Sometimes you just have to laugh

[Suhiir]

Seems that after years of proclaiming the M4 the be-all end-all of combat rifles the US Army thinks it may need a new weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNyvOFPves0

[DRG]

There is no perfect system..it's one trade-off vs another. Mech infantry could carry a wider variety of weapon types so you draw the ones that suit the situation but foot infantry doesn't have that luxury. Thinking another rifle in 7.62 given to the guys in the section who can best use it would be better than handing it to everyone. The whole point of the 5.56 was you could carry more ammo and the weapon was more controllable in full auto bursts what has changed since the M14 is that nearly everyone now has a scoped rifle..and with that, you can hit at longer distance so now the pendulum has swung back...they want a round that will hit to the range the scope is useful to......but you can only carry half the ammo....and with that you have to train the entire army to hit what they are shooting at first time.......no more spray and pray

[Suhiir]

If anyone asked my opinion I'd go with one 7.62 per team ... so 1x M4 (team lead) 1x M4/203 (grenadier) 1x M249 or M27 (automatic rifle) 1x 7.62 (marksman).

They generally already have a 7.62 at platoon or squad level, just make it a standard weapon at team level.

Your team lead is usually carrying extra pyro or other junk so needs the lighter 5.56 ammo, and the grenadier 40mm grenades. With this 2 of the 4 team members can reach out to 700m or so.

[DRG]

yep

[scorpio_rocks]

From a logistical point of view, isn't it better everyone uses the same ammo (whatever the calibre)?

[cbo]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

From a logistical point of view, isn't it better everyone uses the same ammo (whatever the calibre)?

In theory, but it is probably not that much of an issue for modern western armies, as they are small, conflicts likely to be either short or low intensity and logistics not much of an issue.

I doubt you will have to ship hundreds of millions of rounds to the other side of the world for millions of soldiers to use like in WWII.

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by cbo

In theory, but it is probably not that much of an issue for modern western armies, as they are small, conflicts likely to be either short or low intensity and logistics not much of an issue.

I doubt you will have to ship hundreds of millions of rounds to the other side of the world for millions of soldiers to use like in WWII.

Yes and if there is suddenly a major conflict, I am sure the enemy will be polite enough to wait for you to get ready. Months or years. It's best to not be ready for the worst case scenario, I am sure all will be ok in the end.

[cbo]

Originally Posted by Wdll

Yes and if there is suddenly a major conflict, I am sure the enemy will be polite enough to wait for you to get ready. Months or years. It's best to not be ready for the worst case scenario, I am sure all will be ok in the end.

If major conflict arrived that suddenly, having two ammo-types is the least of your worries

[Wdll]

Originally Posted by cbo

If major conflict arrived that suddenly, having two ammo-types is the least of your worries

That's the case with any war no matter its speed.

[Suhiir]

Always, but rarely happens these days due to modern small caliber assault rifles. MMGs (and often marksman/sniper weapons) invariably use full size ammo not the lighter calibers. Even the Soviet/Russian military does this.