Glock Talk banner
  • Notice image

    Glocktalk is a forum community dedicated to Glock enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Glock pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, and more!

161 - 178 of 178 Posts
Discussion starter · #161 · (Edited)
But if track record is what to judge by, the USMC probably will go with the M5 and M250.

As soon as the Army went with the M17, the Corps went with the M18 which is a compact version of the M17.
It was a strange move IMO. The transition to a high pressure battle rifle cartridge in the AR-10 size and weight format may be resultant from poor decision making. I fully submit I could be wrong, but there are a greater number of advantages to an intermediate sized assault rifle round vs a battle rifle cartridge and resultant sized weapon.

I could completely understand going from 5.56 to something like the 6.5 Grendel/6.5 SPC and the DOD could opt for a high pressure version with a steel base in 6.5 caliber that will fit in a 30 round PMAG.

I like being able to fix an enemy to his position for a longer amount of time. This means the more rounds I can carry, the longer I can do my job. Between the machine gunner and SDM, the range envelope beyond 600-800m is pretty well covered.

Tactics do however evolve with time and the advent of greater tech. The reasoning that a rifleman will need less total ammunition if armed with a battle rifle offering a much longer effective range/ armor defeating capability is valid. Especially with a very advanced optic requiring less ammunition to be expended per kill.

The next Gen Vortex LPVO + 6.5 x51 cartridge essentially gives every rifleman designated marksman capabilities. One universal round for the machine gunner and rifleman certainly has some merits as well. However the Vortex with ballistic computing reticle could also have been used on a 6.5 SPC sized carbine.

Time will tell whether or not this was a wise move. I’m certainly subject to change my opinion on the matter. But a high pressure hybrid cased 6.5 x45 with solid armor defeating properties within the 0-600m + envelope in the AR-15 platform size would’ve made more sense based on my current thinking.

I would appreciate hearing any similar or differing opinions, particually from current or former military on whether or not you think the move to 6.5 x51 makes sense to you as opposed to a 6.5 intermediate round or even 5.56.
 
Many of these Army and DOD decisions don't seem to make sense. The M14 was an oddball, when there were far better choices at the time. One of the main points of the M16 was lighter ammunition, and the capability of carrying more. They still didn't develop reliable 30 round magazines, or proper equipment to carry more 20 round mags. We all know, it would be decades before a truly halfway decent 30 round mag with proper anti tilt followers was developed.

At the time of the M1 Garand being put into service, there were proponents of having it utilize a box magazine. Army Corp of ordnance would have no part in that "non-traditional" approach. Same thing stifled the M16's entrance and proper prototype to service rifle adaptation.

As you said, time will tell on this new breed of weapons. Carrying less ammo isn't usually a good idea, however, you did frame it quite well as to how the sacrifice can be worth it. Now, they just need to train every soldier to properly use the LPVO and out to those longer ranges.
 
It was a strange move IMO. The transition to a high pressure battle rifle cartridge in the AR-10 size and weight format may be resultant from poor decision making. I fully submit I could be wrong, but there are a greater number of advantages to an intermediate sized assault rifle round vs a battle rifle cartridge and resultant sized weapon.

I could completely understand going from 5.56 to something like the 6.5 Grendel/6.5 SPC and the DOD could opt for a high pressure version with a steel base in 6.5 caliber that will fit in a 30 round PMAG.

I like being able to fix an enemy to his position for a longer amount of time. This means the more rounds I can carry, the longer I can do my job. Between the machine gunner and SDM, the range envelope beyond 600-800m is pretty well covered.

Tactics do however evolve with time and the advent of greater tech. The reasoning that a rifleman will need less total ammunition if armed with a battle rifle offering a much longer effective range/ armor defeating capability is valid. Especially with a very advanced optic requiring less ammunition to be expended per kill.

The next Gen Vortex LPVO + 6.5 x51 cartridge essentially gives every rifleman designated marksman capabilities. One universal round for the machine gunner and rifleman certainly has some merits as well. However the Vortex with ballistic computing reticle could also have been used on a 6.5 SPC sized carbine.

Time will tell whether or not this was a wise move. I’m certainly subject to change my opinion on the matter. But a high pressure hybrid cased 6.5 x45 with solid armor defeating properties within the 0-600m + envelope in the AR-15 platform size would’ve made more sense based on my current thinking.

I would appreciate hearing any similar or differing opinions, particually from current or former military on whether or not you think the move to 6.5 x51 makes sense to you as opposed to a 6.5 intermediate round or even 5.56.
Some good points to ponder. As far as anything x45, the limiting factor is the case size. You can only put in so much gun powder in there. So, no matter the caliber or bullet weight, the case limits the lethality at longer ranges. I have no problem with Big Army going to an AR10 size platform, my question is this, is this new round that much better than the tried and true 7.62 x 51?
 
It was a strange move IMO. The transition to a high pressure battle rifle cartridge in the AR-10 size and weight format may be resultant from poor decision making. I fully submit I could be wrong, but there are a greater number of advantages to an intermediate sized assault rifle round vs a battle rifle cartridge and resultant sized weapon.

I could completely understand going from 5.56 to something like the 6.5 Grendel/6.5 SPC and the DOD could opt for a high pressure version with a steel base in 6.5 caliber that will fit in a 30 round PMAG.

I like being able to fix an enemy to his position for a longer amount of time. This means the more rounds I can carry, the longer I can do my job. Between the machine gunner and SDM, the range envelope beyond 600-800m is pretty well covered.

Tactics do however evolve with time and the advent of greater tech. The reasoning that a rifleman will need less total ammunition if armed with a battle rifle offering a much longer effective range/ armor defeating capability is valid. Especially with a very advanced optic requiring less ammunition to be expended per kill.

The next Gen Vortex LPVO + 6.5 x51 cartridge essentially gives every rifleman designated marksman capabilities. One universal round for the machine gunner and rifleman certainly has some merits as well. However the Vortex with ballistic computing reticle could also have been used on a 6.5 SPC sized carbine.

Time will tell whether or not this was a wise move. I’m certainly subject to change my opinion on the matter. But a high pressure hybrid cased 6.5 x45 with solid armor defeating properties within the 0-600m + envelope in the AR-15 platform size would’ve made more sense based on my current thinking.

I would appreciate hearing any similar or differing opinions, particually from current or former military on whether or not you think the move to 6.5 x51 makes sense to you as opposed to a 6.5 intermediate round or even 5.56.
The Army didn’t just one day decided on this rifle and cartridge combination. It was a two years test with real fighting soldiers using the three rifles/cartridges combinations to see which is the best.

If it were a bunch of nerds in white lab coats shooting these rifles and ammo in some sort of lab coupled with a bunch of brass standing around, then I might have some heartburn.

Not to mention that I was but a mere infantryman thirty something years ago and not some sort of high speed commando.

What I do notice is that GIs whines about lack of range and lethality with their poodle shooters. Now they get a rifle that lacks neither. Be careful of what you ask for, you might just get it.
 
my question is this, is this new round that much better than the tried and true 7.62 x 51?
If reports are to be believed then yes. You have a cartridge which throws a bullet only a few grains lighter than the 7.62x51 but at a muzzle velocity of 3000-fps out of a 16” barrel. The old .308 was doing 2800-fps out of 21” barrel.

That’s just speed alone. Now you take in the extreme low ballistic coefficient and all the other black magic the ballistics engineers do to a modern rifle bullet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Judge Holden
Marines get the Army's Gulf War Handmedowns LOL
Not anymore. Hasn’t been like that in decades. You must be a 70’s guy. The Corps has great gear compared to the really old days.
If the M5 is a great weapon then I hope we get it in the Corps. It’s easy to armchair QB. The best weapon systems should be used. Someone mentioned it’s weight. The M60 was lighter then the 240B. The 240B blows the 60 away. Grunts load is more then ever but the weapon systems are better now. Something to keep in mind
 
Not anymore. Hasn’t been like that in decades. You must be a 70’s guy. The Corps has great gear compared to the really old days.
If the M5 is a great weapon then I hope we get it in the Corps. It’s easy to armchair QB. The best weapon systems should be used. Someone mentioned it’s weight. The M60 was lighter then the 240B. The 240B blows the 60 away. Grunts load is more then ever but the weapon systems are better now. Something to keep in mind
Nah, it was just a quote from an Army guy making fun of the Marines in a video. Hard to explain. :D I know the Corp has been getting the money it deserves, or at least more of what it should be getting. :)
 
Not anymore. Hasn’t been like that in decades. You must be a 70’s guy. The Corps has great gear compared to the really old days.
If the M5 is a great weapon then I hope we get it in the Corps. It’s easy to armchair QB. The best weapon systems should be used. Someone mentioned it’s weight. The M60 was lighter then the 240B. The 240B blows the 60 away. Grunts load is more then ever but the weapon systems are better now. Something to keep in mind
I'm 85-89. Our 782 gear was well used but serviceable. The M16a2s were fine. They shot straight. I like the SAW. I preferred the older M-60, I like the bipod at the muzzle, even though it was heavier than the improved version. M2 was the best, even with ammo from the late 40s. The 1911s were wore out.
 
Discussion starter · #173 ·
Crazy how we’ve gone full circle back to the battle rifle. I’m not sure if the tradeoff is worth it. Less firepower and mobility for extended range and armor capability. That’s a pretty big shift in thinking.

M4A1 weight 6.43 lbs unloaded
210 rounds (7 mags) 5.51 lbs or 11.94 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

XM5 weight 8.38 lbs unloaded
140 rounds (7 mags) 7.78 lbs or 16.2 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

So the soldier is carrying roughly 4.28 lbs more in the standard load out with 33% less firepower for 60% + more effective range and the ability to defeat level 4 plates at distance.

Interesting choice.
 
Crazy how we’ve gone full circle back to the battle rifle. I’m not sure if the tradeoff is worth it. Less firepower and mobility for extended range and armor capability. That’s a pretty big shift in thinking.

M4A1 weight 6.43 lbs unloaded
210 rounds (7 mags) 5.51 lbs or 11.94 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

XM5 weight 8.38 lbs unloaded
140 rounds (7 mags) 7.78 lbs or 16.2 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

So the soldier is carrying roughly 4.28 lbs more in the standard load out with 33% less firepower for 60% + more effective range and the ability to defeat level 4 plates at distance.

Interesting choice.
You summarized how I think about it precisely. Is there a CQB variant of the M5 like a Mk18 type? Even something as short as a carbine variant? I haven't really stayed up to snuff on this whole M5 thing as much.
 
Crazy how we’ve gone full circle back to the battle rifle. I’m not sure if the tradeoff is worth it. Less firepower and mobility for extended range and armor capability. That’s a pretty big shift in thinking.

M4A1 weight 6.43 lbs unloaded
210 rounds (7 mags) 5.51 lbs or 11.94 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

XM5 weight 8.38 lbs unloaded
140 rounds (7 mags) 7.78 lbs or 16.2 lbs before optics, suppressor, attachments.

So the soldier is carrying roughly 4.28 lbs more in the standard load out with 33% less firepower for 60% + more effective range and the ability to defeat level 4 plates at distance.

Interesting choice.
The battlefield evolves. The military must stay ahead of the game so to speak. In AStan the 556 just wasn’t cutting it range wise. The same was said when the US went to the M16. Infantry loads have been climbing in weight since WW2. Todays grunts are better armed and protected. Better comm gear as well. You just have to be open to change. Change is a good thing. Evolution of weapon systems is good.
 
People worried about carrying less ammo with the new M5, pray tell, how did GIs fare against the Japanese, North Korean and ChiCom human wave attacks in WWII and Korean War?

There’s suppressive fire and then there’s spray and pray.
Understood, but one of the main reasons for the Army's requests for proposals for new weapons in that era were those giant human wave tactics and realizing that higher volumes of fire would be needed. However, warfare changes and evolves, so perhaps more power at greater range, and making shots count a lot more is what the future will require.
 
I'm 85-89. Our 782 gear was well used but serviceable. The M16a2s were fine. They shot straight. I like the SAW. I preferred the older M-60, I like the bipod at the muzzle, even though it was heavier than the improved version. M2 was the best, even with ammo from the late 40s. The 1911s were wore out.
We were in at the same time. You are right. Right after DS things got better. Iraq and AStan changed everything
 
161 - 178 of 178 Posts