Sorry Gene, had not meant that to be phrased as a debate, my written abilities are somewhat lacking at times. :)

You coming my way anytime soon?

Gents, thanks again for the input. I should have been more specific. I am building a rifle to fit the needs of the operator. Which is why I seek your opinions. The caliber is, perhaps unfortunately, fixed at .308. I do like the 6.5mm and 6mm projectiles (I have a lovely 243AI). My preferece would be a .243 actually.
The rifle is about half done or so, making progress every day. I hope to have it done by SHOT, so you guys can come and see it at the Magpul booth and we can BS. I haven't gotten to the muzzle brake/flash hider yet though. With luck we will have a long and short barrel. I haven't decided if the long barrel will be 20 or 18", the short will be right around 12".
Anyhow, the project is not widely known and for now that is what I prefer, though I have no problem discussing it with the team guys, (other QP input is important I feel). If you have any specific needs or things you feel should be addressed in a rifle that you may (theoretically) use in the future, please let me know.
Justin

I find this thread interesting but can't shake my old beliefs that there is no such thing as a good multi purpose anything. A rifle is basically a tool for launching a projectile. A rifle needed for urban combat is going to be different than the one needed for long open spaces. We are not a army of marksmen anymore, haven't been since the VietNam war. We expend a lot of rounds into an area to make one kill. It used to be that there were a variety of weapons within an infantry platoon to cover a wide band of circumstances. Now everyone has the same basic tool.......

Jim

I have to agree.

This may be an interesting academic exercise, and may result in a nice toy, but IMHO, the practicality of a sub 16" 7.62x51 rifle is nonexistent.

If you have not had the pleasure of using one before, I suggest that you and your fellow employees take any shorty 7.62 of the length you are contemplating and make a few CQB runs with it through an indoor facility, preferably jocked up and without ear pro. If you care to really get a critical analysis, make baseline runs with an M-4, and another with a full-length 7.62 rifle. I think the scores versus times will show you the truth.

You might also consider the terminal ballistics of the 7.62x51 when launched from such an abbreviated tube.

TR

Justinmd - While you're working the MP rifle how about putting a bug in somebody's ear to make a quality replacement floorplate for AK magazines. I've got 20 surplus (some are well used) I'm getting ready to rework this spring for my project guns. Unfortunately the stock floorplates are uninspiring. You guys have done a bang-up job for M16 magazines (love the followers, not so thrilled about the Ranger floorplates, will probably have to try the "L" plate). You guys seem like the ideal source for something "a bit" stronger than the originals but NOT one of your Ranger types, just "a better quality similar to original" one (decent AK mag pouches are hard enough to find without adding another inch/extra bulk to the magazine). This should be right up your company's alley.

Jim:

I think the guys today are better marksmen than during other wars. I have seen significant and positive changes in how leaders view marksmanship these days which is essential in the long run. The NCO's are also much more knowledgable and are able to create a very good military marksman to a much higer degree than before. Surprisingly, I see this ability increase each year which is pretty remarkable in terms of the Army. Please understand I am speaking in terms of the Army which to most civilians would seem to be incredibly slow.

I hear guys talking about urban combat verses longer ranges. I think the average soldier today will take a shot at something farther away than an Infantryman in WWI, II, Korea, or Vietnam would attempt, but I doubt those distances are past 300 meters about 95% of the time for a multitude of reasons -- the primary one probably is that the guy just can't see that far due to terrain.

I have differing views of barrel lengths than most. I never viewed a 18 - 22 inch barrel to be a hinderance in terms of fast movement of the rifle. I do view the stock length and its ergonomics to be the critical factor in both speed and precision for a service carbine or rifle. The M-4 isn't bad to 300 meters but a M-16A2 with a collapsable stock is better and a guy won't notice the extra six inches of barrel what so ever when doing CQB. Not as loud as an M-4 either but who is listening anyway? He, he, he.

Gene

RB:

No sweat at all. Couldn't sweat today as I was blasting in rain and snow mix. I believe March is a good time to head your way. Doesn't violate my personal rules about not going east of the Cascades after 1 April due to the excessive heat and humidity of the subtropical area where you live.

I also can't wait to see one of 'Mr. P's' $1K AK-47's. Does he also have match rifle sights glued to that sheet metal upper and Soviet pot metal barrel I wonder? He, he, he.

Gene

Gene - Don't go laughing at my "truck gun" til you've fondled it! :p If you get here in March to visit RB we'll have to do the McKellars lunch and a range session to prove the point. TR made an offline comment about Galil kits that already have rear sight blocks, etc. I'm almost afraid to broach the idea to my 'smith. God alone knows what he might come up with if he feels "challenged". Blasted redneck arti'ste is what he is.

Incommin and TR, I definitely see your point. But one of the brother SOF units is looking for a CQB 308, which is partly where this whole thing came from. It will have a supressor mounted so maybe that will help out a bit, though make it longer of course.
The other barrel will be longer so it can be used to its full potential as a medium range sniper or DMR type rifle. The SOTIC guy I talked to had mentioned the long (18-20") barrel version but with a collapsible buttstock.
Peregrino, I will bring up the AK floorplate. Rich seems to like doing stuff like that because it is easy fit into an existing mold.
Justin

IMHO, bull pups are more a novelty than anything else. Now having said that, a action similar to a AR 180, bull pup in .308 would keep the overall length down.

Cut down the barrel and add a can?

Are these the same geniuses behind the Mk 23 Offensive Hand Cannon?

Well, they will look cool as hell, till they are shot down, deaf and blind, or figure out that it just doesn't work. Waste of good MFP-11 money.

Not SF, no skin off my nose.

Drive on with your bad selves.

TR

OK, you keep mentioning a or the "SOTIC guy", could you be a bit more specific, by IM if you find it more comfortable. The way you are stating this makes it seem as if SOTIC is endorsing this weapon. I can most assuredly, without reservation state that we are not.

The sister unit is having all sorts of problems because the barrel is too short to burn all the powder. Which means you have one heck of a blast and flame coming out of the muzzle. Not good. To help in clarifying this, only the sister unit is seriously looking at this weapon due to the problems stated.

I was wondering, would a different design in a can be better or possible? Something where the barrel would go farther into the can, the can having a chamber that goes back over the barrel. It would be a fatter can.

Many newer designs do that already, but as noted, the real problem here is that the barrel is too short for a decent amount of the powder to burn. A 12" barrel with a 10" can is not going to have the ballistics of an 18" or 20" barrel, it will be heavier, shoot dirtier, require more care, and will get hot faster, but it may have better sound and noise suppression.

I have used 7.62x51s from 16" to 26", and I sold the 16" shortly after I fired it. The 18" versions are not too bad.

At 12", you might get better ballistics from a 7.62x39. I doubt if it will be much worse.

The 7.62x51 was developed in the early 1950s. In the past 50 years, how many countries adopted a version with a barrel less than 18", for any purpose?

TR

I've got a FAL Para, the 'smith has a SOCOM 16, another buddy has a DPMS carbine; none of them get points for anything more than "cool factor" and portability. They're all uncomfortable to be beside when firing. None of them realize the ballistic potential of the 7.62x51 cartridge. But they do make great "blasters". :D I've pretty much decided I'm going to keep full size cartridges in full size rifles. (That's why I'm playing with the AKs - intermediate cartridge [relatively cheap too!] in an intermediate carbine.) FWIW - Peregrino