Hi all. I'm not in the military. I'm a target shooter, varmint hunter, and deer hunter. Luckily, my targets do NOT shoot back. I feel very fortunate. I wish you all the best.

I think the Grendel 6.5mm is a fantastic round. I am considering getting a custom Ruger mini 30 or 14 adapted to that round by a gunsmith who specializes in that. I don't want an AR, AK, or SKS because those guns freak out many civilians and police. The Ruger does not look like an assault rifle. I intend to use it for deer and targets freehand with open sights (open front, aperature rear). The Rugers I speak of are classic remakes of the M14 rifle, except they are scaled down, light 20" carbines in .223, 7.68 X 39, or in my case Grendel 6.5mm. I think the Grendel is a fantastic brush gun that also has good range of 260 yards and low recoil. My neck was broken 4 years ago in a car wreck and my shoulder dislocated. So low recoil is important to me. I'll only have semi-auto of course, but even so, low recoil saves my neck and shoulder.

My other favorite cartride is the .243 Remington. It's not the best brush gun, but it's certainly better than a .223 for brush. The .243 Rem is a great long distance markman's cartridge with low recoil and 300 yds range with 85 gr bullet (best weight for that round for long distance). The .243 Rem is based on a .308 Nato case, so it should easily be compatible with full auto in the M14 and AR (M16) rifles with only a little modification to the rifles' uppers.

The .243 is a great round to 300 yds with low recoil, little drop, little wind drift. It's only failing is that its fast light bullet is not ideal for brush, but is much better for brush than a .223 (my cousin hunts wtih .223 in brush country). The .243 should also have plenty of stopping power.

I think the Grendel is a fantastic round to 260 yds with low recoil and it is also a good brush gun with the same cartridges and loads. Wow. That reminds me of the .257 Roberts, which I think is very similar to the Grendel 6.5 in ballistics and brush performance, as well as stopping power. The advantage the Grendel has over the Roberts is that the Grendel's cartridge was designed for auto-loaders (semi and full). The .257 Roberts case is longer, thinner, and I think has less of an extractor area built into it. i.e. - although the Grendel and Roberts are ballistically approx identical, only the Grendel is suited to autoloaders.

FYI - the Roberts .257 and its ballistic performance were invented in the 1930s for bolt action rifles. The Grendel 6.5 is (in my opinion) a case of reinventing the ballistic wheel, but with modifications to make it work with autoloaders.

I take my hat off to the Grendel 6.5 and the .243 Remington. Both are awesome. The Grendel is probably the better all purpose round because I'm told most combat happend closer than 260 yds (Grendel's range is 260). You'd all know better than I about combat. I do know that most deer in Western WA (trees, hills, brush, and some clearings) are shot at 100 yds or closer, but occasionally in a clearing out to 250 yds. I don't know any hunter who's ever taken one past 250 yds. Most are under 100 yds.

Anyhow, don't forget about the .243 Remington. As for that larger Remington cartridge, I think it's too large and inferior to both the Grendel and the .243 Remington.

P.S. - The Browning BAR Mark 2 semi-auto hunting rifle or those AR things are both VERY accurate with .243 Remington to 300 yds and have very low recoil. The Browning is famous for its accuracy and reliability, and in .243 it's a light weight rifle at 6.6 lbs.

Please test the .243 Remington too.

We should just change the M4's caliber to the 6.5 Grendel. Or we could ignore the Geneva rules and just supply the soldiers with 5.56 hollowpoints. Besides its not like the Al-Qaida cares about civilized warfare/

I agree we should supply all of our troop's with Hollow Points. Unfortunatly the G.O.A wolud step in and deem it not cost efective. After all most bean counters have not fired a weapon since basic!

Covert Surf

quote:

Originally posted by Fallen9631:
We should just change the M4's caliber to the 6.5 Grendel. Or we could ignore the Geneva rules and just supply the soldiers with 5.56 hollowpoints. Besides its not like the Al-Qaida cares about civilized warfare/

I would ask them, "what's more cost effective buying hollow-points or having to replace dead soldiers?" I'm pretty sure training a rifleman costs more than bullets.

i don't think it matters at this point. While over there I never came across anyone saying "wow, I shot the guy and it didn't do a thing."

The XM-8 is a waste of taxpayers' money. Its marginally better than the M-4, and as someone already stated, the M-4 is improving all the time. Besides, they've not met the contract conditions for the ACR. the weapon was initially supposed to be an integral grenade launcher / battle rifle combo. weighing 10lbs or less. H&K abandoned the grenade launcher when they couldn't get the weapon under 14lbs (or $10,000!). I'm glad congress has suspended the program!
I'm surprised noboby mentioned the Belgians. FN has been making US and British battle rifles, machineguns, and tactical vehicle mounts since WWI. The FN FAL is, in my opinion as a shooter, the best semi-auto rifle I've ever shot, and I've not heard too much negative about the minimi (M-249), or the Browning M-2HB! Their new P2000 bullpup rifle, chambered in 5.56x45 NATO includes an optional integral grenade launcher / shotgun / Less-Lethal projectile launcher at just 10.15lbs. Without the grenade launcher, the weapon weighs less than 8lbs. With the grenade launcher, over all length is 29 inches, 27 without it, and an even more compact version is in the works. Despite its lack of a folding stock, the rifle is more compact than the M-4, with a longer barrel (15.75").

It supports ambetexterous operation, and the standard 1.6xoptical sight can be replaced with any sort of sight one could think to attach, care of a standard integral rail mount.
As for caliber issues, FN makes a 5.7mm in pistol / rifle caliber that will punch through any body armor protection as well as a 5.56mm, but with only 1/3 of the recoil. If the US is willing to change calibers, this may be a good option for fighting inside 200 meters.

In my opinion, the P2000 incorporates the best features of the L85, FA-MAS, and M-4 rifle systems, and the military should take a long look at the contender from Belgium and the Browning bros. before signing ANYTHING with H&K.

I am classified as Distinguished with pistol and still working on the rifle classification. When will someone take a serious look at the M16 and Baretta Pistol?

While at the Abardeen proving grounds I saw the replacement of Warrent and Non Comissioned Officers on the various weapons boards and have am not happy with the weapons the troops are getting.

First with the M16 . When I first saw what is now the M16 it was in .308 caliber and had the ability to use a 200 round back pack. At Benning the weapon proved to be unreliable. Years later I volunteered for Vietnam and found some advisory useing a version that came from the Netherlands. Over the years I have shot various versions of the M16 and had some ordnance tinkers work up various match rifles and still keep essential M16 parts. To date I have not seen a M16 that should be issued to line troops.

The politics involved in the issue to the M16 and the continued issue of it as a basic infantry weapon is a tragic mistake. It is a fair carbine type but no match for a AK 47 in .30cal{.308}

When my son was in Iraq he sent home a distress message about the issue magazines for his squads Baretta pistols and we sent him some replacement magazines. During the first Gulf war comments were passed aroud by Marines who said they issued two Baretta pistols because of problems with the weapon. I am one of those troops that served at Abardeen Proving grounds when the Baretta was tested and congress held a review of the weapon because of problems with it.It seems that contractors have about as mutch sway as Gen Scott had when he rejected the Colt revolver in favor of the single shot pistol.

I heard G. G. Liddy reading some after action reports out of Iraq and it seems the 5.56 has gotten worse for stopping power with the ss109 round. A SF hero was shot by a tango that already had 7 rounds in the chest. Finally put down by a well-placed 45acp.
This got me think about this new 6.8 Remington. Sure the gun writers like it, but they’re using a soft point. Not a FMJ.
Last night, I just happened on an article in PO Ackley's book volume 2, all about this issue. A Col. Frank Chamberlain at Aberdeen wrote it in the 20's and 30's, who personally killed scores of hog and goats to study wounds and lethality. The chapter is titled gun shot wounds.
Of note; a cartridge almost identical to the 6.8 was deemed as the worst. This is spooky.
He was real keen on a .256 caliber with a 125-grain bullet traveling at 2700 fps. All this is observation, x-raying bones, chrongraphing exiting projectiles, and measuring wound channels etc., not speculation. Years of work. A very interesting observation is the effect of a full stomach has on wounding.
They just kept the 30-06 of course, but he liked the .256 not only for performance, but because two of those .256 rounds were equivalent in size to a 30.06.
I wonder if the pentagon still has his reports, otherwise it may be déjà vu all over again.

quote:

Originally posted by OEFMP:
My question is, why is Springfield not up in arms (pun intended!) over the idea that a U.S. Rifle could come from a foreign entity. They should be willing to risk EVERYTHING on R/D to win the new contract. IMO, Springfield Rifles are SECOND TO NONE, and believe me, I have fired a broad mix of Rifles. You show me a Kalashnikov variant that was ever made on a par with Springfield quality. The last time a foreign made rifle issued to U.S. Soldiers was better than a Springfield was in the early 1860's. By the way, they also make a fine M1911A1 variant that is accurate, reliable, and (in .45 caliber) has unbeatable stopping power. Springfield would never leave U.S. Soldiers with their collective Richard swingin' in the wind. They have shown a willingness to farm out manufacture to other U.S. companies when they can't meet the required production. I say we all (as U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines) write a letter to Springfield asking them not to let us down on this one. Remember, H&K is a German Company. Germany is not a supporter of U.S. Foreign Policy. There was an earlier comment about them possibly trying to crawfish the deal if they don't agree with our Government. Springfield weapons are built by Americans, for Americans!

I have to agree with that. I've fired several M-14 style rifles and loved every one of them, and I'd be thrilled to get the chance at one of the new SOCOM style rifles. 7.62, rifle goes boom, bad guys fall down.

If you want to replace the M-4/M-16 I would say the the FN P90

P90 SUBMACHINE GUN
The P90 is the ultimate system for operating in urban and other close-quarter battle scenarios. This system is built around our revolutionary FN 5.7 x 28mm ammunition. It utilizes the SS190 armor piercing duty round, but since the dual core destabilizes on impact, overpenetration is unlikely. The P90 provides a compact, lightweight and completely ambidextrous platform for this ammunition. The 50 round magazine runs horizontally across the top of the P90, keeping it compact and empty casings are ejected downward, where they cannot interfere with the user. The P90 fires from a closed bolt, giving it outstanding accuracy and making it easy to keep on target. Ideal personal defense weapon for armored vehicles or helicopter crews. Perfectly fitted for law enforcement tactical teams. Other P90 configurations include the P90 Triple Rail, P90 Laser Visible, P90 Infrared (IR), P90 USG and the P90 USG IR. The Triple Rail and Standard are also available in semi-automatic.

quote:

Originally posted by alpharavenmwa:
If you want to replace the M-4/M-16 I would say the the FN P90

You're kidding, right?

You do realise the P90 is a submachine gun and the M4/M16 are assault rifles?

I think he meant for non infantry troops. It WOULD be perfect for tankers, sailors, airmen, troops in hummers (I have heard that the M-4 can be cumbersome to shoot out a hummer window) etc. The P90 is as accurate as the M-4 out to 100 yards, but it loses accuracy and penetration outside of that range. It isn't designed to replace the M-16, but it can do a lot of the same things as the M-4.

Personally, I see the benefit of having one weapon that can do it all (M-16/M-4), as opposed to separate weapons (P90 for non-infantry and special missions, and M-4 for infantry) for specific mission parameters. However, the P90 is a fine piece with low recoil and high capacity.

Sorry folks, but you have GOT to upgrade from the pathetic .223 caliber to at least .243 or .270. Accuracy, range, terminal ballistics, F/P of energy are all lacking in the 223 caliber beyond 100 yards. It's time to admit, as our troops in Iraq are complaining, that we need a hard hitting rifle round that can actually stop the enemy, not just sting him.

I waqs just at winchester web site and if u do a search for .223 rounds that are adaquate for use on small game it comes back with no search results. we use that round on dangerous game weighing over 150lbs usually. sounds like it would be a joke if it wasn't serious. i agree we need a larger round and i dont see how it is considered more humane to shoot a round that mortaly wounds your oppenent so he dies 15 or 20 min later instead of killing him instantly. could somebody explain that to me.

dont change the m16 change the bullet weight

I've seen lots of posts about buying American made, etc... If I ran HK I'd forget trying to sell to the U.S. military other than to Special units. The politics alone of replacing the 'issue' rifle are staggering. The brass and politicians are more fickle than a teenager. Personally, I wouldn't want anything made by Colt, and I do mean anything. The M16/M4 is the only system that was American designed now anyway. Everything else is Belgian, Italian, etc...

I'm not going to get all worked up about it, the U.S. has a long history of going with an average rifle over a better import. The M14 over the FN/FAL or G-3 is a prime example of this. (Bear in mind the M14 was used for a very short time and was dumped for the 'outstanding' M16 series... this ties into the fickle part... )

There are dozens of highly useful, reliable, and reasonably priced rifles in the world. HK, Valmet, FN, IMI/Galil, all make good to excellent rifles. Many of the newer rounds won't perform any better than 7.62 Nato, in FMJ. My point here is that somebody will try to sell some brass and/or congressman on the idea of spending a mint on R&D just to re invent the wheel, and probably do a half arsed job while doing it.

u know wat. the m8 looks to much like a star wars rifle. if its fielded, other manufacturers will say, how bout us? then we have prototype blaster rays lol in a way etc. i have seen the m4 used in iraq. it works fine. whe needs the m8? all troops need to do is stop being lazy and clean and take care of rifles. then we wont have problems. and since Marine SF's arent SOCOM, im glad we wont have the SCAR or the SOCOM pistol or blah blah blah. as an armorer, troops come to me and ask me to add a scope to their m16 or and acog sight or yadda. i do it. the m16 and the m4 are a fine rifle. deep down i believe the m4 will be the next standard issue rifle for our boys and girls on the frontlines. weve been usin american weapons since wat WW2? the L85 has too many problems, the G3 is basically a buff MP5. besides we and thumbs up to ducdriver, the xm8 is a movie thing. leave it on the table for the next Alien or Starship trooper movie. keep the m16 and m4 im out

the p90 is a pdw in a way, but what bout the mp5-n? is perfect for non-infantry troops! c'mon, the p90 is still a foreign weapon, i know the mp's are but they been used buy usa for years!

Hello to all, First a little bit about me. I am a CATM (Combat Arms Training and Mait.) Instructor. When it comes to a Rifle or Pistol that is issued by the USAF (M16A1, M16A2, M4, M9, M203, M203A1, M249, M240B, M60, MK-19, M2, M24 ect.) I have extensive experiance with. I have read the page concerning XM8 vs M16 series and have some flaws I would like to bring to light.

A half dozen incarnations of the M-16/M-4 are currently in service, and none of them have parts that are 100% interchangeable with a different series weapon.

All parts of the M16 series are based on a common reciever. There has only been 3 variations to the recievers M16 (No Fwd assist No detent for the pivot pin) M16A1 (No Fwd assist) M16A2 however I can take all the parts and interchange them with in the differnt revievers in any combination that the mission requires. You want fully auto take a M16A1 triger, disconector and hammer and drop them into the M4. This includes barrels which come in 2 dif lenghts M16 and M4 or GAU. with in the 2 dif lengths there are 2 differnt rifleing a 1 - 7 twist and a 1 - 10 twist. If using a 1-7 the M855 privides more accuracy then the M193. (differnt powder and heaver bullet weight)

For the M-16, mounting optics requires the use of weapon specific (read: non-interchangeable) adapters.

As far as optics they are all based on mounting on the carrying handle so there for are interchangable also. The M4 does come with a carring handle when purched new how ever most commands remove the handle and mount the M68 directly to the rail system on the top of the reciever. the M68 does come with mounting hardware to mount it to the carrying handle.

The M-16A1 (still in widespread service with the National Guard and Reserves) was designed to fire the M198 5.56mm Ball cartridge, while the M16A2 and later rifles (used by Active Duty formations) was designed to fire the heavier M855 cartridge. While both rifles can chamber and fire both types of bullet, the M885 bullet weighs more, and is less accurate when fired from the M16A1.

I work with 6 difernt NG and Reserve bases and NONE of them still issue or other wise train with a M16A1. The AF will not alow you to deploy or train with a M16A1 unless it has a 1-7 twist barrel on it (M16A2 conversion). There for you would fire the M885 and have better accuracy then with the 1-10 twist.

Of course, all the fancy weapons and attachments on a rifle don't mean much if it jams on the operator. One of the M-16's major flaws is jamming, due to its gas operating system, where propellant gasses are used to cycle the rifle's bolt and fire bullets. In the M-16, these gasses are vented directly back to the rifle chamber itself. This means that every time the weapon is fired, propellant gasses, gunpowder residue, and other particles are deposited directly on the bolt face (this process is called "fouling"). Eventually, the bolt becomes too dirty to fully lock into place, rendering the weapon unreliable.

This is a gross lack of knowledge of the cycle of operation of the m16 series weapons. When the primor is struck gas pressure builds up and propels the round down the barrel. When the bullet passes the gas block (Under the rear most leg of the front sight "A" Frame) gas pressure is cycled back up the gas tube and twards the bolt carrier. The gas pressure first enters the gas key on top of the bolt carrier. With in the bolt carrier the gas pressure is exerted on the BACK OF THE BOLT ( behind the gas rings). This gas pressure starts the bolt carrier moving back when this happens the bolt cam pin rotates the bolt unlocking the bolt from the barrel socket. then the weapon extracts, Ejects, Cocks, Feeds, chambers and locks. at no time is any of the recycled gas pressure vented or other wise depossited on the bolt face or the locking lugs. Further more I have 192 M16A2 rifles for training purposes. These rifles are fired (100 rds)atleast 2 times a week and some times more. I have never ever seen a bolt so dirty that it would not lock into place.

I am not trying to say that the XM8 is not a better weapon then the M16 series but if you are going to compare two things you need to have the correct information on both.

I love the M16 series rifles they are accurate, relieable, and easy to use. But if Uncle Sam says the XM8 is the new rifle I will learn it and someday hopefully love it also.

Jim.

i was going to rant at you guys for a long time, but i will just post some shot info instead. Sorry, this is not bragging, just my xp.

M16A2: My favorite.

Rounds fired: several thousand.
Best shot. Human, left torso, range just under 600 yds, 1 shot, location Iraq.

Ak47: Hate it!

Rounds fired: About 1K
Best shot, T33 rifle target, 6 ring, range 200 yds, shots 30 semi, location, Utah.

M9 pistol: Throw it off a cliff.

Rounds fired: 60 or so.
Best shot, the wall behind the target, range 15 yds, shots 60, location, Parris Island. (jammed every shot!)

M40A3 DMR: (In love, not with the sight)

Rounds fired: ??? several hundred.
Best shot, Human, center chest, range, 700 yds, 1 shot, location, Iraq.

M82A1: BOOM!

Rounds fired: 70.
Best shot, Rock on hillside, range 1100 yds, 2 shots, location, California.

M203: (Drools)

Rounds fired: 13
best shot, disabled BTR, range, about 150 yds, 3 shots, location, California.

M249 SAW: (Kick) (Douse) (Burn)

Rounds fired: 397 (three dead rounds)
Best shot: dont know, did not qualify with weapon system.