Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The BEST round for the Afghanistan "dream rifle"?

  1. #1
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default The BEST round for the Afghanistan "dream rifle"?

    Another thread got me thinking...IF we were going to build a "new" M14 or AR10 style (box magazine semi-auto) rifle for the mountainous terrain and long ranges of Afghanistan what would be the best choice?

    Seems to me a long range flat shooter (like sheep hunting) would be an excellent choice. So, maybe just keep the M14 rig in .308. I'm not sure. .30-06 maybe?

    What say you? Design our "new" dream rifle around what round?

    Some have mentioned the 6.8, but I wonder if even that has enough range. I sure would like to hear advice from someone who's actually been there. Maybe even better range than the .308 is needed.

  2. #2

    Default

    Depends on what part of that particular country your hunting in. There are certain mountains that could appropriately be hunted with a projectile that makes a mushroom cloud and should have been!

    I'd go with the 308 in an ar platform for hunting the rest!

  3. #3
    Member akula682's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    6.8 is junk compared to the 6.5 Grendel/.264 LBC-AR heck even the 6.5 MPC is better than the 6.8.

    I like the grendel, it isnt the best "all around" choice because it really cant be used in the SAW application, that's where the 6.5 MPC will shine, even the 6.8 will be good for that app.

    but in Afgan, issue out 20" uppers with scopes (no aim point red dots) 4x, 6x or 8x ACOGS would be nice and have the M4 lower to help with vehicle egress. Chambered in 6.5 Grendel/.264 LBC-AR would be an outstanding weapon. it would be a great "medimum" rifle between the 5.56 and the 7.62. cheaper than the 7.62 and better punch than the 5.56.

    the fastest way to do it though is to just issue out AR-10's in 7.62 NATO, that way you dont have to worry about re-tooling for ammo and there are enough places that make an AR-10 that you would just need to standardize the specs (like the AR-15) then you would be set.
    Josh
    Back in Afghanistan, I hope for the last time.

  4. #4
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default Thanks Josh!

    Quote Originally Posted by akula682 View Post
    the fastest way to do it though is to just issue out AR-10's in 7.62 NATO, that way you dont have to worry about re-tooling for ammo and there are enough places that make an AR-10 that you would just need to standardize the specs (like the AR-15) then you would be set.
    I like that idea because the existing training/controlls would be in the same location as the M4, etc...yet you'd still have better than 800yds of punch/existing NATO compatability. Everybody becomes a "designated marksman".

    And, thanks for your service, Josh.

  5. #5
    Moderator LuJon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Palmer, AK
    Posts
    11,415

    Default

    With all of the UAV's, fighter-bombers, 50 cal's, mortars, grenade launchers, SAWs and other ways to kill people 8+ football fields away the real question is WHY? Why issue a weapon that has the potential in the right hands to shoot that far to people that are not capable of shooting accurately at that distance? I would love to hear from the guys on the ground outside the wire but I would think an NCO would smack a joe in the head for burning up his combat load lobbing rounds at targets 800 meters away! Pick up the radio and make the mountain side disappear.

    My opinion is the recoil of an AR10 is simply too much and the mag capacity too small to walk it in to a distant target. That is what the SAW is for. An AR 10 may well be valuable for a few troops in the unit but as a whole would likely reduce the overall effectiveness if issued across the board. For that matter the the M14 is probably a better choice due to the additional weight over the AR10. In all honesty the AR10 has found it's useful home....... on the bench rest and in the varmint fields.

  6. #6
    Member akula682's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    1,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    My opinion is the recoil of an AR10 is simply too much and the mag capacity too small to walk it in to a distant target. That is what the SAW is for. An AR 10 may well be valuable for a few troops in the unit but as a whole would likely reduce the overall effectiveness if issued across the board. For that matter the the M14 is probably a better choice due to the additional weight over the AR10. In all honesty the AR10 has found it's useful home....... on the bench rest and in the varmint fields.
    Very Right, just one thing to add, some (read; a lot) of the people using the m-4 whine about its weight with ammo, and 90% who carry the 203, complain about the 203 being too heavy... i cant see this pussified military "manning up" to carry the extra weight of the M-14 or the heavier ammo.

    Id love to have the new M110 "sniper" rifle as my primary.
    Josh
    Back in Afghanistan, I hope for the last time.

  7. #7
    Member Akheloce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Homer
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Three words:

    Browning

    Automatic

    Rifle


    Let the whiners "man up" to what our grandfathers carried.

  8. #8
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default the M110...(a 7.62NATO rifle)


    And I am also hearing some good things about results with the SCAR...in 7.62, and of course the M14.

  9. #9
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akheloce View Post
    Three words:

    Browning

    Automatic

    Rifle


    Let the whiners "man up" to what our grandfathers carried.
    WORD! Heck I still like the Garand! .30-06 will reach out 800yds and touch an AK! (ka-ching).
    But I also like all those just fine sitting in the CMP right now. (at least for awhile yet!)

    In all seriousness, probably LuJon really nailed it...more laser target designators/radio/close air support. Make the problem simply disappear!

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arizonaguide View Post
    Another thread got me thinking...IF we were going to build a "new" M14 or AR10 style (box magazine semi-auto) rifle for the mountainous terrain and long ranges of Afghanistan what would be the best choice?

    Seems to me a long range flat shooter (like sheep hunting) would be an excellent choice. So, maybe just keep the M14 rig in .308. I'm not sure. .30-06 maybe?

    What say you? Design our "new" dream rifle around what round?

    Some have mentioned the 6.8, but I wonder if even that has enough range. I sure would like to hear advice from someone who's actually been there. Maybe even better range than the .308 is needed.
    Well, for long range and a heavy punch it's hard to beat the .338 Lapua, but it can't be had in M14 style.

  11. #11
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    308 or 6.5x55 in a mini 14 type platform. In my longest fire fight I emptied 19 of 22mags in about twenty minuets,m-14. First couple of our patrolls to use the AR we had one stock break off when hitting the dirt and two bolts refuse to chamber rounds, we had many pinched off gas tubes from tiger tails and none of the mags worked with over 16 rounds. At the same type we were testing the rifle Stoner wanted the goverment to buy and it was flawless but to spendy. We went back to M-14's and a few months later we recived the 16's with forward assist and better gas tubes but still 16 to 18 rounds in mag and stocks that would break off so back they went. When the new improved AR arrived we were all issued one but told we could carry any thing we wanted as long as we had at least twenty twenty round mags of ammo to carry. A few of the Marines had to money to pony up and buy the Stoners they had even though they knew the rifles would have to stay behind.

  12. #12
    Member AKsoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LuJon View Post
    With all of the UAV's, fighter-bombers, 50 cal's, mortars, grenade launchers, SAWs and other ways to kill people 8+ football fields away the real question is WHY? Why issue a weapon that has the potential in the right hands to shoot that far to people that are not capable of shooting accurately at that distance? I would love to hear from the guys on the ground outside the wire but I would think an NCO would smack a joe in the head for burning up his combat load lobbing rounds at targets 800 meters away! Pick up the radio and make the mountain side disappear.

    My opinion is the recoil of an AR10 is simply too much and the mag capacity too small to walk it in to a distant target. That is what the SAW is for. An AR 10 may well be valuable for a few troops in the unit but as a whole would likely reduce the overall effectiveness if issued across the board. For that matter the the M14 is probably a better choice due to the additional weight over the AR10. In all honesty the AR10 has found it's useful home....... on the bench rest and in the varmint fields.
    I just got back from Afghanistan in Feb. I concur with pretty much everything LuJon posted. The vast majority of firefights take place at very close range for any rifle cartridge.

    I am not a fan of the 5.56 (.223 Remington) cartridge, but that is only because it isn't a very useful chambering for what I hunt. I prefer something bigger that I can either down-load for small game, or hot-load so smaller members of my family can take big game. For me, that means a .243 Win.

    Since this post is about a warfighter's cartridge, I'll switch gears here. I still think the 5.56 is lacking. This is only an educated guess, but I would say that those in the military who actually fire their weapons at targets over 300 meters in real combat are in a very small minority. The fact that the army asigns squad marksmen, who are assigned M14's lends credence to that.

    So what in my opinion would be the best short to medium range cartridge for military purposes... The .308. Why? Besause it is already widely in use in the military, so production costs would be minimal. Recoil, while greater than the 5.56 is still within reason. It has much greater stopping power than the 5.56 NATO at just about any range, and because it's already a NATO cartridge in use, the "red tape" required to use it would be minimal compared to other alternatives.

    Potential drawbacks would be the obvious obscelesence of the M249 SAW, but maybe that could be re-tooled for the .308?

    I really dis-like the little .22 I have to drag around down-range. The military changes very slowly though.

    Maybe by the time I retire they will let me pack my own weapon. ....One can only hope. ;-)

    The other 299,300,000 people can have it.

    Noone has a more intimate understanding of, or deeper appreciation for freedom, than a soldier who has fought for it in a country where it does not exist.

  13. #13
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKsoldier View Post
    Your post.
    AKsoldier, thank you for your knowlegable post and your service.

    Yup, the consensus seems to agree that somewhat of a limited .308 upgrade would be logical for A-stan, with lots more heavy backup from the air.

    AKsoldier, can I ask this question? Was the countryside where most of the fighting takes place more of a mountainous terrain (like Alaska sheep country/pictures we see heading towards Pakistan) or was more of it in an "suburban" type environment? Or, is it a little of both (poppy farmland ) and a person can't really choose a better rifle definitivly, one way or the other?

    I understand that some of the enemy that are more of a threat in the mountainous areas are using old (longer range) mauser-type bolt action rifles (against us) rather than AK's.

  14. #14
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default

    I would want something in 308 but not so much for range but more for shooting through light cover like cars, doors, and what not. The range is a small bonus but if a whole squad is chucking 30cals all the sudden there are a lot less hiding places for the enemy. Iím old school so love the M-14 but AR-10 is a very good platform, also donít forget the well proven FN-FAL.


    308/30-06? Not a hill of beans difference between them really. 06 can push a heaver hunting bullet bit no need to in combat, same bullet and they are hears breath from each other. 308 fits into shorter actions so the gun can be built a tad lighter in 308 . . . that about sums up the difference between 308/30-06.


    BAR? My Dad was a BAR man during WWII in 1st Marines and he found the gun lacking in combat, not particularly good for any one job. He said of the available weapons he would rather have had a Garand 90% of the time and a Thompson the other 10%. His chef complaints on the BAR were: 1> 20 round mags are not enough ammo for close combat during a bonzai charge: 2> Full auto only wastes ammo for aimed fire. His dream combat rifle was a Grand with a 20+ round BAR type mag and selectable fire then along came the M-14 so I guess he wasnít the only one.

    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  15. #15
    Member Ryan J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    218

    Default Mountains

    Everywhere we made contact was within 10 miles of the Pak Border. Very mountainous and reminded me of the Rockies in Colorado. But there were other areas that were flat barren desert, with no real terrain. And then there were other areas that looked like, the Black Hills in SD maybe. No vegetation whatsoever, but plenty of hills. That country is a very diverse environment from border to border. We were in the east. With the fight picking back up in the South this last year, they have alot of farm land but a big mix of terrain as well. My guys didn't use their M4s much at all. It was machine guns, mortars, artillery and the Air Force. Much props to the Army's helicopter pilots as well.

  16. #16
    Member AKsoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arizonaguide View Post
    AKsoldier, thank you for your knowlegable post and your service.

    Yup, the consensus seems to agree that somewhat of a limited .308 upgrade would be logical for A-stan, with lots more heavy backup from the air.

    AKsoldier, can I ask this question? Was the countryside where most of the fighting takes place more of a mountainous terrain (like Alaska sheep country/pictures we see heading towards Pakistan) or was more of it in an "suburban" type environment? Or, is it a little of both (poppy farmland ) and a person can't really choose a better rifle definitivly, one way or the other?

    I understand that some of the enemy that are more of a threat in the mountainous areas are using old (longer range) mauser-type bolt action rifles (against us) rather than AK's.
    I can't add anything to what Ryan J said. He nailed the terrain description. I never saw any of the older mauser bolt guns. Lots and lots of AKs and RPGs. But then I'm a truck driver, so I only saw what as near the roads. (If you can call them roads)

    The other 299,300,000 people can have it.

    Noone has a more intimate understanding of, or deeper appreciation for freedom, than a soldier who has fought for it in a country where it does not exist.

  17. #17
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan J View Post
    Everywhere we made contact was within 10 miles of the Pak Border. Very mountainous and reminded me of the Rockies in Colorado. But there were other areas that were flat barren desert, with no real terrain. And then there were other areas that looked like, the Black Hills in SD maybe. No vegetation whatsoever, but plenty of hills. That country is a very diverse environment from border to border. We were in the east. With the fight picking back up in the South this last year, they have alot of farm land but a big mix of terrain as well. My guys didn't use their M4s much at all. It was machine guns, mortars, artillery and the Air Force. Much props to the Army's helicopter pilots as well.
    THANK YOU Ryan! And thank you for having been there and served!
    Seems like much I see in the pic's is mountainous (Alaska Sheep Hunting type) terrain, but I was wondering how much was all like that.

    I have many friends who are across the pond right now (I of course wish they were home...and on the Arizona Border ..or that I was with them!). And, for anyone that's interested here's one of the best websites I'm aware of for good honest reporting:
    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

  18. #18
    Member Bsj425's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Pole, Alaska
    Posts
    1,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AKsoldier View Post
    I just got back from Afghanistan in Feb. I concur with pretty much everything LuJon posted. The vast majority of firefights take place at very close range for any rifle cartridge.

    I am not a fan of the 5.56 (.223 Remington) cartridge, but that is only because it isn't a very useful chambering for what I hunt. I prefer something bigger that I can either down-load for small game, or hot-load so smaller members of my family can take big game. For me, that means a .243 Win.

    Since this post is about a warfighter's cartridge, I'll switch gears here. I still think the 5.56 is lacking. This is only an educated guess, but I would say that those in the military who actually fire their weapons at targets over 300 meters in real combat are in a very small minority. The fact that the army asigns squad marksmen, who are assigned M14's lends credence to that.

    So what in my opinion would be the best short to medium range cartridge for military purposes... The .308. Why? Besause it is already widely in use in the military, so production costs would be minimal. Recoil, while greater than the 5.56 is still within reason. It has much greater stopping power than the 5.56 NATO at just about any range, and because it's already a NATO cartridge in use, the "red tape" required to use it would be minimal compared to other alternatives.

    Potential drawbacks would be the obvious obscelesence of the M249 SAW, but maybe that could be re-tooled for the .308?

    I really dis-like the little .22 I have to drag around down-range. The military changes very slowly though.

    Maybe by the time I retire they will let me pack my own weapon. ....One can only hope. ;-)
    They already have the m249 in 7.62x51 orginally designed for SOCOM use small units are getting them now we only had 2 per company last deployment but they are getting more they are the MK48 look them up they are a nice little piece of machinery. And they use the same links/ belts of the 240B so that solution is covered there. But in turn would make the 240b almost obslete carrying something with the same capabilitys at over a foot shorter and 10 lbs lighter
    http://www.fnmfg.com/products/m249fam/mk48mod1.htm

  19. #19
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default Yup! Sweeeeeet!

    Yes, I'll take one in Flat Dark Earth please. But, I'm not picky. Perfect color for AZ though!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •