Ideas for the next Army battle rifle

[tortoise1956]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by krispos42 (a host of the Gun Control & RKBA group).

Since my last post about the Army search for a new battle rifle ended up crawling down the (white) rabbit hole, I'll try this one in the hope of hearing what others in this group believe would be a good choice. Mine first!

1. 6.5 Creedmoor - this bullet has an awesome BC. IIRC, a comparison of the 6.5 vs. the .308 shows that once the rounds reached about 800 yards, from then on the Creedmoor was carrying more energy than the .308. The 6.5 is noticeably lighter than the .308, which would allow the average G.I to carry more ammunition or the same number of rounds and have room for more stuff. To add to this, the Creedmoor has been shown to be accurate at ranges up to 1600 yards in the hands of an expert shooter.

2. 25-06 - very close to the 6.5 Creedmoor in most respects, this round would would make a good step up from the 5.56/.223. It has about 3 times he recoil of a 5.56 but 1.5 times as much muzzle energy. The only downside, to me, is that the Creedmoor carries significantly more energy at ranges outside 500 yards than the 25-06 in a smaller cartridge.

3. 6.5 Grendel - this was designed to be a longer range alternative to the 5.56, and it fulfills this role admirably. Like every other 6.5 round, the BC is pretty high, allowing it to be accurate at ranges up to 800 yards. All this in a pretty small case and with light recoil. IMHO, the size more than makes up for the reduction in energy.

4. 6.5x55 - my new favorite ever since I laid my hands on a 100+ year old Swedish Mauser, this cartridge has been proven in battle over and over since the Boer war in Africa. Ballistics-wise, it is almost identical to the 6.5 Creedmoor. However, the shell is a little longer, so once again weight becomes an issue. (It's more of a fond wish than a realistic choice, I'm afraid...DAMNIT!)

So there it is. If I had to decide, I would probably go with the Creedmoor or the Grendel. If it was the Grendel, I would include a select-fire option. The other cartridges would be limited to Semi-auto fire only.

What say you?

[sfwriter]

1. Specs, schmecs, I already know the answer.

Contract goes to the contractor with the best bribes, right?

[tortoise1956]

2. Might be some truth to that...

but I'm thinking of what would happen in a fair world. (I know, I know - fair is a weather condition...)

[orangecrush]

3. ...

[ExciteBike66]

4. If we choose one of these rounds for the new rifle...

can we at least describe it as "high-powered"?

I jest, I jest. I don't want to send this thread where the other went...

[SQUEE]

5. I think current doctrine and training lend themselves to allowing a heavier round.

The .30 cal offering have a better barrier blind application, and also we have worked hard to train out the spray and pray reaction of soldiers.

Our recent and current ops have placed an emphasis on avoidance of collateral issues, thus mag dumps are hopefully a rare situation. 20 rounds from an m14 or FAL are more effective when on target than 30 rounds from an M4 sprayed in "hope".

Which brings up another issue, current barrel lengths are leaving quite a bit of power in the muzzle flash, and not in the round going down range. Minus a bullpup being adopted, I do not foresee a return to 20'' barrels except on DMR rifles.

[krispos42]

6. Locking

This post does not fit into the scope of the Group, as it is not gun control/ 2nd Amendment/ gun policy discussion, nor it is a self-defense topic.

It's about what arms the government should issue to its soldiers, and that, IMO, belongs in the National Security & Defense Group.

Obviously, whatever the military chooses will have some bleed-over into the civilian firearms world, and discussions about that belong here.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host