our military is looking at a new rifle and new 6.8 ammo

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 10:50 (2716 days ago)

Hmmm caseless ammo!

Sid R
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 11:45 (2716 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

Ammo in its own chamber. Sounds to me like accuracy issues would not be up to par with barrel jump. I don't know there are always points of diminishing return.

And Jack O'Connor spun in his grave. lol

WB
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 12:43 (2716 days ago) @ Sid R

- No text -

he would have if he ever used the 270 (the 6.8 is 270

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:13 (2716 days ago) @ WB

caliber). O'Conner seldom used the 270, at least that is what his brother tells us.

He sure perpetuated it! All newbies think he invented it!

WB
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:17 (2716 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

- No text -

I think Winchester perpetuated it using his name...

Huey
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:23 (2716 days ago) @ WB

Think it's referred to as pimping or something like that. Think he leaned towards the 9.3x62 and his wife used a 7x57 and 30-06. The misleading publications aren't a new thing. Just my opinion...

O'Conner's brother, who livs near here, stopped in

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:41 (2716 days ago) @ Huey

the shop a few years back and was talking about Jack. He said Jack never used the 270. He said he and Winchester had a deal. Winchester paid for all his hunts and a little cash on the side and he promoted the 270 as the finest rifle and cartridge around. Not a bad deal any way you look at it. Jack mostly used the 9.3 X 62 while his wife used the 7X57. Jack was a college professor down in Phoenix.

Read the same on the old Guns & Ammo website many moons ago.

Rsim
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 17:07 (2716 days ago) @ Huey

- No text -

I don't think it was the gun magazines that misled people.

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 22:12 (2715 days ago) @ Huey

O'Conner wrote the articles and submitted them to the gun magazines and they printed whatever he wrote, within reason of course. So if his brother's story is true and I have no reason to doubt it, then there is no blame to place on anyone's shoulders. O'Conner wrote a good story and the magazine published it, pure and simple. Any agreement would be between him and Winchester. Jack's brother was in my shop with a friend and his friend asked me if I had heard of jack O'Conner. I said of course. He said this is Jack's brother. So his brother didn't just come in the shop and start telling me the story. He was in the shop several times before he told it to me.He mentioned keeping it to himself until after Jack died which made sense to me.

Ask the grunt what he wants for a change

Larry Fry
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:20 (2716 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

1) some caliber that will reach out with accuracy better than 500 yards 2) a caliber or ammo that doesn't weigh enough to bring you to your knees with a full combat load out 3) a gun that has a magic shield on it that will protect from enemy fire 4) a gun that doesn't weigh 9 pounds and has a recoil that will drive an elephant backwards

Other than that, can't think of anything that the M14 can't do better than all the magic .22's or 270's!

Amen, Larry

Grover Sr
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:33 (2716 days ago) @ Larry Fry

- No text -

Larry, no matter how well they shot and functioned, there

Gary Reeder
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 14:45 (2716 days ago) @ Larry Fry

will never be another M-14 issued to today's troops. It was a good rifle and cartridge but totally useless in today's services. And if you asked 100 of our service men what gun they wanted, I doubt that even 5 of them would opt for the M-14. Our fighters today have enough gear to carry around without having to carry an 8 lb rifle plus another 10 lbs of ammo. As a comparison the '57 Chevy (and my '86 Bronco) were a great vehicle in their day but useless by all standards today. Admit it Larry, you and I are both living in the past.

I know! Sigh.... My dental tech told

Larry Fry
[subject]
Thursday, March 28, 2019, 08:00 (2715 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

me her husband just got back from the "Stans". Her husband is an Army Warrant Officer in Logistics. According to her they are issuing M14's still for at least one per squad as the M16/M4 does not have the reach to hit at the ranges they have to shoot at. I had heard this before as I like to track how the old guns are still in use today. Yep, I am living in the past but it is still fun when the Army or Marines go back to what worked before and use the new stuff for backup...... I have wondered if at least one or two M1 Garrands might of made it to the desert or to Afganistan. 30-06 allows you to really reach out and touch someone. Of course the 338 Lapua or 50 BMG is the go to for long range but who wants to carry around a 30-40 pound gorilla for a rifle? I wonder where the quest for new weapons will ultimately lead to. Perhaps to miniaturized rail guns or some such other type of gun. Fun to speculate.

A Viet Nam vet friend of mine told me

AKRay
[subject]
Thursday, March 28, 2019, 09:25 (2715 days ago) @ Larry Fry

that he preferred the M-14 and he was in the LRRPs(Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol). He only had what he was able to carry with him, so he must have thought pretty highly of the rifle and ammo to be willing to carry it as far as he did.

I always preferred the M14 and when

Larry Fry
[subject]
Thursday, March 28, 2019, 13:21 (2715 days ago) @ AKRay

they wanted my M14 and was going to issue me a M16 I requested and was issued a Remington 870. For close in it could not be beat and since I was an officer I was not often out on a patrol anyway after I made O3. Still, I guess for close quarters a lightweight gun running full auto can't be beat if it is reliable.

Hated the M16A1 we used in the MC in the mid

Rsim
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 15:55 (2716 days ago) @ Gary Reeder

to late 70's. Always felt undergunned. Something in the 25-264 cal. range, maybe, but you used what they issued.

And ours were nothing but jamming

Grover Sr
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 17:36 (2716 days ago) @ Rsim

Pieces of crap in the sand and mud. Plus gas tubes tended to clog after a 100 roinds or so. Ours were A1's

I too love the M-14....

Sid R
[subject]
Wednesday, March 27, 2019, 19:07 (2715 days ago) @ Grover Sr

but the modern battle rifle is far superior to any thing used in the Vietnam era. The major issue with the current rifle is weight and energy of the cartridge. Of course if you go to a bigger cartridge you add weight to rifle and ammo. More of a burden on the soldiers and logistics.

I understand the reasoning behind new cartridge and platform. If the projectile is encased in its own chamber of a polymer you save weight and volume. If the platform is shorter because chamber is short you also save weight of the rifle. I know Marines and Special Forces do not want to sacrifice accuracy at the expense of logistics and weight. Range and knock down power needed to be considered with modern forces wearing protective gear.

I personally like the 6.8 SPC. My brother has one and it is fantastic and very accurate. I ask him to bring it when he visits. JMHO

powered by my little forum