Kind of what I was thinking. The M855A1 (from what I’ve read and heard) indeed does pretty well terminally against targets, albeit it with a higher chamber pressure and the resultant accelerated wear issues. Also, to call M855A1 a “revision” of M855 is a bit of an oversimplification: it’s an entirely different round.
You’re thinking of Hague, not Geneva (the source of many JDs in Barracks Lawyering), which we are not signatory to, and neither are many of our enemies. And often does not apply, due to lack of uniforms, etc.
“Hey man you can’t use Ma Deuce on people!!! Cause Geneva Convention!”
[emoji38][emoji38][emoji38][emoji38][emoji38][emoji38]
Actually, in 1983 at Ft. Benning Infantry OSUT we were told that in fact .50 BMG should indeed only be used on “equipment”, and not enemy troops themselves…but “equipment” was AK-47’s, helmets, LBE,s, rucksacks, etc. :rolleyes:
Yes the same comment was made to Ft. Sill OSUT kids in the 90s. [emoji16]
Only combat arms troops/units will get the new platforms. The vast majority of Soldiers will still use the M4/M16 platforms. REMFs and other non-combatants do not need newer weapons.
Maybe a bit off topic, but the 2 piece case seems like it would fail more easily than a 1 piece. Anybody have any thoughts on that?
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
I was agreeing with you, citing examples of rifles that were a step backwards. Its almost like people don’t understand history.
While I hate government barrels, the URGI really takes that to the next level. Convert all M4s to that and you’re doing pretty well.
Supposedly the pressure has been trimmed back so it’s not even really a concern anymore.
What an ignorant comment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with a lot of what you said. IMO MK262 should be the standard round across the board.
About that Mk262 round… Word on the street is that it is very good antipersonnel but not so hot against armored opposition. So, great for civilians who don’t expect to be shooting cops or soldiers, but maybe not so great against peer-type opponents. But I’m outside my lane, and this is way off topic.
My brain is slow today. Maybe most days.
Andy
No that is generally agreed upon. However 855A1 has pretty good penetration… maybe not this good but we could probably say good enough and throw the money at other things to compensate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From shooting people, m855a1 is better than mk262 and that was fighting ISIS. ISIS had body armor our old Sapis plates we gave to the Iraqi Army the m855a1 defeated it.
I really Like the mk318 as well but I only had enough for 16 mags and that didn’t last long until I had to use other ammo including mk262 and m855.
The new 7.62x51 round is really nice too.
Found additional info on the contract which makes more sense. 20 million as other have said isnt many guns and accessories.
“Overall, the contract for Sig Sauer covers 10 years — really a series of one-year ordering period — with a max ceiling value of $4.7 billion. The Army expects to procure up to 250,000 rifles during that period, but there is wiggle room for additional customers — if, for example, the US Marines or other nations express interest.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/why-new-ammo-is-a-daunting-challenge-for-the-armys-new-rifle/
Quoted for truth. If this does get adopted in any wide-scale manner, it’ll be the “NEXT BIG THING!” that everyone is suddenly on board with.
Interesting, since there are roughly a million Active, Guard, and Reserve soldiers.
Andy
The initial contract is for testing and integration. The follow on of 250K or so rifles and LMGs is for fielding to close combat soldiers (Infantry, Scouts, Combat engineers, etc.) This is not for fielding to the entire force, the M4 will be around for a long time.
Considering that this thing needs a bunch of extra mechanical innovations PLUS a suppressor to shoot safely, I’d doubt it.
Some claim that the M193 round in the old 1:12 twist barrels had more lethal terminal effects than later rounds. But most of that is anecdotal.