6.5mm Chambered Rifles for U.S. Special Operations Forces

Forest Green said:

New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories​

www.twz.com

New Rifles Chambered In 6.5mm Creedmoor Heading To U.S. Special Operations Armories

The new Mid-Range Gas Gun-Assault will give U.S. special operators a rifle option for greater reach, accuracy, and ballistic performance.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Interesting that SOCOM have totally ignored the main Army and though expect no doubt under heavy pressure and blandishments to adopt the their freakish 80,000 psi Sig 6.8 x 51 round with its two part complicated case (a dedicated new ammo plant had to be built at Lake City) SOCOM have chosen instead to go with an updated standard conventional round the 6.5mm Creedmoor (6.5 x 48.8) with its heavy BC bullet for the caliber stabilized by a fast twist rate barrel to the give necessary range and accuracy at long range.

Also mention they might procure a LMG in 6.5 CM though as an aside expect for the experience in Afghanistan would not have expected the preponderance of effort on heavy rounds such as the 7.62/6.8x51/6.5 CM as post WWII/Korean battle study seen have highlighted at what short range they occur and the emphasis instead cutting down on weight.
 
The US Army could've avoided all of this if they toned down their ego and just get the stuff trickling down from SOCOM. After all the boneheads wanted full SOF-lization of conventional troops. Interesting that we went this whole way long-like a weird cocktail of pride and money laundering.
 
Cordy said:
Also mention they might procure a LMG in 6.5 CM though as an aside expect for the experience in Afghanistan would not have expected the preponderance of effort on heavy rounds such as the 7.62/6.8x51/6.5 CM as post WWII/Korean battle study seen have highlighted at what short range they occur and the emphasis instead cutting down on weight.
Click to expand...
Those heavier rounds are significantly longer ranged, marginally effective against most military vehicles, more effective at chiseling through hard cover, and a reasonable threat to air when compared to 5.56 or 5.45.

So still a very useful capability to add to the rifle squad, compared to running pure intermediate-caliber weapons.

Note that both US and Russians have kept .30cal MGs and DMRs in the platoon.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Those heavier rounds are significantly longer ranged, marginally effective against most military vehicles, more effective at chiseling through hard cover, and a reasonable threat to air when compared to 5.56 or 5.45.

So still a very useful capability to add to the rifle squad, compared to running pure intermediate-caliber weapons.

Note that both US and Russians have kept .30cal MGs and DMRs in the platoon.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't disagree but the Army seems intent on throwing out the M4A1 and replacing it with the larger and heavier M7 with its expensive and heavier 6.8x51 ammo, not required for normal battle conditions and adding extra unnecessary physical pressure on the G.I.
 
Cordy said:
Wouldn't disagree but the Army seems intent on throwing out the M4A1 and replacing it with the larger and heavier M7 with its expensive and heavier 6.8x51 ammo, not required for normal battle conditions and adding extra unnecessary physical pressure on the G.I.
Click to expand...
In this case, Big Army(tm) is suffering from a prolonged rush of shit to the brain, stuck between "all combat experience in Afghanistan was at extreme range where only the 7.62 weapons could reach" and "ZOMG the russians are fielding dreadnought armor for infantry! *panic*"

Completely forgetting the lesson of WW2 where ~90% of all infantry combat was fought within 200m of each other and ~95% of all infantry combat was fought within 300m of each other.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Completely forgetting the lesson of WW2 where ~90% of all infantry combat was fought within 200m of each other and ~95% of all infantry combat was fought within 300m of each other.
Click to expand...

And the fact that probably 80% or more of those long range engagements in Afghanistan would have been better resolved by dropping a mortar on the enemy, if only RoE had allowed.

Spend the money on smarter mortar shells, instead, folks!
 
TomS said:
And the fact that probably 80% or more of those long range engagements in Afghanistan would have been better resolved by dropping a mortar on the enemy, if only RoE had allowed.

Spend the money on smarter mortar shells, instead, folks!
Click to expand...
It's not like at least one Stryker unit had the engineers build them a freaking trebuchet to throw the standard demolitions satchel charge at a target...

"You won't give me permission to call in mortar fire? I have to respond to the attack with the unit's own weapons? Okay, then I'll do it myself!"
"Hey, engineers? Got a minute? I need a trebuchet mounted on a trailer. I want it sized to throw a standard demo satchel 1000 yards, or about 800 to hit a target on a 1000ft hilltop."
"We're gonna need 6 cases for that."
"Platoon Sergeant? Go find 6 cases."
"Sent a runner as soon as the engineers said how many, sir."
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's not like at least one Stryker unit had the engineers build them a freaking trebuchet to throw the standard demolitions satchel charge at a target...

"You won't give me permission to call in mortar fire? I have to respond to the attack with the unit's own weapons? Okay, then I'll do it myself!"
"Hey, engineers? Got a minute? I need a trebuchet mounted on a trailer. I want it sized to throw a standard demo satchel 1000 yards, or about 800 to hit a target on a 1000ft hilltop."
"We're gonna need 6 cases for that."
"Platoon Sergeant? Go find 6 cases."
"Sent a runner as soon as the engineers said how many, sir."
Click to expand...

We need the full story! ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom