle climb. This operating system is called the Kriss Super V. "Kriss" refers to a Southeast Asian fighting dagger.

Design - TDI refers to the operating system as the Kriss Super V. The system claims to compensate for recoil by utilizing moving parts that travel down into a recess behind the magazine. This means they travel vertically and forces encountered when they reach the end of their travel act downward, reducing muzzle rise. The barrel is also in-line with the shooter's shoulder as in the M16 rifle and German FG42 but also in line with the shooter's hand. Combined, these factors are advertised to create less felt-recoil and muzzle climb. The Vector has the highest sightline in comparison to the bore axis of any personal firearm. This results in significant vertical stringing with changes in range.

Variants - TDI is producing a semi-automatic version of the Kriss for sale in the U.S.[2] TDI's new semi-automatic carbine is called the CRB/SO, with no confirmation on what the letters 'CRB' stand for although it is assumed they mean 'carbine'. The 'SO' is said to stand for 'special operations'. TDI has announced that it also plans on adapting the system for higher-power cartridges in the future.

Specifications

Weight - 5.06 lb (2.3 kg) (SMG)
- 6.1 lb (2.8 kg) (CRB/SO)

Length - 24.3 in (617 mm) (SMG)
- 16 in (406 mm) w/stock folded
- 34.8 in (884 mm) (CRB/SO)
- 26.5 in (673 mm) w/stock folded

Barrel length - 5.5 in (140 mm) (SMG)
- 16 in (406 mm) (CRB/SO)

Cartridge - .45 ACP

Action - Blowback

Rate of fire - 800 to 1500 rounds per minute

Feed system - 13-round detachable box magazine
- 30-rds w/optional 17-rd extension

If you haven't had the chance to look this up, it's a unique looking weapon. (It looks like something out of Aliens.) I can see a great use for it in CQC but as for a primary squad weapon, the magazine capacity and range says it all.

I, like so many others, was born and bred on the M-60. It is a direct descendant of the German MG-42 and both are considered the finest medium machine guns ever built. Sure, it has some inherent faults, but for my money, there is nothing better out there. This is a weapon that requires the operators to fanatical in their practice. You can't get enough range time with this beast. Finally, I have personally witnessed 2 individuals fire a pig in the standing position and with one hand. 1 was a Marine LT named Hartig, the other was a AF Security Policeman assigned to their SWAT team named Klarer. (This was also done before Sillyvester Stillbone did it in Rambo II.) Granted, the weapon was only fired in short bursts and both men were strong as oxen but they proved the point.

[Murray B]

The observation that any 'solution' must be achieved 'on the cheap' is valid, but only because...

A trillion plus mountain of money has been injected into the economy and if there is not an equivalent mountain of jobs brought back to America then there will almost certainly be significant inflation. If the inflation becomes high enough then the budgets and contracts simply will not work. If that happens then there will no 6.8 PPC or new .45s or anything else. All solutions will have to be provided by local gun guys [what does the military call a gunsmith?] without a lot of expense. A 5.56 to 6.5 mm upgrade is possible right now but anything else will have to wait.

Why does the fat, slow .45acp round knock people down with (usually) one round, while the mousephart nine requires multiple hits to accomplish the same purpose? The projectile transfers that energy to the target.

The old timers said it was because the .45 has more momentum. My ’77 Gun Digest indicates that Momentum = Bullet weight X Velocity / (2.25 x 10^5).

Colonel Hackworth's observations were on the Mattel toy and ammunition as issued. As designed, however, with the projectile traveling a few hundred fps faster, it tested as highly effective against living tissue.

My correspondence with Col. Hackworth did not include the rifle. I only read about it later after he passed away. The “highly effective” part becomes quite interesting because it seems to refer to hydrodynamic shock and that means Roy Weatherby and the whippersnappers.

The HS theory came out of WWII but was disproved by a Dr. Fackler using data from the Vietnam war. He found no evidence for this shock in 99.86% of the 1400 cases studied.

Then Drs. Michael and Amy Courtney appear to have disproved Dr. Fackler in a paper posted at http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4927.pdf It is hard to tell who is right since not all figures are given but it indicates that hydrodynamic shock is much more common than Dr. Fackler claims. It sounds like it is seven times more likely and is not a significant factor only about 99.00% of the time. In the field is there an significant difference between something that does not work just 99.00% of the time compared to 99.86%?

For those who neither remember MacNamara's...

Actually, I have read about him but I do not know what to do about it.

...It would cost 'Z' dollars to switch to and manufacture an effective round, and a 'top end' for current rifles (or a new rifle) to handle it - 'but what would we do with all the ammunition in supply and in the pipeline?'

This is my point especially with the economic problems. There will be no new rifle or top end and yet the problem needs to be corrected. This only leaves simple inexpensive changes like a 5.56 NATO necked out to 6.5 and hotted up a little. Same rifle, same barrel and same magazine but with a little more momentum. It is not ideal but it is better than nothing when the hydrodynamic shock does not work.

...The 10mm was originally a 'compromise' between the .45acp - with its known effectiveness - and the mousephart 9 (and its lack thereof)...

I don’t disagree but note that the mp9 is still failing to stop the action after more than a century and that has to a record for ineffectiveness. Sadly, NATO has made their choice.

There is a firearm currently under development, the TDI Kriss Super V™ submachine gun...

Interesting concept for the future but I expect that the near vertical mass will be optimized for only a single load.

[HairyEyeball]

Not to rain on anyone's parade (Barack Hussein and the Duma - er, 'Congress' - have already taken care of that), but the uncountable billions being showered - in theory - on the economy are in fact going to buy the votes of the parasites in perpetuity, make citizens of the thirty million illegals already here and buy their votes in perpetuity, make those resistant to socialism dependent on the bureacracy for their medical needs in perpetuity, and undermine any non-socialist enterprise that the supreme soviet - er, Congress - can get its talons into. The military will have to fend for itself on a reduced budget, and will be kept busy in Afghanistan or anywhere else its members will not turn on their fellow Americans at B.O.'s behest.

The limited research I did on Stoner's original AR weapon system, from which the original Mattel toy was derived, was engineered to deliver a projectile at a muzzle velocity of approximately 3600 fps. When it reached 'the field', due to issues including MIL-SPEC propellant, the rifle delivered a muzzle velocity over 400 fps slower. Original testing demonstrated an effectiveness - at the 'average' range being experienced in Nam - only slightly less than that of the then-standard 7.62. The 'common knowledge' was that the quoted effectiveness was due to the fact that the 5,56 rounds were designed to 'tumble', however anyone with a knowledge of exterior ballistics realizes that such characteristic would make accuracy impossible - the reason given was 'hydrostatic shock'. The theory has some immediate credence when one realizes that studies of many cases of police officers dying when shot - and the projectile not piercing their vests - show an analogous effect. The human body is not designed to absorb that much concentrated kinetic energy.

And you are correct with regard to the TDI Kriss Super V™ - it was designed and built for the .45acp round; any larger cartridge would require a bolt of greater mass, and modification of the bolt track. The point I might have made clearer is the fact that the concept is materiel, not merely theoretical. If it can work - and it has - then the possibility of a more powerful, rifle-caliber version is that much closer to fruition. Additionally, as in 'the old days', before everything was underwritten by our tax dollars, this was conceived, developed and built by private enterprise, so it either worked or it was scrapped. It worked - whether the military adopts it or not, whether it finds favor in the open market or not.

The .45acp is a handgun cartridge - even the Thompson, Reising, and similar SMGs were designed as 'close combat' weapons - so in its current iteration, it is unlikely to find its way into the military arsenal, with the possible exception of 'special purpose' weaponry. Given that there is a current need for a rifle-caliber automatic weapon; that the physical standards are, overall, lower than in the heyday of the 'pig'; and the technology does exist; it is a reasonable presumption that if research and development is not currently being done on such, it shortly will be.

And ing, try to understand when you're out of your depth: "30-06 would be amazing"? Son, it served with distinction for over 50 years, winning WW I, WW II and Korea, and soldiering on into Vietnam. And I don't know what 'manual' you're referencing, but 'two to the torso, one to the head' is close-range, handgun doctrine. With a rifle one aims for the center of mass, at 'rifle distance', with the express intent that the target not get within handgun range.

The BAR

[JohnP]

This is not about the M-249 but it seems appropriate:

From the Today's Marine Corps Times:

New lightweight cannons pack a big punch

By Trista Talton - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Feb 26, 2009 10:02:14 EST

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — Even in field artillery, known for its big guns towed by big vehicles, the concept of “smaller is better” has hit home, or so say the first Marines to receive the Corps’ new Expeditionary Fire Support System.
“They’re a lot faster than the triple sevens,” Cpl. James Boyle, a field artillery canoneer said during a live-fire exercise in mid-February aboard Camp Lejeune. He was referring to the M777A2 Lightweight 155mm Howitzer. “You can get into places that you couldn’t with the triple seven.”
That’s the idea behind the EFSS, a mortar-based system designed to provide mobile fire support for expeditionary forces. It is lightweight and small enough to fit snugly into the MV-22 Osprey, an aircraft designed to get Marines farther inland faster, and the CH-53 Sea Stallion.
Members of Lejeune’s Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 10th Marines, began training on the systems in January. Since then, Marines have learned to drive the new Internally Transportable Vehicle, a type of jeep that also fits inside an Osprey, while simultaneously learning to use the 120mm mortar that fires smoothbore or rifled ammunition.
By the second week in February, Bravo Battery appeared quite comfortable with the new gear. And while the EFSS may be compact, when fired it delivers a head-thumping, ground-shaking jolt.
The process is always the same: Slide the mortar in the cannon, stand clear, fire. A flash of yellow, orange and red flame accompanies each blast. As if following a fly ball at a baseball game, the Marines’ heads tilted up and down as they watched the projectile fall back to the ground.
Each mortar section gets two vehicles, said 2nd Lt. Nathaniel Warthen, Bravo Battery’s platoon commander. There is a two-seater, which pulls the weapon, and a three-seater variant, which pulls the ammo. Together, they compose one EFSS.
Normal howitzers are pulled by Humvees or 7-ton trucks, which, because of their size, limit a commander’s options. If transported by air, howitzers have to be towed under a helicopter. But with the EFSS stowed neatly inside, an Osprey is free to fly in airplane mode.
However, loading the equipment quickly may prove challenging as Marines get used to them. As ground-shaking bangs erupted nearby, Marines practiced securing an ITV in the belly of an Osprey with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162. At least 15 minutes passed before it was off the ground.
“This is literally the first time these guys have driven the ITV on the aircraft,” John Garner, program manager for the ITV and EFSS, said as he watched the training. “They will go faster than that in a combat situation.”
The open-top vehicles, not much longer than a golf cart, can be loaded onto the aircraft — and driven off of it — in two to three minutes, Garner said.
“Those systems, by requirement, have to be capable of shooting within 60 seconds of coming off the aircraft,” he said.
During operational testing, the system was fired within 45 seconds of debarkation, he said.
Bravo Battery is the first of two to receive the systems this year. Officials have not disclosed the other unit tapped to receive them. Three more systems should be fielded in fiscal 2010, Garner said.
The Corps plans to purchase 720 ITVs and 66 EFSSs, fielding 15 ITVs per infantry battalion and six EFSSs per artillery battery. He said the service has expressed “a lot of interest” in getting the systems into Afghanistan, though Marine officials have not announced when or where they may deploy.

[Murray B]

The military will have to fend for itself on a reduced budget...

Yes, I expect it will have to. This is why any improvement to the standard light rifles must be cheap. Rechambering and reboring for a slightly changed cartridge should be possible as a maintenance/upgrade instead of a capital purchase. There was a Thompson pistol that used a 6.5 TCU round and gave about 1500 foot pounds of M.E. from a 15” barrel. It should not be hard to modify rifles in inventory to use a cartridge similar to that.

The limited research I did on Stoner's original AR weapon system...was engineered to deliver a projectile at a muzzle velocity of approximately 3600 fps. When it reached 'the field', due to issues including MIL-SPEC propellant, the rifle delivered a muzzle velocity over 400 fps slower.

Many experienced varminters recommend a firing rate of no more than 1 per minute for high velocity .22 centrefires. As I understand it a microscopic layer of steel is removed by every round fired. The effect is greatly increased with higher barrel temperatures and projectile velocities. Maybe 3600 fps at a high rate of fire was just too hard on barrels.

Original testing demonstrated an effectiveness - at the 'average' range being experienced in Nam - only slightly less than that of the then-standard 7.62.

It does not seem to me that the military wanted the thing. From what I can tell it was forced upon them by civilians and they were then ‘ordered’ to like it. Something similar happened in Canada with the Avro Arrow aircraft. Now that the documents have been declassified it is clear that the aircraft never met specifications and our Joint Chiefs kept trying to cancel the program. Back then they could say nothing because the performance, or lack thereof, was classified as “SECRET”. The only people that wanted the aircraft were certain politicians and I expect there was money involved. We will probably never know what really happened since this all took place more than 60 years ago.

The theory has some immediate credence when one realizes that studies of many cases of police officers dying when shot - and the projectile not piercing their vests - show an analogous effect. The human body is not designed to absorb that much concentrated kinetic energy.

I’m too young to have been a “pumpkin roller” or a “hydro-static shock” [shouldn’t that be hydro-dynamic?] proponent but I remember the debate. There is a good paper on the subject posted at http://www.rkba.org/research/fackler/wrong.html

Dr. Fackler did not say that the shock did not happen only that it happened rarely. Unless the effect can be relied upon most of the time is it really that useful for the military?

And you are correct with regard to the TDI Kriss Super V™ - it was designed and built for the .45acp round...the concept is materiel, not merely theoretical...the possibility of a more powerful, rifle-caliber version is that much closer to fruition.

I’m hoping that they have great success with it but that does not mean that the light battle rifles should not be upgraded.

The .45acp is a handgun cartridge - even the Thompson, Reising, and similar SMGs were designed as 'close combat' weapons - so in its current iteration, it is unlikely to find its way into the military arsenal, with the possible exception of 'special purpose' weaponry.

By “special purpose” do you mean suppressed as in the De Lisle carbine? It seems that this carbine was one of the few effective subsonic weapons of its day. The later 9 milli Hush Puppy only had the energy of a .22 short and that sounds a little too risky for most things except maybe shooting a guard dog or something. An improved De Lisle might be in order. Cut off a .308 at the shoulder, fit a 500 grain .45 bullet and enough powder for high subsonic speeds and it should be pretty effective at short ranges.

The BAR

Yes, and Canada had the Bren and even a few Lewis’.