Ammo For Sale

« « Good. | Home | So, people can’t use basic tools? » »

This could be interesting

The Army thinks it needs a bigger bullet.

18 Responses to “This could be interesting”

  1. Phelps Says:

    The poodle threat is now behind us.

  2. nk Says:

    Back to 1882 and Colonel Rubin’s concept. Back then, the colonial powers wanted rifles that were effective at a longer range than the natives’ muzzleloaders’ in open country. Now the natives have AKs.

  3. HL Says:

    Give them the SCAR 17 and be done with it.

  4. Deaf Smith Says:

    So the Army is using the M16 jamming in VIETNAM as reason for a new rifle?

    ISIS using more ‘lethal’ bullets??? What bullets are they using that are more lethal? .303 British?’

    Increase in body armor? Why not make a true AP 5.56. We have a semi-armor piercing round but not a true AP round.

    Oh and only $2 billion! But fear not, they want to just arm 100,000 GIs for a paltry $100 million. The rest I guess will keep using the M4!

    Okie Dokie!

  5. aerodawg Says:

    This is the first step in the transition from brass cased ammo in reality. What they really want is that bigger bullet in a cased telescoping format so they get the same ammo load at the same weight with increased terminal effects, especially at range. The fact that you can then use a common ammunition type across your standard rifle, DMR, SAW and GP machine gun is a plus as well….

  6. KM Says:

    As Deaf Smith noted: (from the link) “problems with jamming that have plagued the M16/M4 for decades“.

  7. Huck Says:

    Just dust off and re-issue the trusty M1 Garand. Problem solved.

  8. orbitup Says:

    @ Huck – An M1 with plastic furniture and a detachable 30 round mag…. I can almost picture it.

  9. mikee Says:

    I, for one, look forward to a liter of propellant shoved into the stock, a magazine of AP bullets feeding the firing chamber, and me shooting the rifle until my trigger finger gets tired. Imagine a paintball gun shooting bullets – it will make the M41A Pulse Rifle look like something from an old movie.

    Or, heck, maybe an M1 with plastic furniture.

  10. rickn8or Says:

    @ orbitup: in 7.62 NATO.

  11. Publicola Says:

    I could make an argument for the Garand ya know…

    But I’ve been saying for years that the best long gun for standard issue to the military would be a BM-59 in a hot little 6.5 or 7mm cartridge. These days I’m leaning towards the .260 Remington. Replace the rear handguard with a rail for a dot or LER scope (& for Vishnu’s sake keep the walnut! or at least use a laminate stock instead of plastifying the dang thing)& toss on a tritium front sight. Oh & use an elevation knob calibrated in yards, because Murica.

    Cost would be a problem, though I’m thinking Ruger casting the receivers instead of some middle aged fellow with a cigar hanging from his mouth machine-whitlin’ each one from a block of raw organic free range steel might make it competitive-ish. & I see no reason why MagPul couldn’t make a polymer mag & maybe even add 5 or 10 rounds to what it’d normally tote. (though those original BM-59 mags are impressive. They wouldn’t survive a direct nuclear blast, but the pieces would be identifiable.)

  12. nk Says:

    Well, actually, Garand the inventor wanted to chamber the Garand the rifle in a .286 which, according to The Army Times, is close to what the Army is looking at now. The reason it went .30-06 is because we already had large stocks of it and production lines for it. Not to mention caliber interchangeability for the BAR and various .30 machine guns.

  13. KevinM Says:

    Any takers for 6.5 Creedmoor?

  14. Drake Says:

    Some flavor of 6.5 would certainly be a better long-range shooter and a better stopper and perpetrator. But we already knew that in the 30’s as nk said, and in the 40’s and 50’s when the Army ignored all the tests and picked the 7.62 over Brit .280.

    I predict absolutely nothing will come of this.

  15. Publicola Says:

    nk – the .276 pederson is what you’re thinking of. 2 inch heavily tapered case launching a 140 grainer at 2400 fps. That’s the cartridge Garand designed the Garand around, cause that’s what the army wanted until Macarthur stepped in. Also why the Garand holds 8 – it held 10 of the .276, but when they had to switch to ’06 they could either scale up or live with 8.

    Kevin – I lean towards the .260 not in small part cause it’s spelled in American as opposed to metric, but I could leave with either ballistics wise. Both seem to be decent cartridges with not a lot of difference.

  16. Irish Says:

    What about the M-14 all though I did like the M-1 @ 2
    to 300 yes.

  17. nk Says:

    Thank you, Publicola. Yes, .276 not .286.

  18. Thomas J Crowley Says:

    It looks like I am the only one to catch or remark on the shooter in the picture as shooting correctly (both eyes open). Thank you very much.