I'm old enough to have carried the M-14 in combat, and although the H&K sounds like a whole lot of good ideas, am I the only one that thinks it fires a too light projectile

The one thing I have seen in the field is all these Hi-Tech toys usually function great on paper and on the test sites ( where the testers are afraid of breaking the equipment). But in the field reality rears its ugly head, where instead of just a 2-4 hour test phase its a 2-4 day field workout, this includes sweat from the soldier, lax maint, dirt, and a lot of rough handling. I love the idea of Hi-Tech but let the line soldiers decide what works and what doesn't not some REMF sitting in the pentegon thinking about all the lovely toys he just bought.

Some people have brought up the subject of choosing a domestic as opposed to a foreign manufacturer for the next generation of combat rifles.

If I'm in a firefight, I really don't care if my rifle has a "Made in the USA" stamp on it. I care that it is the highest quality, most reliable, and most effective weapon available. If it turns out some 11 year old disabled kid in Uruguay can reliably design and maufacture the most effective weapons system for our soldiers and Marines....then give him the contract.

If you want to complain about your television or automobile being designed or manufactured in another country, feel free to do so. You can debate the patriotism or economic benefits of overseas vs domestic production for consumer goods until you are blue in the face, but when life or death for our troops is on the line, the country of origin stamp is irrelevant.

The M-16, M-4 are old designs that should have been replaced in the late 70's. The proved there uselessness in Vietnam. Why do you think some many field grunts picked up an AK to work with. If the G-11 is what they say it is, I say, about time. I am the proude owner of a G-3 that has seen more rounds through it than I can remember. But it has very litle recoil, quick target re-aquisition. I sold my Ar-15 last year when everybody was looking for the preban rifles. Made a kiling and with all the money is pouring into electronic tech you would think that they would have developed a beter rifle for the field soldier. But again that just shows their priorities. The grunt has been cannon fodder. Just look at what is happening in Iraq. So when you go and vote this fall, just remember who put us where we are now. I cannot say if the other guy will be better but a change couldn't hurt.
69-81 3/75 and served in every rat hole on the planet and I have the scars to prove it.
RLTW

3930 mps muzzle vel.? I'd believe fps, but not mps.

The hardest thing we deal with is change, nobody, especially battle hardened troops like change. However, when you're dealing with a 'save your ***' scenario, anything is welcome.
Being fair and unbiased, this weapon has some very needed improvements for battle troops. I want to support USA and I'm glad H&K is building here in the USA. The bottom line? If it will bring more of our guys home....let's do it! Personally, sign me up to buy one. I can deal with a semi-auto, just fine.

As a former member of the military and an avid hunter would someone please ansewer this question
for me. Why on gods green earth would the military and the gov. put a rifle (M16/M4) that
is chambered for what the civilian population use as a varment round to kill enemy soldiers?
The .223/5.56mm round, even at close range, is incapable of knocking down a 150-180 lb. deer.
So why would you use this round to try and knock down a 180 lb. man? It isn't feasable.
Here is the muzzle velocity and Energy from winchester's website:
.223 / 5.56 mm ( 65 grain FMJ bullet)
velocity @ 100 yds. 2762
Energy @ 100 yds. 1050

.30-30 round (170 grain Silvertip bullet)
velocity @ 100 yds. 1895
energy @ 100 yds. 1355

.30-06 round (147 grain FMJ bullet)
velocity @ 100 yds. 2794
energy @ 100 yds. 2548

These numbers dont lie. A lever action rifle round has more energy down range than a M16/M4.
Sure, the .223 has a higher muzzle velocity and energy at close range, but so does the .30-30
and the .30-06.
If our military wants to be effective in the battles that it fights it needs a rifle chambered
with a round that will put the enemy on its *** with ONE round, not several.
The current myth of the weight difference between the .30 cal. round and the .223 is
not great enough to warrent an argument. A soldier will carry it into battle if he trains
carrying that weight and is used to it.
I'm sure a rifle that is chambered for the .30 cal. round can be developed that is comparable in
weight to the M16/M4 and it would have greater
killing power than the current rifles.
All arguments welcome.
Take care all.

Here's one set of claimed ballistics for the 6.8 SPC

BULLET VELOCITY (fps)
Muzzle 100 yd. 200 yd. 300 yd.
115-gr. FMJ 2,800 2,523 2,202 2,017
115-gr. BTHP 2,800 2,535 2,285 2,049
115-gr. MK 2,800 2,535 2,285 2,049
*24-inch Barrel

ENERGY (ft-lbs.)
Muzzle 100 yd. 200 yd. 300 yd.
2,002 1,622 1,250 1,039
2,002 1,644 1,345 1,075
2,002 1,644 1,345 1,075

I see three problems in the near future for the 6.8mm Rem SPC:
1. Brass- while the caliber is nothing new (6.8mm= .277 inch, the same as .270 Winchester), the case is. It's going to take time to configure machinery to produce anywhere near a large quantity of ammunition.

2. Magazines- the 6.8X43mm casing probably requires a different curve to the magazine than the 5.56mm does. If you want an examble of this, compare an AK-74 (5.45X39) magazine to one from an AK-47/AKM (7.62X39). The cartridges are about the same length, but the taper on them is different enough to require a new magazine. In the case of our Armed Forces, thats a whole lot of magazines.

3. Eternal red tape from hell- no explanation needed.

The G-11 has its own set of roadblocks:
1. The ammunition is probably on the ludicrous side of expensive (there's only one provider- RWS/Dynamit Nobel)

2. We've tried it before (remember the ACR trials? Now THAT was a collection of ray-guns).

3. Go to http://www.ginklai.net/view/272/hk_g11.html Look at those two middle pictures (No, I have no idea what language that site is in). Is it just me, or does that rifle appear to have a lot of little (and therefore easily lost) parts?

4. Talk about little bullets- that 4.7mm would just about fit in the barrel of my pellet gun! (.177 inch= 4.5mm

quote:

---

Originally posted by rob6852:
As a former member of the military, and an avid hunter, would someone please answer this question for me? Why on God's green earth would the military and the gov't. put a rifle (M16/M4) that is chambered for what the civilian population use as a varmit round to kill enemy soldiers?
The .223/5.56mm round, even at close range, is incapable of knocking down a 150-180 lb. deer.
So why would you use this round to try and knock down a 180 lb. man? It isn't feasible.

---

Reference: A Matter of Life and Death: The Virtues of 6.8mm
Rob, I believe this may shed some light on your question:
"What it all boils down to is that when the 5.56mm cartridge was first introduced to U.S. combat rifles, it was adopted because of its size and its fit with the U.S. "shoot-to-wound" philosophy of the time. While the 7.62mm NATO round used in the M-14 is much more powerful than the 5.56mm bullet, it is also much larger; a soldier can carry twice as many 5.56mm bullets as he can 7.62mm. In extended combat operations (wars lasting years), it was also estimated that wounded combatants would require more logistical support than dead ones -- with this in mind, the U.S. adopted the 5.56 round, since if the bullet did not kill outright, it would certainly cause a serious enough injury that the casualty would be hospitalized for a significant amount of time."

quote:

---

If our military wants to be effective in the battles that it fights it needs a rifle chambered with a round that will put the enemy on its *** with ONE round, not several. The current myth of the weight difference between the .30 cal. round and the .223 is not great enough to warrant an argument. A soldier will carry it into battle if he trains carrying that weight and is used to it.

All arguments welcome.
Take care all.

---

No argument there....

"I am become Death, the Destroyer, the Shatterer of Worlds."

All those ideas sound great. But the specs on the G11K2 are amazing. This weapon sounds like the best choice our military could make. Our ground troops would have a lot less weight to carry along with improved accuracy. What are we waiting for. This weapon should already be on the front lines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orca105:
The G-11 has its own set of roadblocks:
1. The ammunition is probably on the ludicrous side of expensive (there's only one provider- RWS/Dynamit Nobel)

---

That should be no problem. In the past the US army has enforced competition when adopting a new weapon system. If the choice is between competition and selling millions of rounds or not selling any to the military at all, I don't think the choice is hard.

quote:

---

2. We've tried it before (remember the ACR trials? Now THAT was a collection of ray-guns).

---

AFAIK that was just a technology assessment. It was only a three week test with 15 weapons. Besides, I think it did quite well. The German army also came pretty close to adopting the weapon (but after the wall fell there were other priorities than adopting a new rifle).

quote:

---

3. Go to http://www.ginklai.net/view/272/hk_g11.html Look at those two middle pictures (No, I have no idea what language that site is in). Is it just me, or does that rifle appear to have a lot of little (and therefore easily lost) parts?

---

Field stripping is supposedly very easy, with only 5 removable parts. Of course, because of the lack of an ejection port and the clean propellant, the gun shouldn't have to be cleaned that often.

BTW, the language is Lithuanian.

quote:

---

4. Talk about little bullets- that 4.7mm would just about fit in the barrel of my pellet gun! (.177 inch= 4.5mm

---

So? The point is that you fire a salvo of three bullets without recoil. I think that 3x4.7 does more damage than 1x5.56. And actually the bullets are 4.92x34 according to US measurement standards (In Germany, the caliber of the bore diameter is measured from land to land. In the United States, caliber is measured from groove to groove. The length of the cartridge of the G11 and HK-ACR is 33mm long, though in the United States the length of the chamber, not the cartridge case, is used to describe the round).

Personally I think that the size of the G11 is the biggest problem. A lot of soldiers are already complaining about the size of the M16, and the G11 is a pretty fat gun. On the other hand, the length of the gun is only 75cm versus 100cm for the M16 (the M4 is 84cm). Anyway, I'm not in the military. What do you military guys think? Is the length of the rifle the biggest issue or do you think that a fat gun like the G11 will hinder you more than a sleek, but longer gun (like the M4 or M16)?

Eugene Stoner's Stoner63 in polymer?

A new rifle. Why not adopt a new cartridge in 7mm, improve the magazine and the gas system on the m-16 series rifles. We already know what needs improvement on that system.

Or, improve the cartridge and utilize the H&K G-11. Light weight, short, large magazine capacity,selective fire and operator friendly.
Just upgrade the caseless cartridge, barrel interchangable and outer housing with attachment points.

I myself can hit targets with the M16 and M4 rifles at 300m and maybe a little more, but many of todays "newer" soldiers just can't seem to get the concept of marksmanship. The 5.56 round just isn't very effective against a determined enemy. It'll punch holes in alot of things, but we need something with some "knock-down" power. A new, more accurate system would be great. The government should stop screwing around with the cost aspect, and start thinking of the soldier side of it. What do we need to survive, kill our targets, and avoid collateral damage.

Hell if I thought the soldiers would carry it, I'd suggest a weapon designed around
the .45-70 Gov't. round. Butt loads of knockdown power but the recoil is a mother. I bet
the ragheads wouldn't want to face that round!
But being practical what about the .30-30 round?
It's not as heavy as the .30-06 and is ideal out to 100-150 yds. I bet the troops would
love a rifle built around this cartridge. Has good knock-down power too.
But for know i was looking at the 6.8mm Spc. Remington that Barrett is developing and
I must say it looks like a winner.
I believe in shoot to kill, to hell with shoot to wound.
Take care all.

Here's the real deal with this stuff... The weight side of the house is easy to deal with. Just like rob says, if you make us train with it, then come combat time we'll carry it. I've been on every weapon system from the MK-19 on down to the 9mm. It doesn't matter what type of weapon or ammo you have. Soldiers will always be upset about what they're carrying. This is what lets us, as leaders, know they're ok. "If "Joe" ain't complaining, we ain't training!" Like I said before, stop worrying about the little things, and start conseidering what will bring us home with less dead and wounded.

Why don't we just give everybody G11's and be done with it. Oh yeah, get rid of the M9...NOW...and as long as we are going with Heckler and Koch, lets give all pistoleers the USP .40

Re: pistols. Any thought on replacing most of M9's with the H&K MP5PDW, maybe converted to.40 S&W? Not that much bulkier than a pistol but much more firepower.(never fired one, just going on impressions).

quote:

---

Originally posted by alfa4_9:
Re: pistols. Any thought on replacing most of M9's with the H&K MP5PDW, maybe converted to.40 S&W? Not that much bulkier than a pistol but much more firepower.(never fired one, just going on impressions).

---

Too bulky and too heavy to carry as a side arm, especially when the caliber is upped. I also expect that it will be difficult to control the weapon. No, I would prefer the Glock 21. Chambered with the .45 that we all know and love. Top reliability. An excellent weapon.

Dear Member,

Your concern was also expressed when the idea of adopting a repeating rifle (after the Civil War) and even adopting the Mauser in 1890 with its clip loading magazine (ie the US Army instead picked the Krag-Jergensen and then after the Spanish American War adopted the Mauser).

Yes, batteries are a concern with any infantry weapon. But think of the battery technology when you were in Vietnam and battery technology today. Heck even think of how long batteries will last on cell phones today and two years ago. I never was a cell phone fan till I got one about six months ago and I only have to recharge it about once a week. Most likely any batterie in an infantry small arm today will have a life of over months.

Best Jack E. Hammond

quote:

---

Originally posted by SASfixer:
What do you aim with when your batteries go dead? In Viet Nam we never could get enough batteries. The soldiers and Marines in Iraq beg for batteries in their care packages. Poke out the glass with your cleaning rod and look through the tube? Maybe our troops are going to go through another episode of "requires little or no maintenance" like the M-16. They won't even get a cleaning rod, I'm sure this will be taken care of at the "unit level" too. Don't believe the B.S. about not having to re-zero ("it's zeroed at the factory business is a joke") My M-16 never failed in VN, never jammed, I cleaned it every night. Who has time to look and count the number of cartriges in a magazine during a firefight?

---