P&S ModCast 103 - Clip 01: Chuck Talks About 5 56 vs 308
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2017
- Primary & Secondary ModCast
New weapons and new calibers for interim options to be fielded by the U.S. Military.
Is it a hardware solution for a software problem?
How will that affect combat loadouts?
Is it effective?
Chuck Pressburg with Presscheck Consulting frames the discussion with his experience.
Whole episode:
• P&S ModCast 103 - Gun ...
Presscheck Consulting:
Facebook: / presscheckconsulting
Primary & Secondary:
UA-cam: / primarysecondarynetwork
Website: primaryandsecondary.com
Facebook: / primaryandsecondary
iTunes: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/p...
Google: play.google.com/music/listen#...
Stitcher: www.stitcher.com/podcast/matt-...
Chuck needs to write a book.
And 4 years later, after this glorious work of Chuck and others killed the stoopid interim rifle we see today M5 in 6.8x51 Fuereh being hailed by military as new combat rifle - I relistened to this and see no reason why, everything what is said here still holds true in this situation ...
And now we have the NGSW...
Chuck really needs to write a book
But muh stopping power... I want light weight and more rounds
I was watching the intro at 1.5x speed and thought all the guys had crazy fast splits and incredible reloads😅
Chuck communicates brilliantly
Chuck Fkng Pressburg is fkn awesome!
Oh we know
Can we start cloning humans now! Start with CP!
I hope you guys are glad the ICSR 7.62mm interim was cancelled.😀
Very! You are welcome!
I just looked up the XSAPI and I am amazed.
The XSAPI...I can't tell if it was better then ESAPI or SAPI.
If they made that guy SecDef, maybe we'd stop losing fucking wars.
Learning has occurred.
All pearls.
Can you guys please do something on the new 6.8...
That's pretty much covered in the entirety of episode 103.
@@PrimaryAndSecondary It is, but getting people to see it is the problem. They really bought in to the marketing and somehow think the 6.8 is different. Maybe just a edit over Chuck saying 6.8 instead of 7.62 :P
Well he’s not jaded about the government’s management at all ha
Very valid points but the Army is saying they are getting shot with at 500-700 yards and having issues returning fire back at that range with 556. Seems to be a valid concern
E Rid Shot at (general direction) and actually getting shot are two different things.
Buying a rifle for the future based on specific tactical concerns of a current remote operating environment is bad thinking.
Call for fire on it, get your JTAC to get AWT/CAS en route, get closer to it, or break contact and get away from it. There are a multitude of options to deal with long range SAF, but giving every dude 7.62 is not the first on that list of readily-available and successful options. SAW gunners can bipod it up and hold it down, 240 dudes would be even better, or if you got vehicles get the gunners on that shit while you maneuver -but the dudes doing the maneuvering shouldn't be burdened and bulked down with 7.62 for days.
Mr2ndAmendment What happens when a future adversary has a good SAM system and a effective Air Force? CAS might no be available. If you rely on being able to call in CAS or Arty, then you need to rethink tactics.
Clive Sinclair
Valid concerns, we think about these things as well. This goes down to still doing land nav with maps and a compass, we don't want to get over reliant on Garmins and other things that would get us killed in a near-peer fight.
If we don't control the airspace, I think we got a lot of problems that would probably show up more than a caliber fight. A near-peer fight means they probably got cities and towns, industrial areas and infrastructure -not a bunch of mountains and mud huts. That kind of fight would have a lot of urban battles, I think between wooded areas and urban places, you'd have closer-range engagements.
There's an idea or fantasy that had slowly gotten squashed over time, dating back to WW1 where the Germans had long range sites on their artillery Lugers, and every nation showed up with long battle rifles firing the big calibers to support this mindset that dudes were going to be shooting at each other 600-1000m every day. There are times when that happened, but the vast bulk of that fight was across a trench, or inside a trench cleaning it out. By WW2 the Germans looked at their engagement data, realizing these 7.92x57 weapons were overkill for the average 200-300m fights everyone was actually having. They pushed out the MP44/STG44 family with their intermediate cartridge, and the rest is history.
But getting back to the point, I think we need to keep 7.62 NATO with the 240 gunners, designated marksmen, and snipers. Riflemen and everyone else not on those systems should stick with 5.56. Reduce the bulk and weight of their ammo and cut down on how many total mags we have to carry. Support dudes can set up a base of fire with the heavy shit when needed, but the dudes hauling ass, bounding up, and assaulting through should have a maximum amount of round-to-weight ratios, with lighter rifles/carbines to do it with. Keep them as fast and light as possible while maximizing how many rounds they can carry.
262 and M855A1 loads for the 5.56 are solid performers, much better than the 855 green tip crud. This caliber with loads that produce effective terminal ballistics is what we need, not weighing everyone down with a huge overkill caliber. If air assets aren't there (something we've already been dealing with in GWOT), then you get closer or get the fuck away from it, depending on what's going on. You're not totally hopeless, you got your 240/DM/snipers for a reason. I was a 240 gunner in Afghan and I never felt like everyone in the squad needed my caliber, especially with those bullshit jagged cliffs and mountains in Paktika, fuck that noise. I want those dudes fast and light, not bulked down with huge and heavy double stacks of 20 round mags.
Hmmmm, Chuck sounds just like Roland Deschain.
Fletch Schubert Coincidence?
I assumed this was common knowledge but didn't find anything stating it outright
The Wrath of Chuck.
.....
Roland predicted this.
Who’s Roland?
Chuck Pressburg
Only one hater
If you can’t hit a target at 600m with a modern 7.62 IAR, then training is wrong. To those that say keep 5.56 and call in CAS... what if it isn’t available? In future conflicts the bad guys might have good SAM systems or an Air Force that fights back and CAS will then become a secondary priority. Then all you have on the ground is your IAR and team weapons.
Better marksmanship and fitness, carry 7.62.
This is what the Support Squads and Heavy Weapons people are for.
The vast majority combat happens inside 300 meters, a suprising amount of it happens even closer, 100 or even 50 meters . Afganistan has long range combat, because the enemy refuses to stand and fight, because they can't.
Most of their fire is either figured out weeks in advance or is just pop shots.
Clive Sinclair the IAR is 5.56 and I don’t think there has ever been an army where all or most of its front line troops could hit the enemy at those distances; mostly because it’s hard to see that far sure you have optics but they only help once you’ve become aware of the enemy. The army has been looking at this problem for decades and it still hasn’t figured it out; they originally want to arm the infantry with basically long range shotguns because they recognized early on the kind of training required to get the infantry as a whole to effectively engage at those ranges was pretty much never going to happen
Battle rifles for riflemen at the squad level, what a joke.
ComeOnPelican91 It was the norm before 5.56 toys
That's right, how could I forget what the norm used to be? Go back in time and give the Vietcong and NVA some Knights Armament SR16's and the United States soldiers SR25's since your formula for success will guarantee victory.