Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marine Corps will keep and improve M16A4 & M4 carbine

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    Consider the .30 carbine... built in the millions. It had a reputation, a bad one, for lacking killing power. Not always "one-shot" & instant drop. Yet it got the job done. Could it have been better? Sure. So could the Russian AK cartridge, the 7.62 NATO, German 8mm, almost anything short of .50 BMG. We cannot give each soldier a 20mm shoulder arm. A cartridge is a balance between lethality, practicality, portability, and weight.

    I have a carbine, and I'll freely state that getting hit by it would suck in a big way.

    If the notion of hyper-velocity 5.5mm bullets was not accurate, why did Russia make the switch to 5.45mm?
    As Chogy pointed out, a rifle projectile is a compromise between lethality, practicality, portability and, by extension, weight; it was determined back in the '60's that a soldier could carry over twice as many rounds of 5.56mm ammo as he could of 7.62mm ammo (see below). Even assuming a 5.56mm is only 75% effective as a 7.62mm round (a conservative estimate), the fact that a soldier can carry at least twice as many rounds still makes it 25% more effective.

    Rifle Cartridge Cartridge weight Weight of loaded magazine Max. 10 kilogram ammo load:

    M14 7.62×51mm 393 gr 20 rd mag @ 0.68 kg 14 mags @ 9.52 kg for 280 rds
    M16 5.56×45mm 183 gr 20 rd mag @ 0.3 kg 33 mags @ 9.9 kg for 660 rds
    AK-47 7.62×39mm 281 gr 30 rd mag @ 0.92 kg*[5] 10 mags @ 9.2 kg for 300 rds
    (*AK-47 magazines are much heavier than M14 and M16 magazines)

    Also, some of the newer rounds have gotten even more "lethal" (the Mk 262 in particular):

    "According to US DoD sources, the Mk 262 round is capable of making kills at 700 meters. Ballistics tests found that the round caused "consistent initial yaw in soft tissue" at more than 300 meters. Apparently it is superior to the standard M855 round when fired from an M4 or M16 rifle. It evidently possesses superior stopping power, and can allow for engagements to be extended to up to 700 meters. It appears that this round can drastically improve the performance of any AR15 platform weapon chambered to .223/5.56 mm. Superior accuracy, wounding capacity, stopping power and range power has made this the preferred round of many Special Forces operators, and highly desirable as a replacement for the older, Belgian-designed 5.56×45mm M855 NATO round. Hard target penetration is slightly decreased." (from the Wikipedia entry for the 5.56×45mm NATO round)
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by bonehead View Post
      Ok. Here are a few examples from those that are not in love with the 5.56.
      You've taken 12 days, so let's see what you came up with.

      Originally posted by bonehead View Post
      BTW, my dad had first hand experience with the m16/5.56 in the 70's and he was not impressed at the time either.
      Tet Offensive was 1968, and everyone was out of Vietnam by 1973, so I'm not sure what the perception of a serviceman in during the 1970s is supposed to prove.

      At best I can say the blogger cherry picked their data to the point it's meaningless propaganda, at worst it's outright wrong.

      The AOB's compromised AR-15 variant that removed the designer specified standard chrome lining, IMR powder, and played to Colt's calling the rifle self cleaning isn't the rifle fielded today. There a reason there's alphanumeric codes next to M-16 and most of them represent significant advancements putting a lie to the second paragraph right off the bat. Nevermind that the AR-10 was hated by the Army in the 1950s because it was so radical a move forward, and thus bizarre to call "mired in the 1950s."

      There was a series of dust tests. The rifles trial was based on an earlier engineering test designed to settle the heavy lube versus thin lube debate, with heavy lube landing right in the same territory the new rifles did with the rifles comparison test. The follow up investigation pointed to the off the rack M4s while being in tolerance with their cyclics being on the edge of which, which points to the springs having been almost completely worn out, which effects everything in an automatic weapon design.

      To be more explicit, if the springs are weak, which on a AR recoil spring you can measure literally by literally measuring the uncompressed length your rifle is going to break the gas seal early associated with a higher cyclic rate. As your rifle has broken its gas seal early, it's now working the action with a lot less impulse then it's designed for, in practical terms that means instead of a brawny mover you're hiring a twiggy teenager from across the street to help move your stuff. Or in this case drive the extractor and ejector to do their jobs. Because you have less impulse and your spring is weak you're not going to have as much force behind your BCG when it starts moving forward again to take a round off the magazine and drive it up the feed ramp into the chamber. Ergo everything works sub-optimally when the cyclics are loose and the springs are worn out, and the off the rack M-4s started with their springs in the questionable range and had enough rounds run through them to cause a new rifle to be considered legitimately worn out with a failure rate of roughly 1-3 rounds per normal war load under almost absurdly harsh dust conditions which is considered one of the AR's weakest areas. How is this bad? :confu:

      Particularly as the among the main competition was the SCAR:

      which is literally running a westernized:

      Klaskinov BCG/piston/recoil spring setup, aka action, that people love to claim is utterly wonderful had 226 (0.377% failure rate) stoppages versus 233 (0.388% failure rate) for the HK 416 piston upper, and 307 (0.512% failure rate) from the previous off the rack M4 during the heavy lube versus light lube trial, all of which is out of 60,000. Not that the differences are statistically significant in the face of the M4 having 882 (1.47% failure rate) stoppages during the rifle trial of which 239 (0.398%) were considered to be magazine related, and there's no accounting for the condition of springs and associated during the lube trial due to being off the rack rather then new and handpicked by manufacturer, like the other rifles. Nor are they statistically significant in the face of the reality some of the manufacturer handpicked rifles had certain rifles representing far more then their fair share of the failures. Ergo deviation among even handpicked rifles is more significant then between the rifle designs within the limits of the, admittedly extremely harsh on any rifle, dust test.

      And just to remind everyone of the context of those failure rates that was with only a light wipe and lube after 600 rounds and a full clean and lube after 1,200 rounds, while getting throroughly dust blasted every 120 rounds. Needless to say the polar opposite of what anything approaching proper weapon maintenance would demand. The way most people on the internet talk a AR shouldn't even be able to complete a round of that kind of testing nevermind 5 rounds each with weak springs with an under 1.5% failure rate total despite having magazines that were crapping out on top of it all.

      Even if you didn't find the follow up the error between the tests is such that all rifles fall within error of zero, meaning a new more controlled test battery would be necessary to actually derive meaningful data for actually comparing them despite this all basically being setup to play to the piston guns strengths and the Direct Gas' perceived weaknesses. Focussing on this is trying to make hash out of what any reasonable anaylsis would tell you is a non-issue. Hence the current obsession on Heckler&Koch's questionable little marketing demo which wasn't exactly what I'd call a reasonable, rational or scientifically executed test, let alone one applicable to any kind of actual usage case.

      And incidently it says nothing about 5.56 terminals, instead of someone not in command of the facts whining about the rifle.

      A rah rah 6.8SPC advocate's blog that's focussing more on barrier penetration then any claims of terminal performance issues which are at best waved at in passing. You'll note the SCAR hasn't had a 6.8SPC version requested for it. From what I've seen posted along those lines what advantages it had were minimal and weren't worth it versus carrying less ammo.

      A highly republished bit that according to this blog is the report of a retired USMC E-9 based on what he heard from his son. So what we have is a second hand account that only really says that there were problems with lube thin, and the 5.56 isn't a death beam to someone high on opiates when shooting them in the chest. The same could be said for anything that you could stretch the definition of man portable rifle to, including 20mm.

      Incidentally there are options if you want to drop going lube heavy. The Nickel-boron coating FailZero came up with in the past few years actually appears to be working as intended this time around. Combine with P-mags, procedures to make sure the springs and otherwise are kept in reasonable condition and maybe a dry lube to lengthen part life, and the issues seem to go out the window. If you really want to go the extra mile, switch the uppers to a 16" mid-length gas system.

      All it really says is the M855, leaded or unleaded not specified, isn't a perfect death beam out of a M4. Just FYI there's not really anything stopping them from issuing the still in production ATK/Federal, Lake City Army Arsenal M193 to people with the newer rifles.

      "According to a February 1968 Department of Defense report the M16 rifle achieved widespread acceptance by U.S. troops in Vietnam. Only 38 of 2100 individuals queried wanted to replace the M16 with another weapon. Of those 38, 35 wanted the CAR-15 (a shorter version of the M16) instead.[31]" [M-16 wiki] In other words only 3 out of 2,100 surveyed soldiers wanted a non-AR rifle in the year of the Tet Offensive when the non-AOB screwed M16A1 was available. Do you have any idea how ridiculously small a number of complaints that is?

      I can pretty much guarantee that if you offered a usually agreed upon as good beer, like Fat Tire, to a group of 2,100 Infantrymen and asked them in a follow up survey if they wanted something else you'd have more then 3 dissidents. I wouldn't be surprised if at least 3 didn't even drink beer.

      Originally posted by bonehead View Post
      Now after 60 years of R&D to get the 5.56 to where its at today. Don't you wonder at all where we could be if we spent that time and effort on a round that had more promise from the start?
      What more promising round would this be?

      Also what, presumed meaningfully massive, R&D on the 5.56? The Mk 262 are 77gr. Sierra Matchking variants and the Mk 318 SOST is a Federal T556TNB1, while the latter went commercial afterwards it's not exactly an unusual round versus what Federal designs on their own along those lines for the commercial market.

      The SS109/M855 and derivatives plus the usual bracket of specialty rounds is pretty much the limit of what the military has spent money on round development, and by Big Army standards the amount they've spent on that is chump change in comparison to things like uniform variations.


      And I'm still waiting for you to actually illustrate problems with the 5.56NATO round itself, which what you've brought forward doesn't do. Given you just gave me links of questionable relevance, here's a site I'm not going to review for you making the opposite argument.
      Last edited by FOG3; 23 Dec 11,, 00:48.

      Comment


      • #48
        12 days? More like 12 minutes and I have done what you asked. There are many people who are not as in love with the 5.56 as you, but since their opinion differs you find it "questionable" so there is no point of continuing this.

        Although the MK 262 is much improved over earlier rounds logic dictates that the MK 262 would most likely never existed had not the earlier rounds been found lacking. Tell you what. When military snipers, the people who live and die for one shot kills, throw away their 7.62x51 and larger caliber rifles and snap up 5.56x45 versions, I'll take it all back.
        Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

        Comment


        • #49
          The 5.56mm debate is moot if the Russians adopt a much superior round that they are considering the 6.5mm Grendel! I have no problem (with the 5.56mm especially with the 75-77 grain variety) if the Russians and their customers stay with their small round (5.45X39)(or the 7.62X39), but the 5.56mm must be seriously reconsidered if the adversaries that the 5.56mm may have to go up against, start to rearm with the 6.5mm. The US can not go off to war with an adversary that may have superior range with their small-arms and hope that the marksmanship of the individual US rifleman to be an equalizer.
          Last edited by surfgun; 26 Dec 11,, 05:01.

          Comment


          • #50
            No, Snipe you haven't been the one questioning the round. Bonehead has, and hence why stuff related to that has been directed towards him. Although you did for some reason feel it necessary to chime in to his defense implying M80 is some kind of death beam round.

            What the article says is that the USMC, who already have already acquired an HK 416 variant in the form of the M27 as a fire team level replacement for the M249 SAW, does not intend to spend money on a new individual weapon, aka standard infantry rifle. There's a throw away line towards the end about improving the rifle, but the relevant one revolves around intent related to spending money as it means there is no plan for design overhauls, or replacement.

            If I'm the one being obtuse, why are you the one in a thread on the USMC deciding to not spend money on a new infantry rifle even if the Army does hawking the Robinson XCR and playing things like the USMC is intending to "improve" the M4 ala the Army's proposal the article says they're not following suit on? The USMC isn't exactly known for how it's rolling in cash, and is in the relatively unique position of playing with a high quality piston-AR design on a large scale right next to DI ones. Note as this is intended as a machinegun "replacement" the benefits of piston and open bolt operation are both justified and being taken advantage of.

            [/\]

            Am I familiar with ARs? Yes, I am although I don't intend to be firing them in anger anytime in the future. Nor am I going to claim any kind of internet commando special knowledge.

            I've had personal experience with what Wolf can do to an AR, albeit with someone else's gun who insisted on using it. Thing was jammed up tight the second the that particular round chambered, and wasn't interested in being budged. Incidentally I was the one at the trigger at the moment, it was a Smith & Wesson, and it was at the local Outdoors Expo where S&W among other vendors will let you shoot their guns for a nominal fee.

            It's a very quick shooting, accurate, and light gun with minor things that annoy you like the recoil spring boinging right next to your ear. I've also had access to a Mini-30 for years, which doesn't like hard military primers among other quirks.

            I don't agree with you. Piston technology offers very limited almost never realized benefits in the role of an infantry rifle, with immediately continuously realized significant penalties to accuracy and weight. It's not like the AR hasn't already been adapted to being able to use polymer uppers and lowers either. As the tests related to not cleaning instead of simple lubrication show simple fouling isn't the major issue the school children anti-DI refrain "it shits where it eats" would love to pretend it is. Yes, it can make cleaning harder in some aspects but if it has a hard aircraft technology derived coating on it ala FailZero, it practically wipes off as verified by my experience with someone who has one. I'm not personally in a position to put out that kind of money right now, but I am saving up. Supposedly they get their BCG's from the same people who do FN's.

            I also disagree with you that the AR is anywhere near the peak of its evolution in the military form. The biggest thing behind that is they're not using aircraft grade coatings to make it work the way the classic AR-10 promo video establishes Stoner intended it to work. They could lighten or thicken the barrel depending upon whether they want to add more full auto endurance or revert full auto endurance adds for a lighter gun. Nor have they added even half the gizmos of questionable value, like quick change barrels, B.A.D. levers, MOE furniture and other toys that have been designed for the AR that people spend considerable sums on. Although it's not like there have been major issues with it since they corrected the issue with the original M16 & ball powder having cyclics around 1,000rpms, removal of the designer specificied coatings, and failure to issue cleaning kits.

            This is in stark contrast to the AK and a lot of other older designs, which made design choices that make it so they can't be truly adapted to continuing Infantry Rifle improvements like optics, red dot/holographic, and ACOG sights. Not to mention the rest of the junk that gets modularly bolted on.

            The XCR actually screams FAL to me more then anything with the FAL style charging handle and gas regulation system. It's also well outside of my price range, and from a company that has been failing to try to elicit attention from the military since their earlier "M96" Stoner 63 variant, and already failed to get in with the relevant contracts for this one. Their choice of 1-9 twist, which was a compromise against issues with the carbine gas system that were solved by the development of mid-length doesn't inspire confidence in their taking this seriously. If you want to humor their swipe at the RFP that the FN SCAR/HK 416 won, be my guest. I don't see why the military should show favor that, or a Bushmaster manufacturing quality, Masada derivative.

            If you really want to rail me on experience you can point out that I'm just getting my first AR that can really rightly be called mine in a couple days, which I'm building from a Bravo Company 16" mid-length upper, a Spike's Tactical lower, and will be putting a Bushnell TRS-25 on. Not that, that means I'm unfamiliar with the gun. ;)
            Last edited by FOG3; 27 Dec 11,, 06:51.

            Comment


            • #51
              FOG3, The only relation the XM8 had with the G3 is that they were both built by HK. One is a gas operated with a multi lug rotating bolt design, the other is a delayed roller locker.

              Comment


              • #52
                Conceded and relevant sentence removed. That's what I get for quicky reading the World Guns entry on a development gun.

                Incidentally, all I could bring up related to Russia and the 6.5 Grendel is that Wolf has announced, again, they will be making 6.5 Grendel steel cased ammunition, and that Izhmash may make a 6.5 Grendel AK. The bigger news seems to be that it's been SAAMI specced. I'd tend to think Russia seriously thinking about investing the funds to completely overhaul their small arms in the middle of a global recession would result in more smoke. Particularly as their existing rifle designs aren't really ideal for mounting optics or mass producing infantry rifles with the intrinsic accuracy to have a "range advantage." Unlike the ballistically extremely similar 6.8SPC and the ARs that were adapted to use it. Although again, as far as I'm aware there still isn't a 6.8SPC version of the SCAR. Not to mention integration of Designated Markman Rifles at squad level is something the military now has quite bit of experience with, in addition to actual snipers and otherwise.

                On the flipside the AK-74's 5.45x39 military rounds never frag, tend to be around 55gr. or smaller, are never near M193 velocities, and otherwise tend to be on the worse end of comparisons verse the 5.56NATO. Yet you don't hear even half the belly aching regarding the Russians and that round.
                Last edited by FOG3; 27 Dec 11,, 09:39.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
                  Yet you don't hear even half the belly aching regarding the Russians and that round.
                  I do from the only Russian I know. How would we hear about their bellyaching anyway, not likley to be published.
                  CADPIPE

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    For the AK-47, to take the 6.5 Grendel, it would only require a barrel change, and perhaps magazines.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by surfgun View Post
                      For the AK-47, to take the 6.5 Grendel, it would only require a barrel change, and perhaps magazines.
                      Because it's literally a different reformed version of the same parent case. Yes, for it to technically be able to chamber a 6.5 Grendel, assuming there's no issues with the feed ramp or a zillion other issues an engineer would need to thoroughly review with verification testing before you could call it good, that's all they should have to do.

                      Your argument does not however revolve around them simply making it chamber a 6.5 Grendel. There's a reason the Mk. 12 aka _the_ rifle made for taking people out at 600 meters, and recorded as performing out to 800 meters with the Mk.262 round exists.

                      The Klaskinov and the SVD are both designed as a one piece receiver with a dust cover that must be removed in order to do maintenance. The solution of having an arm clicking into the side of the receiver isn't exactly the most solid or wonderful thing ever. Then there's the whole issue of taking a design trending toward 4MOA that's particularly flexy, and thus doesn't lend itself to be intrinsically accurate.

                      The effects of a particular case design on accuracy are a lot more theoretical then the effects of the launching platform. Also remember that 5.56NATO was developed from a specification that included it shouldn't go through transonics within 500 meters with what became the M193, so you're really focusing on infantry being able to successfully spot and engage outside of that. Something numerous studies from different countries show didn't happen when they had the rifles to do so, and that a lighter weapon, that can thus swing better, with more ammo has the advantage in most actual infantry encounters. With quick firing and intrinsic accuracy being significant value adds, ala the strengths the AR-15 was literally designed to and no rifle has really managed to beat it at even using polymer receivers verse aircraft-grade aluminum.

                      And remember that an Infantry Rifle by definition needs to put up with all the abuse the Infantry are known to end up applying to their equipment and still function as intended. You're not invoking the already existing Dragunov/DMR paradigm with this, or that of a sniper corp that are more likely to take particularly good care of their equipment. You're talking the average Russian Infantryman. Oh and this same, likely now at least 9lb, rifle has to serve all the normal infantry functions on top of it all.

                      And honestly based on the data complaints about DI versus piston are on the same level as if the 1911 types decided to try to start a grassroots campaign on how polymer framed pistols are horrible unreliable abominations, because if you limp wrist a Glock it will malfunction. You have to be going well into the territory of doing things that are very bad ideas to do to any gun, to show a difference. Hence the USMC, pretty much the only organization currently using DI & Piston ARs in large scale operations isn't agreeing with the piston advocates.
                      Last edited by FOG3; 29 Dec 11,, 01:04.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Well the Russians are even making AR's now. So the Russians could also field AR's in the 6.5 Grendel that could reach beyond the range of 5.56 NATO chambered rifles. Go compare those apples.

                        http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/10/19/

                        izhmash-subsidiary-molot-to-manufacturer-russian-ar-15-rifle/subsidiary Molot to manufacturer Russian AR-15 rifle!
                        In a Russian AK manufacturer Molot, who are a subsidiary of AK-74/AK-1xx maker Izhmash and who make the VEPR AK-style rifles, announced at the Moscow ARMS & Hunting '11 expo that they would be producing an AR-15 style rifle called the HPE-140 (впо-140). The rifle is in a M4 configuration and includes a quad rail, ergonomic pistol grip and muzzle brake. It weighs ~7 lbs.

                        I never thought I would see the day that a subsidiary of Izhmash would produce an AR-15. It is a pity Eugene Stoner did not live to the worldwide popularity of his invention.

                        [ Many thanks to Russian Surt for emailing me the photos. ]
                        Last edited by surfgun; 29 Dec 11,, 03:03.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
                          No, Snipe you haven't been the one questioning the round. Bonehead has, and hence why stuff related to that has been directed towards him. Although you did for some reason feel it necessary to chime in to his defense implying M80 is some kind of death beam round.

                          What the article says is that the USMC, who already have already acquired an HK 416 variant in the form of the M27 as a fire team level replacement for the M249 SAW, does not intend to spend money on a new individual weapon, aka standard infantry rifle. There's a throw away line towards the end about improving the rifle, but the relevant one revolves around intent related to spending money as it means there is no plan for design overhauls, or replacement.

                          If I'm the one being obtuse, why are you the one in a thread on the USMC deciding to not spend money on a new infantry rifle even if the Army does hawking the Robinson XCR and playing things like the USMC is intending to "improve" the M4 ala the Army's proposal the article says they're not following suit on? The USMC isn't exactly known for how it's rolling in cash, and is in the relatively unique position of playing with a high quality piston-AR design on a large scale right next to DI ones. Note as this is intended as a machinegun "replacement" the benefits of piston and open bolt operation are both justified and being taken advantage of.

                          [/\]

                          Am I familiar with ARs? Yes, I am although I don't intend to be firing them in anger anytime in the future. Nor am I going to claim any kind of internet commando special knowledge.

                          I've had personal experience with what Wolf can do to an AR, albeit with someone else's gun who insisted on using it. Thing was jammed up tight the second the that particular round chambered, and wasn't interested in being budged. Incidentally I was the one at the trigger at the moment, it was a Smith & Wesson, and it was at the local Outdoors Expo where S&W among other vendors will let you shoot their guns for a nominal fee.

                          It's a very quick shooting, accurate, and light gun with minor things that annoy you like the recoil spring boinging right next to your ear. I've also had access to a Mini-30 for years, which doesn't like hard military primers among other quirks.

                          I don't agree with you. Piston technology offers very limited almost never realized benefits in the role of an infantry rifle, with immediately continuously realized significant penalties to accuracy and weight. It's not like the AR hasn't already been adapted to being able to use polymer uppers and lowers either. As the tests related to not cleaning instead of simple lubrication show simple fouling isn't the major issue the school children anti-DI refrain "it shits where it eats" would love to pretend it is. Yes, it can make cleaning harder in some aspects but if it has a hard aircraft technology derived coating on it ala FailZero, it practically wipes off as verified by my experience with someone who has one. I'm not personally in a position to put out that kind of money right now, but I am saving up. Supposedly they get their BCG's from the same people who do FN's.

                          I also disagree with you that the AR is anywhere near the peak of its evolution in the military form. The biggest thing behind that is they're not using aircraft grade coatings to make it work the way the classic AR-10 promo video establishes Stoner intended it to work. They could lighten or thicken the barrel depending upon whether they want to add more full auto endurance or revert full auto endurance adds for a lighter gun. Nor have they added even half the gizmos of questionable value, like quick change barrels, B.A.D. levers, MOE furniture and other toys that have been designed for the AR that people spend considerable sums on. Although it's not like there have been major issues with it since they corrected the issue with the original M16 & ball powder having cyclics around 1,000rpms, removal of the designer specificied coatings, and failure to issue cleaning kits.

                          This is in stark contrast to the AK and a lot of other older designs, which made design choices that make it so they can't be truly adapted to continuing Infantry Rifle improvements like optics, red dot/holographic, and ACOG sights. Not to mention the rest of the junk that gets modularly bolted on.

                          The XCR actually screams FAL to me more then anything with the FAL style charging handle and gas regulation system. It's also well outside of my price range, and from a company that has been failing to try to elicit attention from the military since their earlier "M96" Stoner 63 variant, and already failed to get in with the relevant contracts for this one. Their choice of 1-9 twist, which was a compromise against issues with the carbine gas system that were solved by the development of mid-length doesn't inspire confidence in their taking this seriously. If you want to humor their swipe at the RFP that the FN SCAR/HK 416 won, be my guest. I don't see why the military should show favor that, or a Bushmaster manufacturing quality, Masada derivative.

                          If you really want to rail me on experience you can point out that I'm just getting my first AR that can really rightly be called mine in a couple days, which I'm building from a Bravo Company 16" mid-length upper, a Spike's Tactical lower, and will be putting a Bushnell TRS-25 on. Not that, that means I'm unfamiliar with the gun. ;)
                          When it comes to military small arms, we are very priveledged to have someone like 7thsniper to teach us. All the reading and range time that you and I have combined doesn't compare to a successful career as an instructor, and military awards for markmanship, and combat experience. Then add years as an LEO, who specialized in weapons - like the AR. We need to remember who we are - amatuers compared to an expert of the highest order.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                            When it comes to military small arms, we are very priveledged to have someone like 7thsniper to teach us. All the reading and range time that you and I have combined doesn't compare to a successful career as an instructor, and military awards for markmanship, and combat experience. Then add years as an LEO, who specialized in weapons - like the AR. We need to remember who we are - amatuers compared to an expert of the highest order.
                            Whisky said it much better than I could have, but I agree with him 100% . . .
                            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              It may be time to lock this down? This thread is going in circles.
                              Last edited by surfgun; 04 Jan 12,, 01:57.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                For Fucks sakes, being the one of the very few Officers who saw the transfer from the FN-FAL to the M6-C7. I am one of the few here who knew EXACTLY what we gain ... and by the same token, exactly what we lost.

                                I am freaking tired about the wounding aspects of a "specialized" 5.56 against a straight FMJ 7.62x51. Anyone who hunts knows that the .308 softnose will do 10 times more damage than any fragment 5.56NATO will ever do. Fine, there is a legal arguement ... but there is ABSOLUTELY NO TECHNOLOGICAL ARGUEMENT TO REPEAT THE 5.56NATO DEVELOPMENT FOR THE 7.62X51? ZERO. NADDA. ZILCH!

                                THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT WAS DONE TO ENHANCED THE 5.56NATO THAT YOU CANNOT REPEAT ON THE 7.62NATO!!!

                                THE ONLY ARGUMENT IS WEIGHT ... WHICH I ABSOLUTELY AGREE UPON!

                                But Killing Power? There's a reason why I don't hunt moose with a .223 no matter if even if that .223 is a hollow point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X