Posted on May 31, 2017
Three Rifles That Could Replace the Army's M4A1 Carbine
2.58K
44
33
4
4
0
I like the 6.5mm round, but it is of rare use on the battlefield. That means if any enemy caches are found, the likelihood of utilizing their ammo in our rifles would be low. Perhaps we should focus on the 7.62?
Three Rifles That Could Replace the Army's M4A1 Carbine
Posted from popularmechanics.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Not sure where the author got his information. I saw a couple things that made me scratch my head.
1) Milley is an idiot. There are zero, repeat zero, assault rifle rounds out that will penetrate a SAPI plate. They will stop a AP round fired point blank from a 30-06. The magic bullet does not exist. When Congress finally figures out that he has no clue what he is talking about he is going to be without a job.
2) The HK416 is about 2 pounds heavier than a M-4. It is a hell of a gun. Piston guns do run cleaner than impingement guns. Only one problem. When a M-4 does not cycle it is because of dirt not powder residue. The piston does put more force on the bolt carrier and that makes it more reliable, but it is not the next super gun.
3)Piston guns run cooler??? I have no clue what he is talking about. They don't run any cooler than any other closed bolt gun. If anything they will heat up the handguard faster because that hot gas has to go somewhere and it vents under the handguard. It is a closed piston so it is not as bad as the AK which has a direct piston and will heat up a handguard to the point you can't hold it after 2 mags at full auto. As far as "over heating" an M-4....I have seen guys run 700 rounds (one mag right after another) on full auto before the gas tube lets loose. Another non-issue.
4) The AR-10??? That is just stupid. Most firefights are 300 meters and in. Why the hell would you need a full size round on a 20 inch barrel?
5) Textron it is a concept gun that is not even real. If we are going this path I want a Star Was Blaster instead of this hunk of crap. There are NO polymer cased rounds that actually work, NONE! No matter how much Milley talks about it or wishes it to be true, polymer cased rounds don't work. They have been trying for a decade. They only thing that has come from 10 years of experimenting is we know that polymer rounds are more dangerous to the shooter than the shootee. They have blown every gun up they have ever been in.
Now for the only thing me and that idiot Milley can agree on. The 6.5 is a bad ass round. It shoots straighter longer and has a hell of a punch. The ballistic coefficient (BC) is around .61 (where a 5.56 is .168). It is the best of any bullets ever made...ever. What does the BC mean. It means once that baby is in flight it is not effected by wind or humidity as much. It also means it does not lose as much velocity as other rounds, so it shoots straighter further and faster. It is easier to hit a target without windage adjustments and when you hit the target it is going to cause more damage because it still has power left. It also means that it does have to have a huge case for large amounts of gun powder because the bullet is more efficient and does not need to be traveling at 3000ft/sec at the barrel to lethally hit a target at 400 meters.
1) Milley is an idiot. There are zero, repeat zero, assault rifle rounds out that will penetrate a SAPI plate. They will stop a AP round fired point blank from a 30-06. The magic bullet does not exist. When Congress finally figures out that he has no clue what he is talking about he is going to be without a job.
2) The HK416 is about 2 pounds heavier than a M-4. It is a hell of a gun. Piston guns do run cleaner than impingement guns. Only one problem. When a M-4 does not cycle it is because of dirt not powder residue. The piston does put more force on the bolt carrier and that makes it more reliable, but it is not the next super gun.
3)Piston guns run cooler??? I have no clue what he is talking about. They don't run any cooler than any other closed bolt gun. If anything they will heat up the handguard faster because that hot gas has to go somewhere and it vents under the handguard. It is a closed piston so it is not as bad as the AK which has a direct piston and will heat up a handguard to the point you can't hold it after 2 mags at full auto. As far as "over heating" an M-4....I have seen guys run 700 rounds (one mag right after another) on full auto before the gas tube lets loose. Another non-issue.
4) The AR-10??? That is just stupid. Most firefights are 300 meters and in. Why the hell would you need a full size round on a 20 inch barrel?
5) Textron it is a concept gun that is not even real. If we are going this path I want a Star Was Blaster instead of this hunk of crap. There are NO polymer cased rounds that actually work, NONE! No matter how much Milley talks about it or wishes it to be true, polymer cased rounds don't work. They have been trying for a decade. They only thing that has come from 10 years of experimenting is we know that polymer rounds are more dangerous to the shooter than the shootee. They have blown every gun up they have ever been in.
Now for the only thing me and that idiot Milley can agree on. The 6.5 is a bad ass round. It shoots straighter longer and has a hell of a punch. The ballistic coefficient (BC) is around .61 (where a 5.56 is .168). It is the best of any bullets ever made...ever. What does the BC mean. It means once that baby is in flight it is not effected by wind or humidity as much. It also means it does not lose as much velocity as other rounds, so it shoots straighter further and faster. It is easier to hit a target without windage adjustments and when you hit the target it is going to cause more damage because it still has power left. It also means that it does have to have a huge case for large amounts of gun powder because the bullet is more efficient and does not need to be traveling at 3000ft/sec at the barrel to lethally hit a target at 400 meters.
(4)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SSgt (Join to see) - But since both have given up on taking over other countries they have kind of slowed down on weapons design. Germany will never design something as good as the MG42 again. It has been copied dozens of times to include our M-60 and M-240s. Belgium has not came up with anything since the FAL other than some really kickass new shotguns. It just seams like guns get new outer shells, but the insides are the same.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT William Howell - Yup. I'm confident that the next big thing will be lasers. The good guys will have blue lasers and the bad guys will have red. However, if GI Joe taught us anything, no one will ever be hit, and there will never be any casualties...lol
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Popular Mechanics has finally stumbled down the rabbit hole.
And then you have others that appear to have fallen down a different rabbit hole, when it comes to comparing ammunition.
Some of you commenting obviously do not know the difference between rimmed and rimless ammunition to start with.
How about knowing the difference between 7.62x51, 7.62x54, and 7.62x39?
Or knowing the difference between 5.56x45 and 5.45x39?
And then you have others that appear to have fallen down a different rabbit hole, when it comes to comparing ammunition.
Some of you commenting obviously do not know the difference between rimmed and rimless ammunition to start with.
How about knowing the difference between 7.62x51, 7.62x54, and 7.62x39?
Or knowing the difference between 5.56x45 and 5.45x39?
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Robert Webster - My point is still that we do use AK47s, not solely M4s. Therefore, you would be able to use 7.62x54R if you were carrying this rifle & it is chambered in such. If we were to switch to solely using 6.5, then we are at a caliber that is in-between both. No chance in hell of coming across compatible ammo. The questionable would be, where did it come from. No one can be sure of who manufactured/loaded the rounds you may find.
I also wonder how many current AKs that are being sold to countries outside of Russia are actually chambered in 54R? In Vietnam they were chambered in 51mm. the 54r has become an uncommon round. I would think that quickly produced models of the AK would be made in the caliber that is most common in this era - the 51mm. But the 54R is still used for sniping based on better performance.
If they were to choose to go w/ the 7.62, they would, most likely, go w/ the NATO round, which is the 51.
I also wonder how many current AKs that are being sold to countries outside of Russia are actually chambered in 54R? In Vietnam they were chambered in 51mm. the 54r has become an uncommon round. I would think that quickly produced models of the AK would be made in the caliber that is most common in this era - the 51mm. But the 54R is still used for sniping based on better performance.
If they were to choose to go w/ the 7.62, they would, most likely, go w/ the NATO round, which is the 51.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SSgt (Join to see) - Outside of SOF, what direct combat force (US Military)(i.e. Infantry) uses the AK-47, even on a semi-regular basis?
Take me to ANY standard US Army divisional arms room and show me a regularly issued AK-47, and not the demiled or trophy AK-47 for show. (I forgot this) - The AK-47 is not chambered for the 7.62x54R (rimmed)(the Dragunov is), it is chambered for the 7.62x39 (rimless).
One other thing - The discussion is about military issue weapons, NOT civilian versions.
Take me to ANY standard US Army divisional arms room and show me a regularly issued AK-47, and not the demiled or trophy AK-47 for show. (I forgot this) - The AK-47 is not chambered for the 7.62x54R (rimmed)(the Dragunov is), it is chambered for the 7.62x39 (rimless).
One other thing - The discussion is about military issue weapons, NOT civilian versions.
(2)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SSgt (Join to see) - You seem to have the idea that different ammo might be interchangeable if it's close enough. That's just not true, not even a little bit. A Russian rifle chambered in 7.62x54 is not going to successfully fire a NATO 7.62x51 (.308) round, even though it would fit in the chamber. Most likely it would rattle around inside because there's nothing to hold the round in place for the firing pin to hit the primer*. And if one was "lucky" enough for that to actually happen, it would be more likely to cause catastrophic gun failure rather than to launch a bullet. If you tried putting a 7.62x54 round in a NATO gun, the most you could do is jam the mechanism, depending on how far you got it in before quitting.
Look, some guns don't even like getting fed certain types of ammo that the gun IS designed for. Once you start trying to put ammo into the gun that the gun is NOT designed for, you may as well give up on actually firing it. The only question becomes what kinds of problems will result and how severe will those results be.
*After looking at photos, I retract my statement about 7.62x51 rattling around inside a 7.62x54 chamber. While the NATO cartridge is thinner and rimless at the base, the shoulder appears to be at the same distance from the base as the Russian round, perhaps even a little longer, and it's hard to tell the diameters at that point. My guess is that trying to force a NATO round into a Russian chamber MIIIIGHT work, but at best you would only get one round to successfully fire and you'd spend the rest of your time trying to unjam the brass, assuming the gun didn't blow up in your face.
Look, some guns don't even like getting fed certain types of ammo that the gun IS designed for. Once you start trying to put ammo into the gun that the gun is NOT designed for, you may as well give up on actually firing it. The only question becomes what kinds of problems will result and how severe will those results be.
*After looking at photos, I retract my statement about 7.62x51 rattling around inside a 7.62x54 chamber. While the NATO cartridge is thinner and rimless at the base, the shoulder appears to be at the same distance from the base as the Russian round, perhaps even a little longer, and it's hard to tell the diameters at that point. My guess is that trying to force a NATO round into a Russian chamber MIIIIGHT work, but at best you would only get one round to successfully fire and you'd spend the rest of your time trying to unjam the brass, assuming the gun didn't blow up in your face.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSgt Christopher Brose - I realize this. I i think i got confused with my own argument. The article is about replacing the current weapons. I believe I was trying to point out that if they decide to go w/ 7.62, they should go w/ something compatible w/ what the enemy uses in order to best utilize what is encountered.
I realized that firearms don't like rounds that are "made for them". Hell, I couldn't even count the number of times our duty weapons had issues w/ range round at my police department, simply because someone in the admin hallway wanted to purchase cheaper rounds to save $50.
After further reading, I tend to agree that the 6.5 is probably the best round if they do go forward because it is the best compromise of size & impact.
I realized that firearms don't like rounds that are "made for them". Hell, I couldn't even count the number of times our duty weapons had issues w/ range round at my police department, simply because someone in the admin hallway wanted to purchase cheaper rounds to save $50.
After further reading, I tend to agree that the 6.5 is probably the best round if they do go forward because it is the best compromise of size & impact.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
There is something to be said for universal specs and redundancy. However, the same arguments were probably made against adopting the 5.56 when it first came out, there were just other arguments FOR adopting a new round, and the decision was made to go ahead with it. Look at us now! The ubiquitous 5.56 is everywhere (and yes, I know that statement was redundant). If we adopt a 6.5 round, that will also be the case -- in five years, the 6.5 round will be everywhere, and it will feel like it never didn't exist in the military supply system.
So why adopt the 6.5? Because we want something that has more killing power than the 5.56, but we still want the size and weight savings from 7.62 ammo and weapons a smaller bullet represents. Otherwise, we'd just switch back to using the 7.62 for everything. Future infantry will thank us for every additional kilogram they don't have to carry.
So why adopt the 6.5? Because we want something that has more killing power than the 5.56, but we still want the size and weight savings from 7.62 ammo and weapons a smaller bullet represents. Otherwise, we'd just switch back to using the 7.62 for everything. Future infantry will thank us for every additional kilogram they don't have to carry.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSgt Christopher Brose I really like the 6.5. I fully intend on making a purchase of an FN6.5 when the funds are available to me :) Nothing quite like a pistol round that has the power of a rifle round!
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SSgt (Join to see) - Dude you need to stop. The FN pistol you are referring to is a 5.7 or 5.56 short. The 6.5 is a .2644 caliber bullet. It has one of the best ballistic coefficients of any round made. That means it flies faster further. It is not a pistol round... unless you happen to be able to get someone to make you a barrel for a Thompson Centerfire Encore. Between that and the statement that an AK shoots the 7.62R in another post I would leave the specifics to people people that have just a smidgen more trigger time. Just because you read about it does not make you an expert.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT William Howell - well hell. Not sure why I was mixing them up. I've had my eye on the FN for some time, but, for some reason my brain ain't working today.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google