05-11-2017, 04:28 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,070
|
Quote:
|
|
05-11-2017, 05:04 PM | #32 |
Intelligent Posterior
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,711
|
I'm in the process of shortening a std barrel to 19 1/2", eliminating the bipod and flute the barrel. I haven't decided whether to put the std flash suppressor, E3 fs, or a surefire flash eliminator back on it. I will also put on an E3 front sight. This experiment is on a crappy barrel.
|
05-12-2017, 01:40 AM | #33 |
Dud
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,507
|
Can't we go with something that doesn't need a barrel change every 2-5 minutes?
And with the E6 bullpup short barrel there has to be a ballistics loss. cerberus |
05-12-2017, 02:11 AM | #34 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 315
|
I recommend a rebuild of the M1 Garand. Retain the configuration including the full walnut stock. Chamber it for the 7.62x51. Continue with the same heavy barrel, bayonet lug and gas operating system. Do not use a box magazine or the system as used in the M14, but keep the en bloc clip with its 8 rounds. Keep it semi-automatic, no selector switch for reasons I stated earlier.
There were many attempts to convert the Garand to a magazine box fed rifle. Many are familiar with these changes that led to the M14. I have shot M14s and own M1As. I do not like nor care for the box magazine. If the receiver needs shortening, so be it. Keep the M1 sight with its 16 minutes of windage and 73 minutes elevation, the best sight ever put on a combat rifle. In my National Match M1 and my load of 165 grain bullet at 2,650 fps I have competed in 600 and 1,000 yard matches. My elevation is 49 minutes for 1,000 yards. These courses of fire are shot from prone with sling, no bipod or other artificial rest. Until I got to be old I could keep most of my shots in the 30 inch ring at 1,000 yards, all day. I could do almost as well with my WW11 beauties and I have a few. If we are ever in a war with an enemy or enemies of equal ordinance and numbers of well trained soldiers I want our combat soldiers and my grandsons, to have a rifle for all seasons. I look forward to all to suggest a combat rifle, durable, accurate and American made, (design your own) or modify those already available that fires the 7.62x51 cartridge. Doc |
05-12-2017, 08:50 AM | #35 | |
slug
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 35,822
|
Quote:
The FG-42 in 7.62X51 with the newer M-14 30 round magazine should about do it for me…. When the FBI was returning a load of my stuff one of the Special Agents came out with the Leatherwood ART scope off of my bring home M-14…all I said was "Ah, an old friend" to his smile before confiding in me that it was the only thing I had that he coveted…maybe I'll leave it to him in my will…I have more!
__________________
Diesel 88888888 Duty is Action; Fight Or Die! Fight Or I'll Kill You Myself! |
|
05-12-2017, 02:53 PM | #36 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 315
|
The laws of physics are the same today as they were in Teddy Roosevelt's day. Teddy wanted a rifle whose cartridge was an improvement over the 7x57's bullet. He caused the introduction of the 1903 Springfield with its heavier bullet having a superior ballistic coefficient.
A .308 bullet having a 4 ogive, boat tail, and a weight between 150 grains and 172 grains is ideal for the .30 caliber bullet. The velocity should be around 2,600 fps. A barrel of a practical heavy weight machine gun's barrel dissipates heat better than a lighter weight barrel. The Ordinance department worked on the improvement of the 1919 A4 .30 caliber light machine gun developing the 1919 A6. They also made this in 8x57 (8 mm) and in 7.62x51 as well as in the venerable 30-06. I'm sure the Ordinance department could make a 7.62x51 light machine gun with heavy barrel. John Browning was a genius. He gave us many of the world's finest firearms. The OD evolved the 1919 A6 into the M60. Maybe the M60 could be improved as a light machine gun by making its barrel heavier, adding a perforated shroud to act as a heat sink and using a tripod. I know there are many light machine guns and rifles out there as produced by foreign governments. If the best of those designs can be bought and wholly owned by our military through the Secretary of Defense I could accept that. No royalty or other monies paid after the purchase. That is, wholly American made including all parts. The light machine gun should weigh somewhere around 42 pounds including the tripod. I have shot the 1919 Browning beauty. I have also fired the Browning Automatic Rifle whose total weight with rifle, bi pod and 200 round ammo belt weights about 42 pounds. It, the BAR, fires from open bolt, of course, and I could fire it single shot with decent accuracy. Doc |
05-14-2017, 04:30 PM | #37 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 315
|
Springfield Armory converted the M1 Garand to fire the .308 NATO (7.62x51). They used many available parts, but made a new barrel with a .308 chamber. otherwise it had the same configuration as the .30-06 version. If it performs the same as the best rifle ever made, the M1 Garand in .30-06, I can go with it.
We would then have the 1919 John Browning light machine gun after its conversion to 7.62x51, the M60 type machine gun and the semi-automatic rifle all firing the same excellent 7.62x51 cartridge, the ideal military round with its FMJ, AP, and Tracer bullets. Interestingly, the .45 ACP, with a slight modification of the extractor groove, fired simply a shortened version of the .30-06 case handling the superb .452 bullet of 230 grains. The 1911 was the product of John Moses Browning. You might see what's coming next, bigger bullets and all. And I almost forgot to mention, Browning gave us the .50 cal. machine gun, that we still use and we will always use as long as there are armies. Scale down the Browning .50 case enough and you have the .30-06 case. Both fine cartridge's bullets leave the muzzle at 2,700 fps with the .50 weighing 750 grains and the .30-06 at 150 grains. Talk about bigger is better. Doc |
05-15-2017, 09:55 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,076
|
They have bigger bullets. 6.8 ,458 socom. What's the deal?
|
05-16-2017, 12:04 AM | #39 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 315
|
.458 socom. You mentioned that round back on the 10th and said that the military says 200 meters and yer gtg.
I own a .458 mag in a super grade Winchester. I load only 500 grain bullets in it, both lead, FMJ and SP. It is a very accurate round. I load it full go and also sub-sonic. 200 meters is a pistol shot. I was thinking more on the lines of the 16 inch Naval rifle (yes, its a rifle) the Mighty Mo also had 16 inch guns. The 16 inch rifle had a range of 25 miles firing a 2,000 pound projectile. The Navy had that rifle on the USS Missouri. Kind of hard to carry that rifle in the field, but a squad of Marines could carry the projectile with the help of some mules and limber or two. The M1 Garand in .30-06 is the best combat rifle ever made, but then we'd have to re-do the M60. But that's out 'cause the poodle popper shooters don't like a real rifle. Perhaps we could steal the German's 8mm fast shooter and temper it to fire the 7.62x51. It was a pretty good machine gun. What's the deal? |
05-16-2017, 12:44 AM | #40 |
slug
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 35,822
|
MG/42-58…rock and roll with a Hitler Zipper in 7.62X51…The Solothurn 20mm was pretty good too…somewhere I own a 20mm recoilless…also made in Sweden for Germany!
|
05-16-2017, 10:14 AM | #41 |
Junior Member my ass!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 497
|
When my cousin was in Iraq with 10th group they could use whatever they wanted. They loaded their M4s with 77 grain match ammunition from Black Hills that was intended for their SPRs. Not only was it very accurate at long range, it was also very lethal at any range. However, it couldn't even compete with shooting 6.5 Grendel out of a 14.5 inch barrel. They're not even in the same league. After he left the Army, he built an AR in 6.5 Grendel and could hit silhouette targets at a thousand meters every shot. That rifle was so accurate that we got bored at the firing range and would do things like shoot smiley faces into the silhouette targets for hundred meters away.
|
05-16-2017, 10:17 AM | #42 |
Junior Member my ass!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 497
|
All this Nostalgia for World War II weapons is cool, but at some point you have to get serious. That argument was lost 50 years ago. It was proven in Rhodesia that very highly trained westernized troops couldn't get nearly as many rounds On Target as third-world floppies with AK 47s. Newer Weapons Systems evolve and get adopted because they really are better. There is not some vast conspiracy to deprive our troops from the superior technology of 70 years ago.
|
05-16-2017, 02:56 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,076
|
Well,i mentioned 200 meters because the "experts" in the upper echelon of the government determined 300 meters was max. Till Iraq and Afghanistan came along. The higher ups determined the normal grunt couldn't hit shit after a certain point.
That being said? We ain't normal M14E4 or FAL would be great. We don't disagree. It's the poor guys out there now that have to deal with a new weapon and its improvements. M16,M16A1,M16A2,M16A4. Powder changes,chrome lined bores. All dat. An Ithaca 37 and an 0304 is fine with me. But who makes the choices? Palms that get greased politicians. Rant done. Sorry. Too many friends died. |
05-16-2017, 03:21 PM | #44 |
Grunt-o-saurus
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: I Corps
Posts: 5,973
|
The M1 Garand was a marvelous rifle... against the K98 Mauser.
Times change. Whether an M14 "scout" with a polymer stock, or an FN-FAL "carbine"... Detachable magazine is a necessity, as opposed to a "PING! Shoot me now!" clip. I personally prefer the FAL design to the M14... and I believe that the 7.62x51 is the ideal caliber for a Rifleman and an MBR. Having one or two designated marksmen with a full length M14 or FN-FAL in each platoon would be preferable, but a carbine seems to be the better choice for the most, especially if 200-300 yds is the anticipated maximum engagement distance. And you can KEEP the AR-10! Any rifleman that cannot handle the size/weight/recoil of a M14 scout or an FN-FAL carbine? Needs to be in a different MOS. |
05-16-2017, 03:28 PM | #45 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 315
|
The 6.5 Grendel is an improvement over the varmint rifle our boys use today.
Even the ancient 7x57 is a better military cartridge than the 6.5 Grendel. The Spanish infantry used the 7x57 at San Juan Hill. Warfare is about airstrips, ICBMs, submarines, evolving 2 A bombs into a bunch of nuclear weapons, all bigger, more powerful and launched by several means. Everything became more, bigger and better. Guided missile cruisers, destroyers, etc., all were evolved with improvements with weapons such as the Harpoon. The rifle and its caliber devolved after WW11. Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense was the primary reason for the decline of the infantryman's rifle. See McNamara and the Air Force. The Air Force wanted one weapon to replace its M1 .30 carbine, a varmint cartridge and not a very good one, and it wanted its 1911 .45 ACP replaced. That weapon became the M16. The Air Force adopted it and scuttled the M1 carbine and 1911. The Navy soon followed. It was notorious for its failure in early battles. The Army and Marines followed as McNamara was their boss. The Marines went to the M4. Undo McNamara's folly. Get serious. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|