Ain't it Garand ?

With thanks to Eugene, from Kim DuToit's Nation of Riflemen Forum.

Love him or hate him, ol' Rummy sure gets 'em riled up.

For all the anger directed at the Secretary of Defense, I do notice that the troops seem to respond very favorably to him, each and every time he's in their midsts.

I just wish he'd get that damned .5.56mm poodleshooter upgraded to the 6.8 SPC, soonest!

Oh, and Allah is so fucked if he's depending on mere Kevlar to stop an 'aught-six round.  (but don't tell him that!)

That Rummy.  Such the joker!

Comments

[Rivrdog]

I've never said a mean thing on your blog, Jim, but I'm about to now.

Why the hell do you want to upgrade the poodleshooter to a labradorshooter? We shoot MEN with military rifles, and that calls for 7.62 AT LEAST.

Why isn't the Army weapons development lab either working up a lighter version of the M-14, or trying some available weapons from Italy, Germany or Spain in the correct 7.62 NATO?

The whole idea behind the 5.56 is moot now: we DO shoot at over 200 meters and we DO need a bullet with weight to penetrate wood and even brick. We DO train soldiers to carry more weight, and the ammo weight difference in a battle load is probably no more than 5# anyway.

The 6.5 SPC is a compromise, and we don't want or need compromises for our soldiers to have to kill with.

[Jim]

Rivrdog,

There's been tons written already about this, but I'll try to sum it up briefly.

The 7.62x51 NATO round is great.

But the 6.8 SPC can go into service damn near immediately, just with a swap of uppers and very slight modification of magazine on the present AR/M-16/A-4 platform.

Orders for 6.8 uppers could go into production tomorrow. Aberdeen would never let another platform into the field without their decades-plus bureacracy fouling things up. (XM-8 ring a bell?)

The 6.8 SPC offers an immediate improvement to the troops in the field right now. With no change of training or other equipment. This is what I meant by upgrading to the 6.8 ASAP.

Should the 7.62 NATO come back as a primary round, it ought not be in the M-14, much as it pains me to say. Modern platforms offer the troops far more versatility in fit of stock length-of-pull and all manner of accessories.

An AR-10 platform, with the short-stroke gas piston of the AR-180 might be a good basis. Unbeatable egronomics, no shit where it eats factor, and nearly all present accessories bolt right on.

It appears the 6.5 Grendel is a non-starter, as it reportedly doesn't feed well in the belt-fed arena. The case-shoulder is too far back on the case, and the feed pawls don't grab 'em reliably. At least, not without major re-design of the feed mechanisms.

Perfect is the enemy of the Good. The 6.8 SPC is a GOOD (and quickly implementable) answer to the present weakness of the 5.56 poodlepopper.

Get the remaining M-14s out into the field as a Designated Marksman rifle. With every squad or fire-team. That can, and should be done.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Rivrdog]

Know whatcha mean, Verne. You are looking to upgrade NOW, but just how fast could these uppers get out to the field, and are there sufficient armorer troops in the Sandbox to do all that fitting?

What about the SAW? Can it be modified?

Maybe we need to do something bold (Rummy's specialty). How about bypassing the "traditional" acquisition process from Aberdeen and just contracting the whole thing out with IMI? They produce the AR-10, I believe.

You didn't address the ammo factor. There is adequate 7.62 in the field, and more can be acquired, as there is a logistics stream in place. The 6.8 is a new round, with no logistics stream, no other nations using it.

Going to the 6.8 would be like telling the Army it had to change to the .257 Roberts (which is close to that cartridge, if I recall). If every round of it was snarfed up and sent to the theater of war, there could still never be enough.

Nope, go to the AR-10. The troops will be as familiar with it's Stoner action as a modified poodleblaster.

Glad you beminded me of the AR-10, though. I was supposed to start acquisition on one and it's none to soon.

[Jim]

Dawg, sah.

Any complete AR platform upper, when fully assembled (as would be the case with a 6.8 conversion, is a two-pin, drop-in and ready-to-use assembly. Click-click, initial-zero.

Period.

The SAW's pawl just doesn't like the Grendel, nor the 249. The Grendel's shoulder is only 1mm ahead of the disentegrating link; hardly any room for the 2.5mm pawl to grab. The 6.8 works fine in test units with plenty of case ahead of the link.

So, the only hang up in the process is the ammo supply, and that is surely the fastest part of the chain to be caught-up.

Converting to the 6.8 on an area-by-area basis in the sandbox would keep ammo conflicts to a bare minimum, and only when the last 5.56 issued units are bracketed by 6.8 carriers, would ammo conflict be much of a threat.

The AR-10 is a good platform, but then you can go to the any gun forum on the net and get endless pro/con about recoil, 2nd shot recovery speed, full-auto controllabiltiy, etc., ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum.

To me, a 6.8 assault rifle/carbine platoform, with a 7.62 NATO MBR would be a hard combo to beat in inventory. Use either or both, as needed.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

[Jay G]

F**k it.

Bring back the Garand...