Seeing how in the “scar 16 getting canceled” thread discusses effort in the military SF obtaining a 7.62x51mm “battle rifle” (mk17) to “fill in a gap”, it leads me to ask…
…what is that gap? You have your 5.56mm infantry rifle, then your 7.62mm DMR/Snipers rifle, so what is the purpose of the 7.62mm battle rifle now, and what weapons will it be replacing that couldn’t do the job before?
so what is the purpose of the 7.62mm battle rifle now, and what weapons will it be replacing that couldn’t do the job before?
Turning cover into concealment .
Considering that the 7.62 is heavy package to hump around the Afghan mountains with, I don’t see it as being a replacement for the 5.56. What we are seeing in the Afghan war is more designated marksmen per unit as the combat ranges in that terrain are much further than your typical battlefield. The 5.56 has limited penetration and terminal effects ability beyond 300m, so the 7.62 fills the need. However, the 7.62, even in the SCAR is very hard to control in full auto. As soon as the military engages in closer ranged warfare on another front, you’ll likely see fewer 7.62 weapons and more 5.56. Vietnam for example? I think that the 7.62 will remain a special teams weapon, and not a general infantry issue. As far as the MK17 adoption goes, they can’t keep using aging M14s with moderate accuracy and limited options forever.
7.62x51 simply works better in the hands of a trained and skilled gunfighter. The other side of the coin is that that description does not fit the majority of our military.
Unfortunately you’re probably right.
Oh-oh…now you’ve done it :D.
I agree with you. It is a superior round (in a suitable weapon system, that is) for someone who can use its abilities, but that’s not most people.
(Note: This should in no way be construed to mean that I think an iron-sighted M14 is a superior weapon to a properly dressed M4. Sorry, “battlerifles.com” dudes, but it’s not. But a modern 7.62x51, with all the capabilities and accessories that the modern 5.56 weapons have, is truly a superior weapon.)
During testing, the M855A1 performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds.
Since 1957. 
So what? Apply modern technology to 7.62mm instead of comparing a new load to a 1950s load, and the picture changes dramatically. The new Mk319 Mod 0 or 155gr TAP will be SIGNIFICANTLY more effective than any 5.56 load.
Turning cover into concealment .
I’ve always thought that was the job of the GPMG, considering it’s an area weapon rather a point target weapon like a rifle.
Plus the use of explosives, etc. Then again I may be wrong because I’ve never served in the military. Just going off of what I’ve learned so far.
7.62 NATO is an immediate solution to an immediate problem that can be implemented without stressing current supply and logistical chains.
I doubt the USA is going to go backwards and embrace 7.62 NATO as a long term solution for every Soldier and Marine.
But, you still have all the drawbacks of 7.62,
Weight
Recoil
Size
Cute cliches aside, there are plenty of “trained and skilled” gunfighters, that have no issues with the 5.56
Bob
+1
A better alternative to the 7.62 for general issue would be either the 6.8 SPC or the 7x46 Murray. The 6.8 would be a viable replacement for the 5.56, and the 7x46 would be a better designated marksman cartridge or universal cartridge. Either one would be a step in the right direction IMO, but would require changes in supply and logistics. Then of course there is still the reliance on NATO supply chains and going to a non NATO cartridge would complicate that.
How about better distribution and correct deployment of crew served weapons, instead?
Seriously, rifles are used to get your GPMG’s into position to do the real killing.
The bad guys are not outranging us with rifles, for God’s sake. And piss-poor marksmanship with 5.56 won’t magically improve with 7.62 x 51mm.
IMHO that is not said enough. A miss is a miss. Being shitty with 5.56 does not mean you become awesome once you have 7.62x51.
PJ
You’ve hit the nail on the head with that there. Speaking as an active duty soldier, there needs to be less debate about things like this and more attention paid to getting our guys shooting their weapons to their fullest potential. Just pick up any copy of the Army Times and look at the pictures.
The SEALs in particular are big believers in 7.62 rifles.
Special missions, special requirements. For regular soldiers 7.62 is just too heavy.
Solution: 6.5 Grendel, but no one is listening.
So what’s changed? The 30-06 was introduced in 1906- it goes back to 1903 if you count the long necked version. The average American fighting man has been using a 30 caliber 150 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of about 2750 fps from WWI all the way up through the Korean Conflict with great effectiveness.
Were our great grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers better “gunfighters” than our current crop?
I don’t make this point to argue which caliber should or should not be issued. Today’s military members receive better training than ever before.
Is it the weaponry of our enemies? Does the AK make our warfighters less effective as gunfighters? Or is it that if you repeat a myth often enough about a caliber, be it 7.62x51 or 5.56x45, it becomes the true in too many minds?
IIRC, someone recently posted an article from TIME written shortly after the adoption of the then new Garand. It was said to have been plagued with reliability problems if the article was to be believed.
Point is, many of these caliber/reliability issues are more about perception rather than performance.
Maybe in some regards. Accuracy was more stressed back then because you had less rounds, and no 30rd mags. If you have a gun with a max capacity of 8rds before having to reload you have a natural inclination to make each shot worth more. Also back then there were no armored vehicles for every soldier, no body armor, no optics except for snipers, no lasers, etc.
I don’t personally think the 556 is lacking anything but long range training, and we need a better bullet than M855. Standard Army training does not shoot for accuracy expect minute of man, and many times “leaders” will tell their soldiers to not even shoot at the 300M targets, and to save their rounds in case they miss a closer target they can shoot at it more than once. We need to be teaching people how to make effective shots out to 500M-600M, and issue them a round that produces better results than M855 is capable of. I can’t count how many firefight videos Ive seen where people with M4’s are shooting longer range, and just rapid firing in the general direction of their target sometimes not even using their sights. That is not what a rifleman is supposed to do. An M4 is not there for suppressive fire. So what difference does it make if we issued 7.62 if people have no clue other than rapid firing in the general direction when they are presented with a 500M+ shot? All you are doing is making noise, and wasting rounds.