Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,262
Wolverines!
Controversial Question of the Day
- Thread starter Ponder_MD
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
gamer_jim
Podcaster
Controversial thread title of the day.
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
Sounds like the strategy Washington had to use against Cornwallis
303_enfield
Ultimate Member
Better, nope they both have there place.
Now, which one will the antis come for first an call you a baby killer? The M1 will fly under the radar for a long time.
Now, which one will the antis come for first an call you a baby killer? The M1 will fly under the radar for a long time.
Well, I'm a senior, bad knees and a few more pounds than the doctor likes, so mobility and rapid movement are really nothing more than memories. I prefer the Garand for it's caliber, power, and long distance capabilities. Would I like an FN/FAL or M1A with their increased mag capacity - absolutely, but I live in Maryland and the State has determined that the peasantry ought not be allowed to purchase such things.
Does the .30-06 have a place? Same place a .308 does.
Does the M1 have a place? No.
If you need to specifically look at what the M1 does better than the M4, it is entirely about the cartridge itself. It hits harder and specifically the use of AP and API provides an advantage against soldiers wearing armor, protected behind structure or light armored vehicles. But that said, the ability to wear optics (reasonably), greater accuracy, significantlly higher ammo capacity, greater rate of fire and maneuverability all significantly benefit the M4/M16. Reasonable grunt accuracy with an M1 is around 200yds with a rest. Reasonable grunt accuracy with an M4 and a 4x optic is about 300 or so yds. Yeah sure, a skilled marksman can hit targets at 600+ with an M1 Garand that an M4 with M193/M855 would struggle HARD to manage. But you are talking the few guys in a company that would be given a DMR already who might be able to do that.
Yes it makes sense to be prepared to fight a peer/near peer. On the other hand, you aren't covered with armor everywhere. It is as much a training issue as anything. Don't aim center of mass against armored opponents with an M4. As it stands, even in sandbox fights against unarmored fighters, most kills are with explosives and heavier weapons. Which body armor is only going to provide limited protection.
More than the standard infantry rifle, we need to focus on improve the squad automatic/DMR weapon/cartridge. The NGSW cartridge is sure interesting, but for an infantry rifle I don't think it has a place. Yeah, sure, my 120lb grandpa qualified marksman with one. Physics is physics. Unless somehow the cartridge is magical more efficient by a factor of 2 or 3, energy down range is energy backwards. More recoil and slower firing. It also leads to a larger and heavier cartridge and carrying fewer of them. More ammo and the ability to accurately shoot faster has been key for a LOT of decades now, vs needing to punch holes in body armor. Blah, blah I know fighting the last war. But things aren't likely to change for a LONG time and being geared for the wars we haven't actually been fighting is also stupid.
Now some hot, high velocity 6.8 for a squad automatic and DMR probably would make a lot of sense. Gives you more capability all around. The only real issue is it is reduced capacity for incendiary compound in API rounds. But still probably enough capacity to get it done.
That said, I still think it would make some amount of sense to switch to a slightly improved 6.5 Grendel for the infantry rifle, SAW and DMR if you want ammo compatibility. A bullet similar to the M855A1 in a 100gr weight and change the cartridge to run at 65000psi max (just need to change the bolt to handle that) and you'd have something that would be be a lot better are barrier penetration and light armor penetration than the 62gr M855A1. Significantly longer range also. A usefully large bullet you could run armor piercing incendiary rounds. A full up armor piercing round would also likely perform better out of one than a 5.56 AP round. And for DMRs it would be easy enough to switch to a 120-130gr bullet and have a legit 1200yd capable rifle with a 20" barrel (this is assuming something that probably has a ~2700fps MV from a 20" barrel, 123 bullet and 6500PSI).
You'd still have an ammo capacity hit. You could make 30 round mags without being huge. However, the extra size and weight would mean you are either carrying a couple pounds more for the same combat load, or running about 40 rounds less.
Does the M1 have a place? No.
If you need to specifically look at what the M1 does better than the M4, it is entirely about the cartridge itself. It hits harder and specifically the use of AP and API provides an advantage against soldiers wearing armor, protected behind structure or light armored vehicles. But that said, the ability to wear optics (reasonably), greater accuracy, significantlly higher ammo capacity, greater rate of fire and maneuverability all significantly benefit the M4/M16. Reasonable grunt accuracy with an M1 is around 200yds with a rest. Reasonable grunt accuracy with an M4 and a 4x optic is about 300 or so yds. Yeah sure, a skilled marksman can hit targets at 600+ with an M1 Garand that an M4 with M193/M855 would struggle HARD to manage. But you are talking the few guys in a company that would be given a DMR already who might be able to do that.
Yes it makes sense to be prepared to fight a peer/near peer. On the other hand, you aren't covered with armor everywhere. It is as much a training issue as anything. Don't aim center of mass against armored opponents with an M4. As it stands, even in sandbox fights against unarmored fighters, most kills are with explosives and heavier weapons. Which body armor is only going to provide limited protection.
More than the standard infantry rifle, we need to focus on improve the squad automatic/DMR weapon/cartridge. The NGSW cartridge is sure interesting, but for an infantry rifle I don't think it has a place. Yeah, sure, my 120lb grandpa qualified marksman with one. Physics is physics. Unless somehow the cartridge is magical more efficient by a factor of 2 or 3, energy down range is energy backwards. More recoil and slower firing. It also leads to a larger and heavier cartridge and carrying fewer of them. More ammo and the ability to accurately shoot faster has been key for a LOT of decades now, vs needing to punch holes in body armor. Blah, blah I know fighting the last war. But things aren't likely to change for a LONG time and being geared for the wars we haven't actually been fighting is also stupid.
Now some hot, high velocity 6.8 for a squad automatic and DMR probably would make a lot of sense. Gives you more capability all around. The only real issue is it is reduced capacity for incendiary compound in API rounds. But still probably enough capacity to get it done.
That said, I still think it would make some amount of sense to switch to a slightly improved 6.5 Grendel for the infantry rifle, SAW and DMR if you want ammo compatibility. A bullet similar to the M855A1 in a 100gr weight and change the cartridge to run at 65000psi max (just need to change the bolt to handle that) and you'd have something that would be be a lot better are barrier penetration and light armor penetration than the 62gr M855A1. Significantly longer range also. A usefully large bullet you could run armor piercing incendiary rounds. A full up armor piercing round would also likely perform better out of one than a 5.56 AP round. And for DMRs it would be easy enough to switch to a 120-130gr bullet and have a legit 1200yd capable rifle with a 20" barrel (this is assuming something that probably has a ~2700fps MV from a 20" barrel, 123 bullet and 6500PSI).
You'd still have an ammo capacity hit. You could make 30 round mags without being huge. However, the extra size and weight would mean you are either carrying a couple pounds more for the same combat load, or running about 40 rounds less.
You can own an AR-10 though.
That's what I decided to do. A sweet 18" Aero M5 based rifle. Nice and accurate. Not super light, but not super heavy either. Its a touch over 9lbs WITH 3-9x40 scope on it. Built it as a deer and fun rifle.
Not sure what I want to do next with it. It'll be a couple of years with other projects and stuff, but either going to go a 20 or 22" .308 upper, or I might go with a 22-24" 6.5CM upper. Or I might go 16" pencil barrel (current is a flutted HBAR 18", so a pencil 16" would probably shave half a pound off).
Sirex
Powered by natural gas
Longer range, and nicer looking, IMHO.
