i think we should let people who have experience make decisions for us.War Man wrote:
Yes I think we should move towards the one of the 2 6.5mm bullets if we need a replacement for 5.56GR34 wrote:
sorry yes 6.5mmWar Man wrote:
Seeing as I'm the one and only true war man, that's pretty obviouseleven bravo wrote:
I saw more aussies in iraq than I did war mans
6.5mm or 6.8mm rifles/lmg's ya mean?
yo dawg i herd you were 15 and wernt in the military nor have ever fired any weapon of importance, so we added this forum so you can chat shit while you postseymorebutts443 wrote:
i think we should let people who have experience make decisions for us.War Man wrote:
Yes I think we should move towards the one of the 2 6.5mm bullets if we need a replacement for 5.56GR34 wrote:
sorry yes 6.5mm
c/d
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
From what I know the M60 was notorious for being unreliable. It was also designed as a GPMG like the M240 rather than an LMG. As such it was also naturally too heavy to serve in the SAW role as a LMG. As a response to that the design was altered several times, each new variant lighter than the one before, ending with the M60E4. However, each lighter variant was also less reliable than its predecessor. As a result the 'ideal' E4 was pretty much useless and it also had awkward barrel replacement because the bipod was attached to the barrel and the barrel lacked an insulated carrying handle or something like that.
SAW is supposed to be very reliable and very resistant to dust, hence the same action was used in the design for the FN SCAR. A lot of the SAW's in use with the US military are over 10 years old though, so an explanation for their poor performance might be found in that.
The M16A-x was a piece of crap when it was first introduced. With numereous modifications it manages to get by, but had budget allowed it, it should have been replaced long ago. The H&K 41-x series are nice pieces of equipement, totally different from the AR-15 platform, but designed to look and feel like one for ease of retraining.
Personally I think the US military would do well in adopting the Mk.48 as their LMG/SAW and opt for a totally new standard issue firearm designed from scratch rather than making concessions. A new intermediate round should also be developped ideally. 6.8(mm) SPC and 6.5(mm) Grendel are decent rounds, but still far from ideal, as concessions were made on case length so they would fit in AR-15 style mags and chambers. The Magpull Massada/Bushmaster ACR is claimed to be designed from scratch, but was also clearly designed with AR-15 cartridge dimensions in mind.
SAW is supposed to be very reliable and very resistant to dust, hence the same action was used in the design for the FN SCAR. A lot of the SAW's in use with the US military are over 10 years old though, so an explanation for their poor performance might be found in that.
The M16A-x was a piece of crap when it was first introduced. With numereous modifications it manages to get by, but had budget allowed it, it should have been replaced long ago. The H&K 41-x series are nice pieces of equipement, totally different from the AR-15 platform, but designed to look and feel like one for ease of retraining.
Personally I think the US military would do well in adopting the Mk.48 as their LMG/SAW and opt for a totally new standard issue firearm designed from scratch rather than making concessions. A new intermediate round should also be developped ideally. 6.8(mm) SPC and 6.5(mm) Grendel are decent rounds, but still far from ideal, as concessions were made on case length so they would fit in AR-15 style mags and chambers. The Magpull Massada/Bushmaster ACR is claimed to be designed from scratch, but was also clearly designed with AR-15 cartridge dimensions in mind.
What about 6.5mpc Lai?
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
That's always a a bad idea; taking something designed for "a" reason and using it for "b". Basically, in this case, taking a perfect GPMG and turning it into an LMG.Lai wrote:
From what I know the M60 was notorious for being unreliable. It was also designed as a GPMG like the M240 rather than an LMG. As such it was also naturally too heavy to serve in the SAW role as a LMG. As a response to that the design was altered several times, each new variant lighter than the one before, ending with the M60E4. However, each lighter variant was also less reliable than its predecessor. As a result the 'ideal' E4 was pretty much useless and it also had awkward barrel replacement because the bipod was attached to the barrel and the barrel lacked an insulated carrying handle or something like that.
Yeah the years and thousands of rounds generally wear out weapons...Lai wrote:
SAW is supposed to be very reliable and very resistant to dust, hence the same action was used in the design for the FN SCAR. A lot of the SAW's in use with the US military are over 10 years old though, so an explanation for their poor performance might be found in that.
M16A4 / M4A1 Carbine reliability isn't a big issue anymore. This ain't the '60s ;)Lai wrote:
The M16A-x was a piece of crap when it was first introduced. With numereous modifications it manages to get by, but had budget allowed it, it should have been replaced long ago. The H&K 41-x series are nice pieces of equipement, totally different from the AR-15 platform, but designed to look and feel like one for ease of retraining.
I like the idea, but once again: cost !Lai wrote:
Personally I think the US military would do well in adopting the Mk.48 as their LMG/SAW and opt for a totally new standard issue firearm designed from scratch rather than making concessions. A new intermediate round should also be developped ideally. 6.8(mm) SPC and 6.5(mm) Grendel are decent rounds, but still far from ideal, as concessions were made on case length so they would fit in AR-15 style mags and chambers. The Magpull Massada/Bushmaster ACR is claimed to be designed from scratch, but was also clearly designed with AR-15 cartridge dimensions in mind.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
All of em13/f/taiwan wrote:
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em13/f/taiwan wrote:
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
jesus, it means he gets pwned every single timeRTHKI wrote:
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em13/f/taiwan wrote:
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
Patton!RTHKI wrote:
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em13/f/taiwan wrote:
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
I'm reminded of Lieutenant Dan from Forest Gump.RTHKI wrote:
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em13/f/taiwan wrote:
Oh man shifty, you seem to know a lot about this. Which war were you in?
George Patton claimed to have fought past conflicts in previous lives.M.O.A.B wrote:
I'm reminded of Lieutenant Dan from Forest Gump.RTHKI wrote:
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em
you know the weird thing about P-Juice on your junk, makes all of the small stuff like 6.5 or 6.8 mm irrelevant.
My opinion though
My opinion though
Last edited by loubot (2010-04-26 10:49:06)
Hmmm,.. am not as familiar with that one. At least the 6.8mm SPC has been field test, though perhaps unofficially.War Man wrote:
What about 6.5mpc Lai?
Yeah I agree, cost is the whole issue here. Not so much the cost of arms production, but rather of the logistics of implementing it. The question is however whether it won't be more expensive if NATO finds out in five or ten years time that ALL of its member states small arms are in urgent need of replacement, because that's what it's looking like at the moment.-Sh1fty- wrote:
M16A4 / M4A1 Carbine reliability isn't a big issue anymore. This ain't the '60sLai wrote:
The M16A-x was a piece of crap when it was first introduced. With numereous modifications it manages to get by, but had budget allowed it, it should have been replaced long ago. The H&K 41-x series are nice pieces of equipement, totally different from the AR-15 platform, but designed to look and feel like one for ease of retraining.I like the idea, but once again: cost !Lai wrote:
Personally I think the US military would do well in adopting the Mk.48 as their LMG/SAW and opt for a totally new standard issue firearm designed from scratch rather than making concessions. A new intermediate round should also be developped ideally. 6.8(mm) SPC and 6.5(mm) Grendel are decent rounds, but still far from ideal, as concessions were made on case length so they would fit in AR-15 style mags and chambers. The Magpull Massada/Bushmaster ACR is claimed to be designed from scratch, but was also clearly designed with AR-15 cartridge dimensions in mind.
M12A4/M4A1 reliability isn't a big issue in theory any more as soldiers are trained to maintain their weapon properly and the weapon has been adjusted to facilitate this. However, in the field, when you hit a muddy ditch, things might be a little different.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Sorry for the rather unelaborate and poorly argumented reply, I hope to provide some more substantial discussion material tomorrow when I'm sober.
More reminded of Forrest Gump TBH.M.O.A.B wrote:
I'm reminded of Lieutenant Dan from Forest Gump.RTHKI wrote:
So you died in each one and were reincarnated for the next war. Does that mean youre going to war soon?-Sh1fty- wrote:
All of em
Fuck Israel
If we get into a conventional war it wouldn't be a problem anymore. I doubt the enemy army would use opium to absorb bullets like a human sponge. Body armor would be an issue though. I think it will be interesting to see what the future brings us.Lai wrote:
Hmmm,.. am not as familiar with that one. At least the 6.8mm SPC has been field test, though perhaps unofficially.War Man wrote:
What about 6.5mpc Lai?Yeah I agree, cost is the whole issue here. Not so much the cost of arms production, but rather of the logistics of implementing it. The question is however whether it won't be more expensive if NATO finds out in five or ten years time that ALL of its member states small arms are in urgent need of replacement, because that's what it's looking like at the moment.-Sh1fty- wrote:
M16A4 / M4A1 Carbine reliability isn't a big issue anymore. This ain't the '60sLai wrote:
The M16A-x was a piece of crap when it was first introduced. With numereous modifications it manages to get by, but had budget allowed it, it should have been replaced long ago. The H&K 41-x series are nice pieces of equipement, totally different from the AR-15 platform, but designed to look and feel like one for ease of retraining.I like the idea, but once again: cost !Lai wrote:
Personally I think the US military would do well in adopting the Mk.48 as their LMG/SAW and opt for a totally new standard issue firearm designed from scratch rather than making concessions. A new intermediate round should also be developped ideally. 6.8(mm) SPC and 6.5(mm) Grendel are decent rounds, but still far from ideal, as concessions were made on case length so they would fit in AR-15 style mags and chambers. The Magpull Massada/Bushmaster ACR is claimed to be designed from scratch, but was also clearly designed with AR-15 cartridge dimensions in mind.
M12A4/M4A1 reliability isn't a big issue in theory any more as soldiers are trained to maintain their weapon properly and the weapon has been adjusted to facilitate this. However, in the field, when you hit a muddy ditch, things might be a little different.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Sorry for the rather unelaborate and poorly argumented reply, I hope to provide some more substantial discussion material tomorrow when I'm sober.
I think when I'm in the service I'll still have the old M16s though.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Have you ever fired a real gun?War Man wrote:
Only the aged SAWs will jam.
SAW is not a gun. Its an automatic rifle.
Tu Stultus Es
reminded me:eleven bravo wrote:
SAW is not a gun. Its an automatic rifle.
full metal jacket
this is my rifle
this is my gun
this is for fighting
this is for fun
Lee Ermey FTW!
Time to bring back the M14 (or anything H&K make in 7.62) and the 7.62 as standard round. Enough of this stupid ' it is better to wound your enemy because it takes 2 more to carry you off the field' crap. Just kill the fuckers and they don't come back to haunt you.
Last edited by Stubbee (2010-04-28 20:45:01)
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
I don't know, it would be kind of hard to maintain the same rate of accurate fire with 7.62. That stuff really kicks hard, as opposed to sending thousands of 5.56s down range very fast and accurately.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
M14 has way too much kick and 7.62's are heavy. You can carry way more 5.56. That's why M16 is the standard today.Stubbee wrote:
reminded me:eleven bravo wrote:
SAW is not a gun. Its an automatic rifle.
full metal jacket
this is my rifle
this is my gun
this is for fighting
this is for fun
Lee Ermey FTW!
Time to bring back the M14 (or anything H&K make in 7.62) and the 7.62 as standard round. Enough of this stupid ' it is better to wound your enemy because it takes 2 more to carry you off the field' crap. Just kill the fuckers and they don't come back to haunt you.
They respectively represent the extremes on both ends, unsuited for modern combat. One you use in the fields as an old school fuselier and the other you use for hunting prairie dogs. True the 7.62 kicks too hard and is too heavy, but the 5.56 is equally to light and hits not hard enough. Likewise the M14 was too much of a classic rifle while the M16 was too fancy and unreliable. The Russians made a better effort with their 7.62x39. The fact that it tends to hit shit and still kick relatively hard has to do with low quality high tolerances ammunition and the gun it was used in, which wasn't so much "poor" as designed from a different perspective.Cybargs wrote:
M14 has way too much kick and 7.62's are heavy. You can carry way more 5.56. That's why M16 is the standard today.
British .280 intermediate would have hit the nail on the head at its time. Today it would be outdated as better performing powder and other cartridge components are available, but that's the kind of design you want. An intermediate round designed from scratch that can serve in roles varying from DMR to SMG and still have significant knocking power.
That was why they switched to a 5.56, it had a nice range and can act as a proper assault rifle ammo. I'm not a vet so I guess their combat experience could tell us if they would prefer a 5.56 or 7.62 in urban combat.Lai wrote:
They respectively represent the extremes on both ends, unsuited for modern combat. One you use in the fields as an old school fuselier and the other you use for hunting prairie dogs. True the 7.62 kicks too hard and is too heavy, but the 5.56 is equally to light and hits not hard enough. Likewise the M14 was too much of a classic rifle while the M16 was too fancy and unreliable. The Russians made a better effort with their 7.62x39. The fact that it tends to hit shit and still kick relatively hard has to do with low quality high tolerances ammunition and the gun it was used in, which wasn't so much "poor" as designed from a different perspective.Cybargs wrote:
M14 has way too much kick and 7.62's are heavy. You can carry way more 5.56. That's why M16 is the standard today.
British .280 intermediate would have hit the nail on the head at its time. Today it would be outdated as better performing powder and other cartridge components are available, but that's the kind of design you want. An intermediate round designed from scratch that can serve in roles varying from DMR to SMG and still have significant knocking power.
NoCybargs wrote:
That was why they switched to a 5.56, it had a nice range and can act as a proper assault rifle ammo. I'm not a vet so I guess their combat experience could tell us if they would prefer a 5.56 or 7.62 in urban combat.
That's the whole point, neither the 5.56 nor the 7,62 perform well in urban combat, the choice shouldn't be between them. The 7.62 is too heavy and the 5.56 can NOT act as proper assault rifle ammo because it is too light. At close range it does not do enough damage and at long range it is too susceptible to winds and does not have enough penetration (against objects). It is supposed to fragment on impact but only reliably does on very short ranges up to 25 meters. However at extreme short ranges, say <10m, the small caliber combined with the high velocity often cause the bullet to overpenetrate (against soft tissue).