IDN TAKE: Is the 7.62x51mm Calibre Assault Rifle Suitable For Conventional War?

[Omega007]

long range to me anything over 450meters with respect to battle/assault rifles and a 7.62X51mm Nato round shot from a 20 or 22Inch barrel will be highly accurate but still can reach and still penetrate kevlar armour from 450-600 meters

Soldiers these days are issued with plate carriers with hard armor front plates with Kevlar only being used as trauma padding materials!!And modern NIJ Level III steel armor like AR 500 plates can stop anywhere between 60-70 regular FMJ M80 ball rounds, fired from a distance no more than 10-15 meter, through full length rifle barrels!!So if you are thinking about defeating modern armor at such ranges with regular ammo, then just forget about it pal!!

 

[MilSpec]

long range to me anything over 450meters with respect to battle/assault rifles and a 7.62X51mm Nato round shot from a 20 or 22Inch barrel will be highly accurate but still can reach and still penetrate kevlar armour from 450-600 meters

take a look at this.

 

[Omega007]

take a look at this.

As expected, the Grendel takes the cake here, I would say the one with 123 grain loads would be ideal for regular issue with Assault Rifles, GPMGs, DMRs and so one, with the 144 being reserved for the dedicated sniper units.Best part about the Grendel would be that the existing 5.56 NATO chambered firearms can be optimised for this round with minimum modifications.

PS - The SPC sucks @rse big time!!I can't even fathom that Indian Army considered to adopt the SPC instead of the Grendel!!

Ok, on a second thought, the Mk262 isn't really that bad and might fit the bill without much of an issue but I hear that it costs almost four times as much as an SS 109, so what's the use going for it when you can get the Grendels within that cost anyway??!!

 

[MilSpec]

As expected, the Grendel takes the cake here, I would say the one with 123 grain loads would be ideal for regular issue with Assault Rifles, GPMGs, DMRs and so one, with the 144 being reserved for the dedicated sniper units.Best part about the Grendel would be that the existing 5.56 NATO chambered firearms can be optimised for this round with minimum modifications.

PS - The SPC sucks @rse big time!!I can't even fathom that Indian Army considered to adopt the SPC instead of the Grendel!!

Ok, on a second thought, the Mk262 isn't really that bad and might fit the bill without much of an issue but I hear that it costs almost four times as much as an SS 109, so what's the use going for it when you can get the Grendels within that cost anyway??!!

well off topic but,
Couple of other rounds that are underrated but have surprisingly good performance are the .270Win, and 6.5creedmoor.
I am seeing .270 gaining popularity, is a sibling round of the 30 06, it is surprising that a round made in the 1920's beats the crap out brand new engineered rounds. It tells you there is an art to shooting.

 

[Omega007]

well off topic but,

To hell with off topic, any new info regarding firearms is always welcome.

Couple of other rounds that are underrated but have surprisingly good performance are the .270Win, and 6.5creedmoor.

I see, heard of the former but the Creedmoor is a new one, is it another offshoot of the .30 cal??

I am seeing .270 gaining popularity, is a sibling round of the 30 06, it is surprising that a round made in the 1920's beats the crap out brand new engineered rounds.

No wonder there, the .30-govt 6 is possibly among the most powerful rifle round around (not counting the super heavies like .50 cal or .408 CheyTac) after all.

It tells you there is an art to shooting.

Never had a doubt.

 

[MilSpec]

To hell with off topic, any new info regarding firearms is always welcome.

I see, heard of the former but the Creedmoor is a new one, is it another offshoot of the .30 cal??

No wonder there, the .30-govt 6 is possibly among the most powerful rifle round around (not counting the super heavies like .50 cal or .408 CheyTac) after all.

Never had a doubt.

 

[Red bull]

AK -47 are Most Common Weapon And Most used weapon For 7.62mm Cartridges around the World in Any Combat i don't understand What is the base of Author Analysis

Indian army made RFI for 7.62x51mm assault rifles and junked Excalibur assault rifle as per stupid media reports. The article is based on that and the focus is logistics and carrying an ammunition during war with China along high altitude India China borders where 12g 7.62x51mm ammunition compared to 4g 5.56 will not only make problems for soldiers but also problems for logistics. A 5.56 can be carried 3X the amount of 7.62x51. Plenty of ammunition is needed during war. 7'62x51 is a waste for conventional war.

AK's use 7.62x39 mm cartridge, the shoddily written article is about 7.61x51 Nato round. The idiot is comparing a Full size rifle round with a intermediate cartridge. "

You totally missed the point. The article is based on stupid media reports that army junked 5.56 for it's infantry and looking for 7.62x51. Conventional war, engagement happens with in range of 300m where 5.56 is effective enough and so it's accuracy. The article is focussed on logistics and carrying a huge 7.62x51 rounds. You can carry three 5.56N ammo against one 7.62x51 ammo. In high altitude warfare it's madness to carry huge 7.62x51 ammo. It's even difficult to breathe. Availability of ammo is important, so does the conservation of fuel and sorties by trucks to transfer ammunition. 7.62 is becoming extinct. World is investing heavily on 5.56 making it more lethal. Recently USMC adopted 5.56 ammo
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/17/usmc-adopt-new-5-56mm-mk318-mod-0-ammunition/

The article is completely made on whether it's suitable to ise a huge ammo in such terrains. The Russians largest user of 7.62 switched to 5.45 AK74 as their primary weapon for Russian armed forces and so did Israel. The cost of 5.56 is less than 7.62 and used by many countries. In war, it'll be an added advantage if the ammo you used is same as your ally to increase availability. US infantry troops uses 5.56 and they're given covered by heavy calibers. US uses 5.56 for even sniping. Different weapons and calibers are disaster. Battle is won by logistics, without logistics support, battle is lost before it begins. I have fired many rounds in different weapons. Thrust do affect accuracy and in case of 7.62x51 rounds, it's thrust is so high that it even miss the target, what to do with it's lethality ? It aches shoulder after firing 7.62x51 for long.
Later it's cleared that the RFI for 7.62x51 caliber assault rifle was for amphibious assault rifles. Don't take the article as rocket science. It's simple. If you got the focus of the article, all your comments are irrelevant.

"Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm."

You're correct about 7.62x39 used for CI Ops. If you're sensible enough there's no need to elaborate a round used for CI ops. One can easily understand that.

Also author either don't know or else that most NATO members and USA is also shifting back to 7.62 X 51 caliber. increasing use of FN SCAR and HK-417 and new SIG 716 endorses it

You've said just the opposite. The world is shifting from 7.62 to 5.56. Even Russians did with its AK 74 and AK 12. Even the USMC were issued 5.56 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/17/usmc-adopt-new-5-56mm-mk318-mod-0-ammunition/

 

[Zarvan]

Indian army made RFI for 7.62x51mm assault rifles and junked Excalibur assault rifle as per stupid media reports. The article is based on that and the focus is logistics and carrying an ammunition during war with China along high altitude India China borders where 12g 7.62x51mm ammunition compared to 4g 5.56 will not only make problems for soldiers but also problems for logistics. A 5.56 can be carried 3X the amount of 7.62x51. Plenty of ammunition is needed during war. 7'62x51 is a waste for conventional war.





You've said just the opposite. The world is shifting from 7.62 to 5.56. Even Russians did with its AK 74 and AK 12. Even the USMC were issued 5.56 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/17/usmc-adopt-new-5-56mm-mk318-mod-0-ammunition/

No USA has shifted back to 7.62 X 51 also Germany has done same Italy is also coming up with 7.62 X 51 Beretta also Belgium and France also testing HK-417 and FN SCAR H and would select one. Spain would most probably also shift back to 7.62 X 51 and their are many more countries.

 

[Red bull]

No USA has shifted back to 7.62 X 51 also Germany has done same Italy is also coming up with 7.62 X 51 Beretta also Belgium and France also testing HK-417 and FN SCAR H and would select one. Spain would most probably also shift back to 7.62 X 51 and their are many more countries.

It doesn't match with any Us small arms genius I talked about such shift. Western countries still prefer 5.56 and world is moving to 5.56. You can also check primary weapons of every armed forces of the world. Whatever you said it is totally opposite to what world is doing. FN SCAR-H is a battle rifle and in use since 2009. I'm talking about assault rifle. For that it's FN-SCAR-L. G-36 is the standard assault rifle of German Army since 1997 after it replaced the G3 rifles. M16A4 and M4 are their primary weapons of their army. Please check.

AK's use 7.62x39 mm cartridge, the shoddily written article is about 7.61x51 Nato round. The idiot is comparing a Full size rifle round with a intermediate cartridge.

Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm.

7.62 is basically a 30 cal round and technically unless the case length is mentioned it could be construed a multiple variety of 7.62 rounds

7.62x25 Tokarev - Is a pistol round
7.62x39 - SKS/AK47 intermediate round
7.62x35 - .300 AAC Blackout Stanag equivalent of the round above
7.62x51Nato - .308 Full size batle rifle round
7.62x54R - Rimmed full size battle rifle (SVD/Mosin Nagant )
7.62x63mm - .30 06 Springfield Full size battle rifle round
7.62x51R - Rimmed 30-30 winchester full size round (hunting round)
7.62x33 - .30 carbine - Intermediate round (M1 carbine)
7.62x38mmR - Nagant revolver cartridge


to name a few, without case size and it's intended application, 7.62 can mean a lot of different rounds.


Because there is no one glove fits all.

7.62x51 is an excellent round, it is my favorite round to shoot, it is also the most technical round to shoot. To take advantage of it's long range, optics are a must in my opinion. Few disadvantages are weight, cost of building a bulkier bolt carrier and receiver, and also it's not a very efficient round in full auto.

5.56 too is an excellent round, I personally had stayed away from this in my personal collection because of it's potato chip quality, you keep wanting more and more, but eventually I had to give in and soon will be building two Ar15's. I have shot quite a bit of 5.56x45 nato on the range, It may not be the most potent round but it is a less technical. It shoots flat to the ranges you can clearly distinguish the target, it is very controllable, chamber pressure are easy to deal with (and no I am not referring to case pressure).

Coming to Insas, please remember it was designed in the 80's, and 5.56 was the less of the evil back then. There was no 6.8spc or 6.5 grendel to choose from. It was light, easy to make, ideal engagement distance, controllable in full auto, and adopted to a design that borrowed heavily from the AKM with features of the FAL. The unfortunate part of Insas story is OFB did not continue to develop the platform. AR15/M16 today is relevant because of the continued development, and so is the AK. But Insas saw a few interim growth spurts and hence is such a disappointment to gun enthusiasts worldwide.

You totally missed the point. The article is based on stupid media reports that army junked 5.56 for it's infantry and looking for 7.62x51. Conventional war, engagement happens with in range of 400m where 5.56 is effective enough and so it's accuracy. The article is focussed on logistics and carrying a huge 7.62x51 rounds. You can carry three 5.56N ammo against one 7.62x51 ammo. In high altitude warfare it's madness to carry huge 7.62x51 ammo. It's even difficult to breathe. Availability of ammo is important, so does the conservation of fuel and sorties by trucks to transfer ammunition. 7.62 is becoming extinct. World is investing heavily on 5.56 making it more lethal.

The article is completely made on whether it's suitable to ise a huge ammo in such terrains. The Russians largest user of 7.62 switched to 5.45 AK74 as their primary weapon for Russian armed forces and so did Israel. The cost of 5.56 is less than 7.62 and used by many countries. In war, it'll be an added advantage if the ammo you used is same as your ally to increase availability. US infantry troops uses 5.56 and they're given covered by heavy calibers. US uses 5.56 for even sniping. Different weapons and calibers are disaster. Battle is won by logistics, without logistics support, battle is lost before it begins. I have fired many rounds in different weapons. Thrust do affect accuracy and in case of 7.62x51 rounds, it's thrust is so high that it even miss the target, what to do with it's lethality ? It aches shoulder after firing 7.62x51 for long.
Later it's cleared that the RFI for 7.62x51 caliber assault rifle was for amphibious assault rifles. Don't take the article as rocket science. It's simple. If you got the focus of the article, all your comments are irrelevant.

You said - "Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm."

You're correct about 7.62x39 used for CI Ops. If you're sensible enough there's no need to elaborate a round used for CI ops. One can easily understand that.

 

[MilSpec]

It doesn't match with any Us small arms genius I talked about such shift. Western countries still prefer 5.56 and world is moving to 5.56. You can also check primary weapons of every armed forces of the world. Whatever you said it is totally opposite to what world is doing. FN SCAR-H is a battle rifle and in use since 2009. I'm talking about assault rifle. For that it's FN-SCAR-L. G-36 is the standard assault rifle of German Army since 1997 after it replaced the G3 rifles. M16A4 and M4 are their primary weapons of their army. Please check.


You totally missed the point. The article is based on stupid media reports that army junked 5.56 for it's infantry and looking for 7.62x51. Conventional war, engagement happens with in range of 400m where 5.56 is effective enough and so it's accuracy. The article is focussed on logistics and carrying a huge 7.62x51 rounds. You can carry three 5.56N ammo against one 7.62x51 ammo. In high altitude warfare it's madness to carry huge 7.62x51 ammo. It's even difficult to breathe. Availability of ammo is important, so does the conservation of fuel and sorties by trucks to transfer ammunition. 7.62 is becoming extinct. World is investing heavily on 5.56 making it more lethal.

The article is completely made on whether it's suitable to ise a huge ammo in such terrains. The Russians largest user of 7.62 switched to 5.45 AK74 as their primary weapon for Russian armed forces and so did Israel. The cost of 5.56 is less than 7.62 and used by many countries. In war, it'll be an added advantage if the ammo you used is same as your ally to increase availability. US infantry troops uses 5.56 and they're given covered by heavy calibers. US uses 5.56 for even sniping. Different weapons and calibers are disaster. Battle is won by logistics, without logistics support, battle is lost before it begins. I have fired many rounds in different weapons. Thrust do affect accuracy and in case of 7.62x51 rounds, it's thrust is so high that it even miss the target, what to do with it's lethality ? It aches shoulder after firing 7.62x51 for long.
Later it's cleared that the RFI for 7.62x51 caliber assault rifle was for amphibious assault rifles. Don't take the article as rocket science. It's simple. If you got the focus of the article, all your comments are irrelevant.

You said - "Also the author too is confused about 7.62 being used in counter terror, in that case the round he actually referring to is the 7.62x 39 mm."

You're correct about 7.62x39 used for CI Ops. If you're sensible enough there's no need to elaborate a round used for CI ops. One can easily understand that.

Welcome to the forum,
read again what I wrote, try and understand the post before responding.

 

[Red bull]

Welcome to the forum,
read again what I wrote, try and understand the post before responding.

I saw many people are confused with the comparison between 7.62x51 rounds with 5.56x45 but the article is based on decision of GSQR selecting 7.62x51 over 5.56 as spread by propagandists media. Later it was recovered from Indian Army website that the 7.62x51 caliber is selected for amphibious rifles for particular not entire infantry or to replace INSAS 1B1/2. Excalibur rifle or Modified INSAS Rifle is still in trials and development. As you said "OFB didn't continue to develop the platform" Excalibur rifle is based on INSAS platform. Actually people think INSAS itself is a rifle. Wrong. INSAS is a platform. Based on that rifles like 1B1,1B2,LMG, MSMC, Amogh and Excalibur developed and it was the job of ARDE for R&D work and development jointly with OFB but OFB has to do it alone because of ARDE's incompetence. OFB is manufacturing unit of ARDE. It's just like ADA-HAL. It can participate with ARDE to joint develop a weapon but in this case OFB is doing alone which is not the drill.
I understood what you said and I put my points, the conclusion is same but then what is the problem with the article ?

My response was only for those two sentence of yours -
"Also the author too is confused .....referring to is the 7.62x39mm."
"The idiot is comparing full size...intermediate cartridge."

Thank you for the warm welcome.

 

[MilSpec]

I saw many people are confused with the comparison between 7.62x51 rounds with 5.56x45 but the article is based on decision of GSQR selecting 7.62x51 over 5.56 as spread by propagandists media. Later it was recovered from Indian Army website that the 7.62x51 caliber is selected for amphibious rifles for particular not entire infantry or to replace INSAS 1B1/2. Excalibur rifle or Modified INSAS Rifle is still in trials and development. As you said "OFB didn't continue to develop the platform" Excalibur rifle is based on INSAS platform. Actually people think INSAS itself is a rifle. Wrong. INSAS is a platform. Based on that rifles like 1B1,1B2,LMG, MSMC, Amogh and Excalibur developed and it was the job of ARDE for R&D work and development jointly with OFB but OFB has to do it alone because of ARDE's incompetence. OFB is manufacturing unit of ARDE. It's just like ADA-HAL. It can participate with ARDE to joint develop a weapon but in this case OFB is doing alone which is not the drill.
I understood what you said and I put my points, the conclusion is same but then what is the problem with the article ?

My response was only for those two sentence of yours -
"Also the author too is confused .....referring to is the 7.62x39mm."
"The idiot is comparing full size...intermediate cartridge."

Thank you for the warm welcome.

When the premise of the article is set in confusion where the author suggests it's use in CT ops, he is referring to 7.62x39, which itself gives away the shoddy understanding of the cartridge system.

And yes the idiot is comparing a Full Size Rifle Round 7.62x51 Nato with a 5.56x45 intermediate cartridge.

So on both counts I stand by what I said, it is a poorly written article, what is your point.

I have extensively shot both, and comparing performance is ridiculous. Unless IA decides to move to 6.5Grendel, both have it's use. The only issue being 7.62x51Nato's long range performance is being over hyped. Shooting 600-800 yards with 7.62x51N is no childs play and especially in combat can be extremely challenging.

 

[Red bull]

When the premise of the article is set in confusion where the author suggests it's use in CT ops, he is referring to 7.62x39, which itself gives away the shoddy understanding of the cartridge system.

And yes the idiot is comparing a Full Size Rifle Round 7.62x51 Nato with a 5.56x45 intermediate cartridge.

So on both counts I stand by what I said, it is a poorly written article, what is your point.

I have extensively shot both, and comparing performance is ridiculous. Unless IA decides to move to 6.5Grendel, both have it's use. The only issue being 7.62x51Nato's long range performance is being over hyped. Shooting 600-800 yards with 7.62x51N is no childs play and especially in combat can be extremely challenging.

I got your problem. You're thinking the author is measuring performance of 2 different calibers and comparing it ! No. The article from the beginning to end was on capabilities of soldiers to carry heavy ammunition and logistics issues along India China border and if say about the performance even you must agree that 7.62x51 is not at all suitable for a conventional war along India China high altitude borders. I have fired different calibers starting from .22 to 7.62x51 and many different rifles since starting of my carrier age. I know the performance, recoil and other issues. I understood it more properly when I visited Army camps in Nathula borders. I know their hell life and problems. Even in ladakh territories, I won't say the areas but it was impossible to breathe without carrying any loads just the clothes covering my body. During war you can pretty understand the situation of a soldier no matter how hard he's trained to act on such terrains, he is a human after all. In Siachen, apart from 5.56 INSAS 1B2, no other rifles and calibers work. If you're not well versed with mountaineering and summits, it's difficult for me to make you understand about impact of 1 gram weight. Also let me tell you, only availability of ammo is not enough, during war a soldier should have sufficient supply of food, water(especially along India China border), clothes and fuel apart from war accessories.

So as per you, the idiot is either GSQR or the media who spread the propaganda that IA junked 5.56 and moving for 7.62x51 where the truth is otherwise and this article is based on that propaganda spread by media. Later it came out that army issued RFI on 7.62x51 for amphibious rifles used by selected units. No mention or confirmed reports that Excalibur is junked. First India uses a large number of 5.56 INSAS 1B1/2. Replacing them simply by importing rifle of another caliber doesn't make any sense. I was confirmed on the first day that media was spreading propaganda or ill informed. During war, it's better to use with what you're used to and secondly which can be transported in large quantities with minimum sorties. Especially when it comes to Indian logistics along CHINA border.
6.5Grendel !! DRDO is developing a 6mm cartridge which I personally remark waste of time and money. If you're well versed with indian development procedures, armed forces eternity testing and mum after trials for decades, you would never said this. A new cartridge will require time as it's consuming by DRDO to develop one as expected, secondly a new rifle with completely changed mechanism which will consume more time, then eternal trials by army to make it faulty anyhow so that they can import junk and finally production which was never an issue though but still. I would say 3 decades at least for such innovation in India. China is arming itself and we don't have time for experiment. Better we stick to the usual and master on that.

 

[MilSpec]

I got your problem. You're thinking the author is measuring performance of 2 different calibers and comparing it ! No. The article from the beginning to end was on capabilities of soldiers to carry heavy ammunition and logistics issues along India China border and if say about the performance even you must agree that 7.62x51 is not at all suitable for a conventional war along India China high altitude borders. I have fired different calibers starting from .22 to 7.62x51 and many different rifles since starting of my carrier age. I know the performance, recoil and other issues. I understood it more properly when I visited Army camps in Nathula borders. I know their hell life and problems. Even in ladakh territories, I won't say the areas but it was impossible to breathe without carrying any loads just the clothes covering my body. During war you can pretty understand the situation of a soldier no matter how hard he's trained to act on such terrains, he is a human after all. In Siachen, apart from 5.56 INSAS 1B2, no other rifles and calibers work. If you're not well versed with mountaineering and summits, it's difficult for me to make you understand about impact of 1 gram weight. Also let me tell you, only availability of ammo is not enough, during war a soldier should have sufficient supply of food, water(especially along India China border), clothes and fuel apart from war accessories.

So as per you, the idiot is either GSQR or the media who spread the propaganda that IA junked 5.56 and moving for 7.62x51 where the truth is otherwise and this article is based on that propaganda spread by media. Later it came out that army issued RFI on 7.62x51 for amphibious rifles used by selected units. No mention or confirmed reports that Excalibur is junked. First India uses a large number of 5.56 INSAS 1B1/2. Replacing them simply by importing rifle of another caliber doesn't make any sense. I was confirmed on the first day that media was spreading propaganda or ill informed. During war, it's better to use with what you're used to and secondly which can be transported in large quantities with minimum sorties. Especially when it comes to Indian logistics along CHINA border.
6.5Grendel !! DRDO is developing a 6mm cartridge which I personally remark waste of time and money. If you're well versed with indian development procedures, armed forces eternity testing and mum after trials for decades, you would never said this. A new cartridge will require time as it's consuming by DRDO to develop one as expected, secondly a new rifle with completely changed mechanism which will consume more time, then eternal trials by army to make it faulty anyhow so that they can import junk and finally production which was never an issue though but still. I would say 3 decades at least for such innovation in India. China is arming itself and we don't have time for experiment. Better we stick to the usual and master on that.

Junking 5.56 will be the biggest mistake which I am sure IA won't make. The reasons for adopting the 5.56 over the 7.62N are well documented. I like the 5.56 and given IA's requirement at the time, 5.56 fit the bill perfectly. in today's day and age, 6.5 grendel would suit the requirement better. If MCIWS does come to fruition, 6.5 Grendel would be a seperate upper receiver with the same bolt carrier group and same lower.

 

[Red bull]

Junking 5.56 will be the biggest mistake which I am sure IA won't make. The reasons for adopting the 5.56 over the 7.62N are well documented. I like the 5.56 and given IA's requirement at the time, 5.56 fit the bill perfectly. in today's day and age, 6.5 grendel would suit the requirement better. If MCIWS does come to fruition, 6.5 Grendel would be a seperate upper receiver with the same bolt carrier group and same lower.

Exactly, but media spread propaganda that Army junked 5.56 and will adopt 7.62x51 to replace 5.56 INSAS rifles in use with army.

Like I said it would take 3 decades or more as per Indian standard to come up with cartridge and rifle and selection to induction in Army, we don't have that time to explore. Pakistan and China is gearing up for war. India is already lagging. If you wish the moon right now, you can't get it.

Junking 5.56 will be the biggest mistake which I am sure IA won't make. The reasons for adopting the 5.56 over the 7.62N are well documented. I like the 5.56 and given IA's requirement at the time, 5.56 fit the bill perfectly. in today's day and age, 6.5 grendel would suit the requirement better. If MCIWS does come to fruition, 6.5 Grendel would be a seperate upper receiver with the same bolt carrier group and same lower.

Junking 5.56 will be the biggest mistake which I am sure IA won't make. The reasons for adopting the 5.56 over the 7.62N are well documented. I like the 5.56 and given IA's requirement at the time, 5.56 fit the bill perfectly. in today's day and age, 6.5 grendel would suit the requirement better. If MCIWS does come to fruition, 6.5 Grendel would be a seperate upper receiver with the same bolt carrier group and same lower.

Without logistics war is lost. It's like a Ferrari without gas.

Here are some logistic famous quotes.
“Battles are decided by the quartermasters before the first shot is fired.” German Field Marshall Rommel
“The tactics…no, amateurs discuss tactics,…. Professional soldiers study logistics.” – Tom Clancy
“Behind every great leader there was an even greater logistician.” – M. Cox
“You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns, and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics.” – General Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Leaders win through logistics. Vision, sure. Strategy, yes. But when you go to war, you need to have both toilet paper and bullets at the right place at the right time. In other words, you must win through superior logistics.” – Tom Peters
“The line between disorder and order lies in logistics…” – Sun Tzu
“Logistics is the ball and chain of armored warfare.” – Heinz Guderian
“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great