Perfecting the Recce concept: The case for .308/7.62

So here is my question...in a MOUT setting, would the 5.56 be the preferred platform since it is more "shootable" AND the lanes of fire are limited enough to make the extended ranges a moot point?

(And as far as extended ranges are concerned, I realize that you would be able to extend the range, based on the vantage point, but lets assume a city setting where all the buildings are about the same height...or maybe that wouldn't even matter for my question above?)

Follow on question: If the 5.56 "RECCE" is the chosen platform, would the optic remain the same (around 10X on the high side)? Or would a 1-4X be preferred?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironman8

So here is my question...in a MOUT setting, would the 5.56 be the preferred platform since it is more "shootable" AND the lanes of fire are limited enough to make the extended ranges a moot point?

(And as far as extended ranges are concerned, I realize that you would be able to extend the range, based on the vantage point, but lets assume a city setting where all the buildings are about the same height...or maybe that wouldn't even matter for my question above?)

Follow on question: If the 5.56 "RECCE" is the chosen platform, would the optic remain the same (around 10X on the high side)? Or would a 1-4X be preferred?

---

Considering that ELCAN Spectre DR 1-4's, 1.5-6's, ACOG'S, and soon the Squad Common Optic (probably going to wind up a 1-6 or 1-8) are all readily available to anyone who wants one on their M4, there is no point in adding 1.5'' in barrel length, the same kind of optics, and calling it something else. More accurate ammunition for the M4's would provide 99% of the capability.

It's about echelons of capability. An accurized 5.56 platform is all well and good (and can be used with great results), but if you want to elevate capability by an order of magnitude, a 7.62 platform is where you'll make your money.

Honestly your first question, "would 5.56 be preferred in a MOUT setting" is odd to me. Obviously 5.56 is preferred if you have to go house to house. But not everybody in the unit can have the weapon that is most advantageous for every setting. There needs to be a wide range of capabilities, from individual weapons to crew served weapons. Proper planning based on METT-TC will allow for the most advantageous distribution of various weapons systems in the ground tactical plan / scheme of maneuver. Support / Assault teams etc. etc etc. I don't think nerfing the precision rifle capability by making it a 5.56 to suit a MOUT setting, at the expense of the advantages that a DM can provide at intermediate and long range is wise. There are plenty of M4's on the ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a0cake

Considering that ELCAN Spectre DR 1-4's, 1.5-6's, ACOG'S, and soon the Squad Common Optic (probably going to wind up a 1-6 or 1-8) are all readily available to anyone who wants one on their M4, there is no point in adding 1.5'' in barrel length, the same kind of optics, and calling it something else. More accurate ammunition for the M4's would provide 99% of the capability.

It's about echelons of capability. An accurized 5.56 platform is all well and good (and can be used with great results), but if you want to elevate capability by an order of magnitude, a 7.62 platform is where you'll make your money.

Honestly your first question, "would 5.56 be preferred in a MOUT setting" is odd to me. Obviously 5.56 is preferred if you have to go house to house. But not everybody in the unit can have the weapon that is most advantageous for every setting. There needs to be a wide range of capabilities, from individual weapons to crew served weapons. Proper planning based on METT-TC will allow for the most advantageous distribution of various weapons systems in the ground tactical plan / scheme of maneuver. Support / Assault teams etc. etc etc. I don't think nerfing the precision rifle capability by making it a 5.56 to suit a MOUT setting, at the expense of the advantages that a DM can provide at intermediate and long range is wise. There are plenty of M4's on the ground.

---

Yes, I see what you're saying...

And my first question actually wasn't posed the way I had it in my mind...I was actually asking about an overwatch type of role in urban terrain...not necessarily kicking in doors, running up to the second story, and having to take a mid/long range shot...I was thinking static position from an overwatch location.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironman8

Yes, I see what you're saying...

And my first question actually wasn't posed the way I had it in my mind...I was actually asking about an overwatch type of role in urban terrain...not necessarily kicking in doors, running up to the second story, and having to take a mid/long range shot...I was thinking static position from an overwatch location.

---

Gotchya. If we cut away all the other variables and requirements and imagine for the sake of discussion that the only task which must be performed is overwatch from a static position, then I see no use for a 5.56 rifle at all. I just don't see any scenario where I'm leaning into the rooftop wall of a house providing overwatch and a 5.56 can do something the 7.62 can't. But I can sure imagine the opposite.

With a Squad Common Optic on a spotter/radioman role with the static overwatch, going with 7.62 is almost automatic if available. Keeping the support/security element (which will include these) in supporting and overwatch role in MOUT seems intuitive enough for me, but with a shorter (16" 7.62 with collapsing stock, offset irons/T-1) SDMR rifle it's no longer such a handicap.
Beyond that, penetration>>volume of fire for a precision weapon system in my experience, yet another point to the 7.62 for this role. Even in built up areas with limited lanes of fire, the odds of tangos using thin/intermediate cover aren't too bad, so while I can imagine a case where a Recce/SPR in 5.56 could shine, an M110C/417C in 7.62 isn't far behind, and provides a much bigger capability set outside those.

If an M240 and M110C is a squad level asset, I think that's an adequate force multiplier (based on my experience with corps 13-16 man augmented squads). Since the majority of the direct fire weapon platforms (M4; M249, M27) in the squad are already in the assault and support elements, that's more than enough. With a solid division of responsibilities, the SDMR in a larger caliber shines in most situations.

Moving to smaller unit, and civvy oriented stuff, then you're looking at the 7.62 recce as a more significant tradeoff, where for smaller units the added capability of the 7.62 may not be worth the tradeoff in effectiveness closer. In open terrain, 7.62 all day. Built up areas, I'm at a loss.

A 16-inch 7.62 carbine is a natural for at least one foot-maneuvering squad dogface. He can be an assaulter and do his jack-of-all-trades infantry mission without being restricted to an overwatch role.

Once the first incoming shot hits one of your Joes there are never enough troops in a squad, period.

If every time one of your boys squeezes his trigger a jackass dies the arguments of caliber and configuration become moot.

Indoors 7.62 is brutal noisy but effective as hell. Advantage 5.56 for recoil follow-up and control.

I shall respectfully disagree with the OP. I don't see a need for an accurized 16" .308 AR. I think a rack-grade carbine with the addition of a good optic can fulfill the Recce role. The new SEAL "Recce" rifle is in fact nothing more than the SCAR-L. That's a 5.56 rifle with a 14.5" barrel.

There is something to say about Sinister's point though:

"A 16-inch 7.62 carbine is a natural for at least one foot-maneuvering squad dogface. He can be an assaulter and do his jack-of-all-trades infantry mission without being restricted to an overwatch role."

The standard SCAR-H with 16" barrel and high-power optic is already being used in the "precision" role:

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/227/mk20.jpg

http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/t...s/08aa0fee.jpg

http://h9.abload.de/img/seal3cgl6.png

I started a discussion about this in this thread:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101613

An educated dissenting opinion in my book is just as valuable as a confirmatory one in terms of bettering the overall discussion:)

I did let the monkey outta the box though already when I introduced the box of legos into this discussion....something dies inside of me every time I combine the words Recce, and SCAR;)

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...2/DSC05736.jpg

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...2/DSC05741.jpg

I agree with wes that a rack grade .308 carbine with a precision optic and good match ammunition can be more than adequate, but I would contend that the funds for the latter two parts being available are an artifact of GWOT, and that in the upcoming austere DoD, we'll be back to program of record weapon systems, so a dedicated 'precision' variant that has clip-on NV equipment, bipods, ballistics software; logistics support for parts, maintenance, and match ammo; and a training program behind it to make the important part of the DM equation effective will be a priority, or else the next conflict, the big army will be 'discovering' that all these ideas and hardware are requisite for the job.

Well Mr. Llama, if the past is any guide, the post-conflict drawdown will mean that the whole issue of specialized weapons will be dropped. The existance of SOCOM however might mean that the knowledge will hopefully not be lost, and that the evolution and perfection of small numbers of evolved weapons will continue.