WI-main battle rifles upgraded and mass produced to this day

[Broz]

could the WW2 model of what was called main battle rifle, wich is a semi-automatic firearm, fiering larger calibres than assult weapons, and with longer range, with some models capable of full automatic fire, be upgraded after WW2 and maitained in service at least till late 1980is, and suficient numbers produced to be cheap and avalable aniwhere

im thinking of something along the line of the SVT-40 that fires 7.62-54 round or a SKS model that fires the same calibre instead of the 7.62-39. kalasnjikov round

the diference i think this would make during and after the cold war, is the avalability of cheap firepower and longer range, in conflicts such as the war in afganistan, or later the war in yugoslavia, and the wars in the midlle east
annywhere longer range or power would come usefull
this could never replace the kalashnjikov, but would certainly be usefull in some situations, mountain warfare for instance

also this could mean such a weapon would be developed further durig the 80is and 90is, weight and blowback would probbably be reduced, alowing, perhaps, the development of a full-automatic asult rifle fiering 7.62-54mm calibre by 1999/2000 or earlier

would anny of this affect the current wars in the midle east? i mean if forces wearing western stile body armour were faced with a automatic weapon that fired a round with more penetration power than the clasic 7.62-39?

or if a strenghtened model of the SKS was calibrated for the 388 lapua round? or its cheaper soviet equivalent

 

[Alexius]

could the WW2 model of what was called main battle rifle, wich is a semi-automatic firearm, fiering larger calibres than assult weapons, and with longer range, with some models capable of full automatic fire, be upgraded after WW2 and maitained in service at least till late 1980is, and suficient numbers produced to be cheap and avalable aniwhere

The FN FAL battle rifle stayed in service until the late 80s with first-world militaries (the UK) and is still used elsewhere, and the H&K G3 battle rifle is still being manufactured under license for military use in various countries.

 

[The Dean]

The FN FAL battle rifle stayed in service until the late 80s with first-world militaries (the UK) and is still used elsewhere, and the H&K G3 battle rifle is still being manufactured under license for military use in various countries.

I must say if I had to go into a firefight I would rather have my old SLR with a SUSAT sight fitted than the SA 80 I finished my service with. You could even fit the 30 round magazine from an LMG onto it giving it the same firepower as the SA 80.

 

[Riain]

The FN-FAl proved it's salt in the Falklands, the open spaces there providing a good stage for the long range hitting power of the full-power 7.62 round.

My favorite military rifle was an Australian modification of the FN-FAL used by the Aus SAS in Vietnam. I was an automatic version with the 30 rd magazine, but using the lighter rifle barrel, cut down just past the end of the wooden foregrip and threaded for a nut to prevent cracking. The result was short rifle that was handy in the jungle, but fired full power NATO rounds on full automatic. It also apparenly sounded like a .50 cal HMG and had a flash that went out 10 feet, which used to frighten the shit out of the enemy.

 

[The Dean]

The FN-FAl proved it's salt in the Falklands, the open spaces there providing a good stage for the long range hitting power of the full-power 7.62 round.

My favorite military rifle was an Australian modification of the FN-FAL used by the Aus SAS in Vietnam. I was an automatic version with the 30 rd magazine, but using the lighter rifle barrel, cut down just past the end of the wooden foregrip and threaded for a nut to prevent cracking. The result was short rifle that was handy in the jungle, but fired full power NATO rounds on full automatic. It also apparenly sounded like a .50 cal HMG and had a flash that went out 10 feet, which used to frighten the shit out of the enemy.

Stop it! I like it!

 

[Thande]

Oh dear, Riain...you do realise Deano will now go down to his shed and attempt to build one from scratch?

 

[SRT]

My friend was telling me (although I never followed it up, so I have no idea if it's true or not, but it sounds reasonable) that a lot of Central and South American countries still use WWII-Era rifles (especially US Army Surplus M1 Garands) as their main battle rifle; they're cheap and ammunition is plentiful. Also, as you said, they have plenty of other benefits (one of which that I don't think you mentioned is that they can still tear through modern bulletproof armor).

But IMO Assault Rifles are still very useful, especially in Urban combat. It seems like a reason for the US's and USSR's fixation with them was that they really wished they had had them during WWII

 

[Nikephoros]

But IMO Assault Rifles are still very useful, especially in Urban combat. It seems like a reason for the US's and USSR's fixation with them was that they really wished they had had them during WWII

If the US would've had them in the hedgerows during Normandy (along with the British and the rest of the western Allies), and the Soviets would've had them in the cities, the Germans would have fallen sooner.

 

[Riain]

The chicken-stranglers reckoned that it's the only rifle that could create a wound and cauterise it with 1 burst. Cool story as a bit of a joke. Until you hear that on occasion the said chicken-stranglers got so close to the enemy in the jungle that they had to lean backwards so they wouldn't prod them with their rifle barrels. Or that the VC/NVA would unwittingly piss on them when they were hiding.

 

[CalBear]

You are describing the much malinged M-14 or the German G 3 combat rifle. Chamberd for 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) they fire a full sized round, unlile the AK series or the M-16 family of rifles.

The full size cartridge is (although the opinion is starting to swing back) to be too heavy and too difficult to fire on full auto. Both complaints have merit, although the latter is much less severe than it appears since you do NOT want you troops using a "spray & pray" firing method. The M-14 is quite reasonable to handle in a two or three shot burst, and I have been told the same holds true for the G 3. It is also true that you can hump a LOT more ammo in 5.56 if you are on a long range patrol, such as was common in Viet Nam. On today's battlefield, this is much less important, especially in an urban enviroment, where ammo resupply is not difficult and the number of multi day patrols into the bush are few (and generally done by "special" forces, who carry a rather ecletic mix of weapons, including, in the case of Force Recon & SEAL units, the M-14).

While the heavier cartridge would be of use in some circumstances during the Cold War, the 5.56 & 7.62x39 (and the later Soviet 5.56 for the AK-74) were well suited for the expected confrontation in the Fulda Gap, although the average U.S. soldier today, fighting in an urban enviroment, would be better served by either a true submachine gun, in either 11mm-12mm or .45 auto (a variant of the MP-5, or even the Uzi, would be an excellent starting point) or a "carbine" version of the M-14 (similar to the M-4 carbine built off the M-16) with a rear pistol grip and forward assist grip on the stock forearm.

 

[Nikephoros]

You are describing the much malinged M-14 or the German G 3 combat rifle. Chamberd for 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) they fire a full sized round, unlile the AK series or the M-16 family of rifles.

The full size cartridge is (although the opinion is starting to swing back) to be too heavy and too difficult to fire on full auto. Both complaints have merit, although the latter is much less severe than it appears since you do NOT want you troops using a "spray & pray" firing method. The M-14 is quite reasonable to handle in a two or three shot burst, and I have been told the same holds true for the G 3. It is also true that you can hump a LOT more ammo in 5.56 if you are on a long range patrol, such as was common in Viet Nam. On today's battlefield, this is much less important, especially in an urban enviroment, where ammo resupply is not difficult and the number of multi day patrols into the bush are few (and generally done by "special" forces, who carry a rather ecletic mix of weapons, including, in the case of Force Recon & SEAL units, the M-14).

While the heavier cartridge would be of use in some circumstances during the Cold War, the 5.56 & 7.62x39 (and the later Soviet 5.56 for the AK-74) were well suited for the expected confrontation in the Fulda Gap, although the average U.S. soldier today, fighting in an urban enviroment, would be better served by either a true submachine gun, in either 11mm-12mm or .45 auto (a variant of the MP-5, or even the Uzi, would be an excellent starting point) or a "carbine" version of the M-14 (similar to the M-4 carbine built off the M-16) with a rear pistol grip and forward assist grip on the stock forearm.

You mention that, but have you heard of the 6.8mm SPC. It is supposed to be a major improvement on the 5.56mm NATO, but is a lot lighter than the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

 

[Riain]

What about making a bullpup rifle with a 7.62x56 round? That would make it handier and more readily controlled on full auto, and give the extra power needed to overcome body armour and urban obstructions.

 

[Nikephoros]

I still think you run into problems with how much ammo you can carry.

 

[SRT]

Don't the Marines use M-14s occasionally as well? I remember seeing some program on TV about it. Obviously not as a standard issue rifle, but giving one to each squad or something.

Also, as someone said, individual soldiers carrying a lot of ammo with them isn't as big of a deal in this day and age.

 

[Nikephoros]

Also, as someone said, individual soldiers carrying a lot of ammo with them isn't as big of a deal in this day and age.

Except if, which it has happened occasionally, if you are in a firefight and can't escape, you would want as much ammo as you could.

 

[SRT]

Except if, which it has happened, if you are in a firefight and can't escape, you would want as much ammo as you could.

But are soldiers in, say, Iraq, really running out of bullets during firefights? It seems that the difference in size between 5.56 and 7.62 is significant but not that significant; the difference in the amount of ammunition you could carry would start to become apparent on a timescale of days, not hours.

 

[Nikephoros]

But are soldiers in, say, Iraq, really running out of bullets during firefights? It seems that the difference in size between 5.56 and 7.62 is significant but not that significant; the difference in the amount of ammunition you could carry would start to become apparent on a timescale of days, not hours.

Well, I do agree that that holds true for the average soldier. I guess that concerns of the size of a round are more applicable to Special Ops troops.

I still don't concede defeat though

 

[Billi the Axe]

Where to begin, First the Full up Battle Rifle is brutal to fire for prolonged periods not mention heavy as hell . You might consider also the fact that at a 40 lb Load most people can only carry 100 rounds of 7.62mm Vs 300 5.56mm
Lethality rates being similar for both rounds and the fact that most engagements take place at less than 100 Meters. You quickly see why no one issues the big Rifles to troops as standard. SOCOM does use them in specialized roles.

The 6.8mm SPC was mentioned above and it is a good compromise round. However it will never see general service in the US Army.

Lugging a 20 lb Rifle over hill and dale is no fun at all, Trust me. I'll keep my nice light M-4 SOPMOD thank you ( 11 lbs w/ acc). I have never had to engage anytarget beyond effective range of the M-16 series in my entire 20 year career, Nor has any troopunder my command.

 

[CalBear]

You mention that, but have you heard of the 6.8mm SPC. It is supposed to be a major improvement on the 5.56mm NATO, but is a lot lighter than the 7.62 NATO cartridge.

I've heard of it. The difficulty with it is the almost complete lack of interest in the round by the general military establishment. It has been looked with great interest by SPECOPS, but the Pentagon as a whole doesn't much care for the cartridge. It could find it's way into that eclectic mix I mentioned in an earlier post.

There is also the 6.5 Grendal cartridge which is a competitor for the 6.8. It has shown some impressive results in testing, but again is not generating a tidal wave of interest. The nice thing about both rounds is that they can be fired from a re-chambered M-16/M-4.

Neither of them, however, are full sized rifle rounds like the 7.62 NATO, 7.62x54, 30-06 or .303 which are the subject of the original post.

The 5.56 is unlikely to be overtaken in the foreseeable future, at least until a new issue rifle is introduced by the Army. There are a remarkable range of contenders for that new weapon, although I believe that their needs to be a serious rethink of the idea that a single weapon or cartridge is sufficient. The current experiences in Iraq indicate that a wider range of options would be of great benefit.

 

[Moglwi]

Wi Main Batle rifle

The added wight of full power rounds like 7.62 added to what the PBI is expected to carry is just going to push them overthe edge and they will start to get very annoyed and leaving other stuff behind. They are allready at the limits to what can be carried and in some case over it. what with Body armour NVGs Batterys Belts for SAWs Flares water food etc. Speaking form my long ago experiance (87-91 QO Hldrs) I would rather have 300 rounds of 5.56 than 100 rounds of 7.65 I can not rember the officail loadout of ammo 4 mangs and a bandoler I think but I would allwas like to double it if I could as wold everyone else Runing out of ammo is not an option and you can not alwasys realy on resupply Mofadishou anyone?