Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« My latest book is available for pre-order! | Main | Clayton Cramer on "engaging in the business" of dealing in guns »

Interesting.....

Posted by David Hardy · 14 August 2017 12:27 PM

The US military is buying M-4 replacements chambered in 7.62 NATO, because they need its penetration and range.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

SPQR | August 14, 2017 6:51 PM | Reply

Except that regular 7.62x51 won't penetrate the armor either, still need new ammo development

Flighterdoc | August 15, 2017 11:00 PM | Reply

What they are buying are replacements for the M14 in the designated marksman role....

Marcus Poulin | August 16, 2017 2:43 PM | Reply

The M4 is too short and light to attenuate the Punishing recoil of the 308 Winchester.

Didn't the DOD already learn something along these lines in the 1960's with that Weapon frame?

Eric | August 16, 2017 8:46 PM | Reply

SPQR, take note of the Full Article link:

"The rifle must pass tests using the M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round, which industry insider website The Firearm Blog has tracked, tested and reviewed ballistic performance on for years. The site gave the round substantially high marks for penetration and accuracy."

...

"In May, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told Congress that the Army had developed a bullet that would penetrate 5.56 mm-resistant body armor. The four-star was quizzed by Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, as to whether the Army was looking at a new rifle to replace the M4 and if the new bullet would need a new rifle.

"Milley said at the time that it might require a new rifle."

Jay Dee | August 17, 2017 4:46 AM | Reply

In the 70s, I was a deputy marshal in a small rural community. I packed an HK-91 because it was the heaviest 7.62 automatic rifle of the day and it kicked like the proverbial Missouri mule if not shouldered just right.

Actually, I packed the HK-91 because I wanted a 7.62 rifle in case I had to shut down a pickup truck with AP. I believe that the recoil was actually worse than the Garand. The rifle was as reliable as any AK although it wouldn't cycle Remington Accelerators. It was was amazingly accurate with 150 grain bullets. The weight was tolerable because I didn't have to carry the gun and ammunition for 30 miles. Finally, the rifle was short enough that it handled well in close quarters.

Today, I would probably carry an AR-10. The weight is less than the HK-91. Reliability has improved from early versions. Accuracy is acceptable with good ammunition and at least the AR-10 doesn't make the recoil worse.

Leave a comment