New battle rifle?

[bhunted 887]

Ahhhh, one of my fav episodes. She was a very pretty lady in her day. No, not the gun!

 

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[bhunted 887]

Not to mention what those poor bastoids in the sandbox do over seas everyday in excrutiating conditions... Who are we to complain.

I'm no way a competitive shooter... No plans to be. But, if I were... It would not just include repetitive shooting, holstering, ducking, running, etc., ove and over to get it right. I would however, be back at the gym or on the road doing cardio training, strength training, endurance, yadda yadda yadda.... Isn't that part of what SHOULD be included? I can guarantee you, let me get your arse in a gym for a few months and you'll skate much easier.

 

I don't get why weight is such an issue for people. You are not lugging it around for hours on end like the military does. I do tours with fully loaded 870's and all my regular gear. No issues. A little workout goes a long way

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[Shane45 807]

M14's in service and or returned to service was a stop gap measure until more capable platforms were brought on line. The M14 is a rather different weapon than a springfield armory M1a. But I would choose neither of those options with the availability of units such as the SCAR 17 and the KAC EMC/ECC series rifles. Both of which are close to 8lb rifles and are proven reliable in theater. I would prefer the MWS as well over an M14 which has been officially adopted by two militaries now. Sentiment aside, the M14's time has passed. Its not useless mind you, just not optimal.

[bhunted 887]

I'd love a Scar... Just not here so Jersey could butcher it.

 

M14's in service and or returned to service was a stop gap measure until more capable platforms were brought on line. The M14 is a rather different weapon than a springfield armory M1a. But I would choose neither of those options with the availability of units such as the SCAR 17 and the KAC EMC/ECC series rifles. Both of which are close to 8lb rifles and are proven reliable in theater. I would prefer the MWS as well over an M14 which has been officially adopted by two militaries now. Sentiment aside, the M14's time has passed. Its not useless mind you, just not optimal.

 

 

Sent from John's iPad 2 via Tapatalk HD

Typos courtesy Apple...

[High Exposure 5,679]

high exposure, I wasn't saying we need a new battle rifle. I'm just curious as to what's on the horizon and what others think. Thanks for the interesting read though.

 

Understood Ray, and that's just my take on the situation based on my own unique interaction with endusers at the really sharp end of the spear, as well as my own needs and experiences carrying a gun for a living. I truly believe that proper and extensive training of all end users in gunfighting (vs qualifying), preventative maintenance, and the difference between good quality gear vs garbage would make the perceived need for an new issued rifle dissappear.

 

Screw the AR platform, go for a M14. Proven design, stopping power and high range capabilities. From someone that has carried one through the butthole of the world(recently not in Vietnam), a 16 based platform lacks reliability and and the 556 lacks stopping power. Just sayin from personal experience there is no use for the Mattel rifle any more. There is a reason they are pulling 14's out of Govt stores and issuing them in Afghan. The 16 just plainly isn't cutting it, and the 14 does everything you want it to do and some.

 

Shane's response below is 100% correct in my opinion.

M14's in service and or returned to service was a stop gap measure until more capable platforms were brought on line. The M14 is a rather different weapon than a springfield armory M1a. But I would choose neither of those options with the availability of units such as the SCAR 17 and the KAC EMC/ECC series rifles. Both of which are close to 8lb rifles and are proven reliable in theater. I would prefer the MWS as well over an M14 which has been officially adopted by two militaries now. Sentiment aside, the M14's time has passed. Its not useless mind you, just not optimal.

 

I will also reiterate that the M16 Family of Weapons (including 7.62x51 varieties) is a very reliable platform, as long as you start with quality gear and follow the proscribed PM tables, use qualtiy mags, ammo, and lube. In fact, I will go as far as saying in my experience, and from 1st hand evidence I have heard, the modern M16 FoW is far superior to any other platform out there, especially the M14. I know that is blasphemy to some, so be it.

 

As far as "knockdown power" that is a subjective quality as nothing you can hold in two hands is capable of reliably stopping a threat in one shot, let alone knocking it down. Shot placement as well as the ability to make quick follow up shots is the key to rapid incapicitation. The .308 absolutely has greater range than the 5.56 and is arguably more lethal past 300 yards. However I have heard from reputable sources that the M14s in service in theater are inaccurate, tend to lose zero, have terrible ergonomics/ineffecient manual of arms, and flat out suck when used in CQB/CQC. I know of at least 1 US Army Sniper school trained soldier and a few DMs that would take their M4s with quality optics over thier issued M14s on patrol in Afghanistan. Their quote about the M14 was along the lines of "It is a peice of shit boat anchor". A 7.65x51 AR platform is far superior to the M14.

 

I don't get why weight is such an issue for people. You are not lugging it around for hours on end like the military does. I do tours with fully loaded 870's and all my regular gear. No issues. A little workout goes a long way

 

BLF I agree, Not only is fitness important, but it is actually possible to go too light with a rifle. To the point where even though it is less fatiguing to carry, it becomes more fatiguing to shoot and control recoil. However, a 7lb M4 is much handier, easier to drive traget to target, has better recoil control by design (straight to the shoulder vs. through the wrist to the shoulder like an M14 or Shotgun with a standard stock) and ammo selection than an M14, 870, US Rifle .30 cal M1 etc... As far as not carrying it around for hours on end, I had to clear a large structure the other morning all jocked up in armor and carrying an M4. It was hot, fatiguing, stressful, and that long gun got damned heavy. Fighting with any gun is fatiguing, why make it worse by carrying a 12lb wood and steel beast when you dont have to?

[Dr.Jimmy Rustler 23]

hmmm.....are u calling the NJGF members fat??

the majority that arent fat id be willing to bet are at least to be deemed physically unfit.

[rightisright 3]

As was said earlier, newer bullet weights make the AR a much better platform.

 

I wish I could find the article I read on how 55/62 gr. FMJs were sometimes not as effective on thin Hajiis because they would zip right through w/o any yaw or fragmentation. But I'm tired and my google fu is weak tonight.

[djg0770 481]

5.56 is a small round, and I've heard a lot about its lack of stopping power. I've never been in combat, never shot anyone with anything bigger than .177 out of my Crosman 760, so I can't say. However, I have carried loads of different calibers and the weight difference between 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO is significant. A major concern for our ground pounders is how heavy their rucks are getting. The load is so significant they are evaluating "exo-skeleton" systems to assist soldiers in carrying all their crap.

 

Great - just what we need, wimpy troops. They had no problem carrying 30 cal or 50 cal in WW2 or Korea.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Great - just what we need, wimpy troops. They had no problem carrying 30 cal or 50 cal in WW2 or Korea.

 

But I bet if they had to pic, they would rather choose the lighter gun and ammo.

[High Exposure 5,679]

 

 

Great - just what we need, wimpy troops. They had no problem carrying 30 cal or 50 cal in WW2 or Korea.

 

The average combat load for current conventional US Rifleman is between 75-100 lbs, including armor, helmet, radio, IFAK, ~210 rounds and an 8lb M4. This does not include a grenadiers additional load out or any mission specific equipment.

 

If i remember correctly, In WW2 it was ~ 50 lbs incuding a 10.5 lb rifle (US Rifle Cal. .30 M1) and 184 rounds of .30-06.

 

I wouldn't call our current warfighters wimpy by any means.

 

 

 

 

But I bet if they had to pic, they would rather choose the lighter gun and ammo.

 

I agree, especially when you look at the relationship between how much a weapon has to weigh to properly attenuate the effects of the heavier recoil of the larger rounds, and all the weapon handling differences that relates to - including limited ammo carrying capacity.

[acuevo 0]

+1 for the an-94. i had never heard of that before reading this, looks like a winner to me, so long as it retains the reliability of its brothers in the kalashnikov series.

[raz-0 1,260]

high exposure, I wasn't saying we need a new battle rifle. I'm just curious as to what's on the horizon and what others think. Thanks for the interesting read though.

 

My take on it is that the ar-15 is actually pretty reliable. Get sand in a DI gun and it might stop working. Get sand in the works of an op-rod gun, you cna bend the op rod. Look at the garand and m-14's history with talcum powder like sand.

 

I'd basically go for an evolutionary approach. Ditch the bayonet lug, the thick front half of the barrel and the weird cuts in the barrel, and go for a lighter barrel that's easier to manufacture without affecting accuracy. If you want to mount an m203, use an adapter that clamps on like the m-16 does. Then design in a reciprocating ejection port cover rather than the trap door. Then perhaps move to 6mm-45 as the cartridge, maybe at about 74gr. You could probably combine the design of m855a1 and SOST to get something with a nice bc that has more range and more knock down power that wounds effectively across a broader range of velocities without adding much weight to the ammo. Perhaps come up with a better rail sytem that cuts down on weight as well, but give everyone a rail. Ditching the bayonet would also allow for a dissy style (or at least dissy like) rail with the front sight pushed forward for a better sight radius and more real estate for mounting gear.

 

Other than nato interoperability, I think that would sort out most shortcomings of the platform. You could keep your mags, old guns could work with a simple rebarrel. The rifle you could probably get done while remaining weight neutral, and the ammo would add 1.72lbs per thousand rounds.

[Nick T 4]

I don't get why weight is such an issue for people. You are not lugging it around for hours on end like the military does. I do tours with fully loaded 870's and all my regular gear. No issues. A little workout goes a long way

 

Lol I just did a 8 hour shift patrolling with a fully loaded 870 plus duty side arm fully fitted belt radio equipment and my lovely vest and full uniform s*** isn't that heavy

 

But to stay on topic I'm digging the way FN is going with the SCAR

[kman 56]

How about the soldiers get to choose what they want to carry and use out of 4 or 5 choices. M16, M4, M14, SCAR, SIG550, Hk, whatever. They can try and decide what they prefer. 308 or 5.56. They are the ones doing th work they ought to have the tool of their choice.

 

Seems to me these discussions are always about what everyone wants to force on others instead of what the guy who is on the ground actually wants to do the job and make it back from their deployment in one piece. If we can bring fast food courts to Iraq for the troops we ought to be able to supply the arm of their choice. Logistics for it would not be much different or much more difficult.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

[Nick T 4]

How about the soldiers get to choose what they want to carry and use out of 4 or 5 choices. M16, M4, M14, SCAR, SIG550, Hk, whatever. They can try and decide what they prefer. 308 or 5.56. They are the ones doing th work they ought to have the tool of their choice.

 

Seems to me these discussions are always about what everyone wants to force on others instead of what the guy who is on the ground actually wants to do the job and make it back from their deployment in one piece. If we can bring fast food courts to Iraq for the troops we ought to be able to supply the arm of their choice. Logistics for it would not be much different or much more difficult.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

The problem with that is comparability... Your shooting an HK416 your under heavy fire hunkered down with a squad mate who's shooting a SCAR 17 your running low on ammo so now what to do... That's the whole field of view on something like that... Same reason so many police departments these days are having a department issued service weapon as opposed to letting its officers choose between a list of approved.

[Tactical Turtle 11]

the problem wit that is interchangability.... i know i spelt that wrong, anyway, if everyone carries a m4... and u need ammo a bolt or what not and ur fellow soldier is down u can grab his gun and make urs operational

[kman 56]

Sure there are always problems. The problem with uniformity is that people end up being issued rifles to use that they dont like and dont perform as well with and have less confidence in, which were chosen by political people back home. Besides we have the situation of different guns out there already with M4s and M14s out there, different guns different ammo, plus SAWs plus sniping rifles plus whatever guns NATO allies carry. First and foremost consideration is does the soldier have the rifle that they feel the best using? They are the ones doing the work out there and they are going to be the ones who know best what works best for them and it takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to train them so if they want something else to fight with that they believe they will be more effective using and do a better job fighting with, i think we ought to spend a measly thousand bucks more so they can be provided with their first choice. It is the least we can do considering the risks they are being asked to take.

 

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk 2

[Screwball 483]

and u need ammo a bolt or what not and ur fellow soldier is down u can grab his gun and make urs operational

 

Why not just use his gun?

 

In regards to the original question, if we moved from the AR platform, I think the best choice is the Beretta ARX-160. And that is coming from someone that shoots a piston AR (don't have a major issue with DI, but like being able to do bolt maintenance after some rounds downrange without insulated gloves). If we need to go piston, the AR is a compromise between.

 

The ARX is really one of the best options out there for either right or left handed shooters. Push a detent, you can have the gun eject from the opposite side. No need to deal with a gun that doesn't conform to your body. Barrels swap easily, whether you want to run suppressed or different bullet weights.

[Vlad G 345]

Everyone who is loving on the SCAR should actually shoot one for a bit. It was the most disappointing gun I ever shot, given all the built up noise around it. The trigger was bad I though I still had the safety on, and this was on a demo gun brought out by the FN reps to show off to a bunch of competition shooters, and that was just the start of my issues with it. Yes, I know I get buy a $300+ trigger for it, but on a $2400 gun that seems .. rude.