General Geoff
Member
You know, the first thing I did when I read this thread was I did a search for the term "plasma rifle."
You guys never let me down.
You guys never let me down.
the ideal rifle for the military
- Thread starter icebones
- Start date
- Status
Eightball
Member
As did I. Couldn't find the usual picture quick enough, and this time, I wanted to be "that guy."
alsaqr
Member
"Why is it these "reports" always say the rifle/ammo doesnt work, but all the veterans have no problems with it? Why is it a lot of Soldiers/Marines I know return and buy an AR-15?"
+1
+1
researchdoc
Member
Gas operated, larger caliber.
I think that Masada would be good, sans the connection to Bushmaster.
Doesn't Sig have a gas operated system being bid to the Military right now?
I think that Masada would be good, sans the connection to Bushmaster.
Doesn't Sig have a gas operated system being bid to the Military right now?
Sergeant Sabre
Member
And because C) "anecdote" does not equal "report" and D) the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Direct impingement is no problem. Do the detractors of direct impingement feel that particles in the gas are going to stop the bolt carrier group from cycling? Maybe it's supposed to stop the lugs on the bolt from sliding between the lugs in the receiver? Well whatever it is, it doesn't happen in practice. Never has to me, and never has to any of the Marines I know.
The only M-16 malfunctions I've had were misfires caused by bad primers on boot-camp range ammo, and a couple of double-feeds using blanks on a training rifle.
On the topic of ammo, I love the 5.56. I don't buy the six-point-who-cares junk one bit. Anybody who believes the 5.56 noses-over and fragments inside a body knows that it's devastating, and that the 6mm junk isn't needed. For those who think 5.56 M855 pencils straight through, ONE more millimeter of pencil will not make a whit of difference.
problems I've heard of are:
-foregrip would rattle and overheat at times, especially in full-auto
-even though soldiers like the full-auto, they want a larger magizine capacity for it
-those adjusting from the longer M16 said that "it felt a little off-balance at first"
no reason going into ammo ballistics since thats a whole different thread
-foregrip would rattle and overheat at times, especially in full-auto
-even though soldiers like the full-auto, they want a larger magizine capacity for it
-those adjusting from the longer M16 said that "it felt a little off-balance at first"
no reason going into ammo ballistics since thats a whole different thread
icebones
Member
not that i am saying the ar-15 style rifles are bad, i said earlier that i own 2.
i regulary shoot 200-300 rounds at a time and provides i clean these rifles when i'm done they run fine, i have never has any jams or maulfunctions, but shooting milk jugs on the weekends doent compare to combat, especially in the desert. fine sand, dust, heat and powder build up can play havoc on any weapon.
i seen an episode of american rifleman, or guns&ammo tv , i cant remember which, but any way, one of the guys on there fired a S&W mp15 rifle for thousands of rounds, without stopping or cleaning, he just gave the bolt a shot of break-free about every 200 rounds, this is a simple solution to a problem that many people over state keep the AR lubed with light oil.
think of the ar-15 like a car engine, as long at it has lubrication, it will continue to run, take away the lube and it will still run for a while but then it will stop.
its not the 5.56mm round that is the problem neither, it is the short barrel m4 that are firing it, the 5.56mm is a round that depends on a high muzzle velocity to produce stopping power. the origional m-16 with a 20'' bbl and a 55 grasin lead core rounds were devastating, but switch to a m4 with a short 12.5'' bbl and heavier 62 grain steel core rounds, performance degrades.
also the m4 shorter gas tube creates problems with the timing of the action, the shorter tube, causes the botl to begin extraction of the spent caasing while it is still adhearing to the chamber via residual pressure.
i am simply saying that in close quarters a bullpup rifle is better than a conventional.
as far as the xm-8 program being cancelled, well thats politics doing what it does best: screwing up everything for everyone.
the cheapest solution for the military would be to pruchase the HK 416 upper recievers,(which can be quickly and easily mounted to the lowers already in stock) this would save substantual money and give us a better weapon.
-also the trials for the new .45 sercive handgun was cancelled, once again politics and bean-counters. people can argue about the m-16 rifles untill the end of the world, but you cant argue that a 9x19mm beats a .45acp, especially in combat.
i regulary shoot 200-300 rounds at a time and provides i clean these rifles when i'm done they run fine, i have never has any jams or maulfunctions, but shooting milk jugs on the weekends doent compare to combat, especially in the desert. fine sand, dust, heat and powder build up can play havoc on any weapon.
i seen an episode of american rifleman, or guns&ammo tv , i cant remember which, but any way, one of the guys on there fired a S&W mp15 rifle for thousands of rounds, without stopping or cleaning, he just gave the bolt a shot of break-free about every 200 rounds, this is a simple solution to a problem that many people over state keep the AR lubed with light oil.
think of the ar-15 like a car engine, as long at it has lubrication, it will continue to run, take away the lube and it will still run for a while but then it will stop.
its not the 5.56mm round that is the problem neither, it is the short barrel m4 that are firing it, the 5.56mm is a round that depends on a high muzzle velocity to produce stopping power. the origional m-16 with a 20'' bbl and a 55 grasin lead core rounds were devastating, but switch to a m4 with a short 12.5'' bbl and heavier 62 grain steel core rounds, performance degrades.
also the m4 shorter gas tube creates problems with the timing of the action, the shorter tube, causes the botl to begin extraction of the spent caasing while it is still adhearing to the chamber via residual pressure.
i am simply saying that in close quarters a bullpup rifle is better than a conventional.
as far as the xm-8 program being cancelled, well thats politics doing what it does best: screwing up everything for everyone.
the cheapest solution for the military would be to pruchase the HK 416 upper recievers,(which can be quickly and easily mounted to the lowers already in stock) this would save substantual money and give us a better weapon.
-also the trials for the new .45 sercive handgun was cancelled, once again politics and bean-counters. people can argue about the m-16 rifles untill the end of the world, but you cant argue that a 9x19mm beats a .45acp, especially in combat.
icebones
Member
then again the most common problem with any rifle is its feeding system, did any of yall know that the magazines for the m16 rifles were intended to be one-time-use and thrown away? but guess what, politics and bean-counters again, the problem is almost all military magazines are almunium construction, compared to steel AK mags, and high strength polymer magazines aluminum is easily damaged.
i have also personally seen military issue magazines for the m4 and m9 that lacked sufficuent spring pressure, the rounds were literally falling out.
time for the desk jockies to stop whining about money and but some new mags, the new steel ones from HK are, in my opinion the best i have ever used.
one more thing: plasma rifles? get real, unless you have a rail gun in you basement, i will stick to good old fashoned lead and powder
i have also personally seen military issue magazines for the m4 and m9 that lacked sufficuent spring pressure, the rounds were literally falling out.
time for the desk jockies to stop whining about money and but some new mags, the new steel ones from HK are, in my opinion the best i have ever used.
one more thing: plasma rifles? get real, unless you have a rail gun in you basement, i will stick to good old fashoned lead and powder
KBintheSLC
Member
+1
Can anyone say Kalashnikov?
How about C: thats all they know
Have you talked to "all the veterans" to prove such statements? I personally spoke to a vet at the range who had some very serious issues with his M-16 in Iraq. You see, the system does not like sand and dust. BTW, he was shooting an M1A at the range that day.
Look... I doubt anyone is saying the M-16 family is garbage. It's just that it requires too much pampering to function flawlessly. It may be more accurate than an AK, but if it starts jamming after 300 rounds (without cleaning), whats the point? IMO, the M-16 is best suited for the SWAT team. They usually participate in very short gun fights, in forgiving urban environments.
RNB65
Member
Sub-atomic weasel launcher.
Joe the Redneck
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 249
OK, I will skip then endless debate about the 556, the M16, the AK, plasma rifles and zombies and try to answer the question.
I would like to see something like an "upsized" P90 that uses caseless ammunition.
That is the first weapon I have seen since the Glock that actually offered some new thinking. It is designed to use optical sights and the top mounted mag has a lot of potential.
The caseless ammo is simply the next step in ammo. It will come to pass, it has taken far too long, but it will get there.
My 2 cents
Joe
I would like to see something like an "upsized" P90 that uses caseless ammunition.
That is the first weapon I have seen since the Glock that actually offered some new thinking. It is designed to use optical sights and the top mounted mag has a lot of potential.
The caseless ammo is simply the next step in ammo. It will come to pass, it has taken far too long, but it will get there.
My 2 cents
Joe
icebones
Member
yes caseless ammunition would be the next step, remember the hk g-11 geramny developed during the late 1980's it fired caseless rounds, but sadly the rifle and its cartridge was to far ahead for its time. the main problems with caseless ammunition would be:
---problems with handiling, oils, solvents, dust, moisture and even the oils and salts on the human skin can wreck havoc with propellant. also the propellant must be able to withstand being carried around in combat, shipping and distribution, loaded and unloaded from magazines multipule times.
---problems with heat, conventional ammunition uses brass, steel, aluminum or copper casings. these casing help (to some degree) with insualting with propellant from a hot barrel. caseless rounds (with current technology) would be prone to cooking off. also the priming compound must also be taken into account,
---combat capability, imagine if a caseless round were to become jammed during the feeding cycle, in worst case the propellant would be crushed into a powder and spilled into the weapons reciever, bad news with hostile rounds tearing over your head. also caseless rounds must be able to withstand extreme heat and cold.
if caseless rounds could be developed they would almost certainly give an advantage over conventional ammunition, less weight, less use of critical metal and material, simplified weapon design because there is no case the weapon would need no ejector, extractor, nor ejection port, although a cover to jammed rounds could be removed would be needed.
a way around this problem would be to use long bulets, approximately 3'' long of about 5.56mm caliber. about 3/4'' of the projectile nose would be conventional copper jacket and lead (or steel) with the rest of the projectile being hollow and filled with propellant and priming compount, think of it like a year 2008 version of the pin-fire musket cartridge, but without the short comings,
this round would be stable in flight, due to its length, provide greater stopping power due to its increased weight and the brittle and vulnerable propellant would be protected by the projectile's body. an idea to ponder on perhaps?
---problems with handiling, oils, solvents, dust, moisture and even the oils and salts on the human skin can wreck havoc with propellant. also the propellant must be able to withstand being carried around in combat, shipping and distribution, loaded and unloaded from magazines multipule times.
---problems with heat, conventional ammunition uses brass, steel, aluminum or copper casings. these casing help (to some degree) with insualting with propellant from a hot barrel. caseless rounds (with current technology) would be prone to cooking off. also the priming compound must also be taken into account,
---combat capability, imagine if a caseless round were to become jammed during the feeding cycle, in worst case the propellant would be crushed into a powder and spilled into the weapons reciever, bad news with hostile rounds tearing over your head. also caseless rounds must be able to withstand extreme heat and cold.
if caseless rounds could be developed they would almost certainly give an advantage over conventional ammunition, less weight, less use of critical metal and material, simplified weapon design because there is no case the weapon would need no ejector, extractor, nor ejection port, although a cover to jammed rounds could be removed would be needed.
a way around this problem would be to use long bulets, approximately 3'' long of about 5.56mm caliber. about 3/4'' of the projectile nose would be conventional copper jacket and lead (or steel) with the rest of the projectile being hollow and filled with propellant and priming compount, think of it like a year 2008 version of the pin-fire musket cartridge, but without the short comings,
this round would be stable in flight, due to its length, provide greater stopping power due to its increased weight and the brittle and vulnerable propellant would be protected by the projectile's body. an idea to ponder on perhaps?
icebones
Member
correction
when i said "pin fire musket" i actually meant a needle gun
the pin fire is a completely diffrent style of weapon
what i actually was referring to was the Dreyse needle-gun
my bad.
when i said "pin fire musket" i actually meant a needle gun
the pin fire is a completely diffrent style of weapon
what i actually was referring to was the Dreyse needle-gun
my bad.
dr0
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 49
http://www.fnhusa1.com/PDF/MIL_Catalog_web.pdf
Has some pictures of the new Browning/FN rifles that the military is testing. THere are 5.56 and 7.62 variations. They are somewhat compatible with the AR-15 series but seem to be correcting the obvious problems.
I've shot all the major (and most minor) military semi-autos and the original Browning FN is still the all around best of the .308 series, in my opinion.
The AR-15 series has many benefits over the FN and that era though, so I see why the military adopted them. The caliber is easier to carry, easier to shoot, more controllable in burst or full auto mode. The gun itself has very nice ergos and the flat tops are champs for mounting scopes on. The dustcover top of the FN isn't a scope mounting platform.
Still, and with all due respect to the Marine that posted here, they do jam more than other designs, especially if exposed to grit and sand. Yes, proper maintenance can prevent this. But I've layed prone on a dry lake bed shooting my AR-10 and had it jam after about 30 minutes of shooting with alkaline dust everywhere. Maybe the marines don't have problems with them, but what about the Army?
Anyway I'm thinking these new FN's maybe the best of both worlds. FN reliabiltiy with M-16 feel.
As for rounds I think the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are both a step in the right direction. The Grendel in particular is brilliant. Sadly it probably doesn't have the right pedigree to get adopted.
For better or worse the AR-15 platform is our rifle and shortcomings and all we seem to be able to make them work and work well for us.
Has some pictures of the new Browning/FN rifles that the military is testing. THere are 5.56 and 7.62 variations. They are somewhat compatible with the AR-15 series but seem to be correcting the obvious problems.
I've shot all the major (and most minor) military semi-autos and the original Browning FN is still the all around best of the .308 series, in my opinion.
The AR-15 series has many benefits over the FN and that era though, so I see why the military adopted them. The caliber is easier to carry, easier to shoot, more controllable in burst or full auto mode. The gun itself has very nice ergos and the flat tops are champs for mounting scopes on. The dustcover top of the FN isn't a scope mounting platform.
Still, and with all due respect to the Marine that posted here, they do jam more than other designs, especially if exposed to grit and sand. Yes, proper maintenance can prevent this. But I've layed prone on a dry lake bed shooting my AR-10 and had it jam after about 30 minutes of shooting with alkaline dust everywhere. Maybe the marines don't have problems with them, but what about the Army?
Anyway I'm thinking these new FN's maybe the best of both worlds. FN reliabiltiy with M-16 feel.
As for rounds I think the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are both a step in the right direction. The Grendel in particular is brilliant. Sadly it probably doesn't have the right pedigree to get adopted.
For better or worse the AR-15 platform is our rifle and shortcomings and all we seem to be able to make them work and work well for us.
Rifleman 173
Member
The .223/5.56 caliber rifle sucks. This is from a Viet Nam veteran who never did like that little piece of crap. Sometimes it'll shoot. Sometimes it'll jam. The main thing about it that I never did like was that it was not as effective as my XM-21 sniper rifle where 1 bullet would drop a bad guy.
Now get this this little piece of information. Robert McNamara and his assinine whiz kids were totally and completely WRONG. There is no such thing as one perfect rifle for every infantryman's needs. The average infantry squad NEEDS a variety of different firearms to cover a variety of different shooting situations. It is as simple as that. Different tools to do different jobs. How can a person, any reasonably sane person, expect a carpenter to build a house or building if he shows up with just a hammer? It won't happen. A carpenter needs a variety of tools to do different jobs and so do infantrymen. If this doesn't sound right, then why in the world don't we just arm ALL of our troops with nothing more than one kind of rifle and do completely away with grenade launchers, machineguns, pistols, flame throwers and so on? Come on, explain why all the other tools are needed for infantry combat but only one type of rifle???? On top of that, we need a decent caliber/size and weight rifle bullet with enough punch to get the job done. The 6.5 caliber bullets look to be good for what we need. So does the 6.8 SPC bullets. But more than anything, we also need submachineguns and good sniper rifles organic to all of our infantry squads. So we need a decent duty rifle, some good submachineguns, some reliable machineguns and some effective sniper rifles. We ought to just do it right and start all over with equipping our troops from the word "go."
:banghead:
Now get this this little piece of information. Robert McNamara and his assinine whiz kids were totally and completely WRONG. There is no such thing as one perfect rifle for every infantryman's needs. The average infantry squad NEEDS a variety of different firearms to cover a variety of different shooting situations. It is as simple as that. Different tools to do different jobs. How can a person, any reasonably sane person, expect a carpenter to build a house or building if he shows up with just a hammer? It won't happen. A carpenter needs a variety of tools to do different jobs and so do infantrymen. If this doesn't sound right, then why in the world don't we just arm ALL of our troops with nothing more than one kind of rifle and do completely away with grenade launchers, machineguns, pistols, flame throwers and so on? Come on, explain why all the other tools are needed for infantry combat but only one type of rifle???? On top of that, we need a decent caliber/size and weight rifle bullet with enough punch to get the job done. The 6.5 caliber bullets look to be good for what we need. So does the 6.8 SPC bullets. But more than anything, we also need submachineguns and good sniper rifles organic to all of our infantry squads. So we need a decent duty rifle, some good submachineguns, some reliable machineguns and some effective sniper rifles. We ought to just do it right and start all over with equipping our troops from the word "go."
:banghead:
mljdeckard
Member
We have good submachine guns. We have reliable machine guns. We have the world's best sniper rifles. There is nothing wrong with our duty rifle. If you want to argue about the appropriate distribution of all of these, join the club of every soldier still in the army whose job it is to gripe about everything.
Not only is the current-issue M-16 a far different animal than the one you used in Vietnam, it's the most versatile, ergonomic, and user-friendly rifle we have ever used. Mine knocks people over just fine. The 6. whatever bullets don't give any clear advantage to the application of a shot-medium range select-fire rifle that the M-6 doesn't already have.
And there is no way I would be happy if the armorer god came down tomorrow and armed all the petite females in my squad with M-14s.
It is correct to say that the M-16 is not the appropriate rifle for most of our troops. The M-4 is. Those who have a legitimate use and mission for anything different get it.
Not only is the current-issue M-16 a far different animal than the one you used in Vietnam, it's the most versatile, ergonomic, and user-friendly rifle we have ever used. Mine knocks people over just fine. The 6. whatever bullets don't give any clear advantage to the application of a shot-medium range select-fire rifle that the M-6 doesn't already have.
And there is no way I would be happy if the armorer god came down tomorrow and armed all the petite females in my squad with M-14s.
It is correct to say that the M-16 is not the appropriate rifle for most of our troops. The M-4 is. Those who have a legitimate use and mission for anything different get it.
icebones
Member
yep, the rifle your think of is the new MK-16 SCAR-L, increadible rifle, if i could i would get my hands on one during my deployment. the US navy SEALS and USSOCOM have already apopted it.
as far as stopping power with the 5.56mm goes, i have personally droped deer in their tracks with it (hollow points rounds though) and with FMJ i have shot clean through a 1/2'' cast iron stove door. clean hole, looked like someone drilled through it. Any one heard of the BMT rounds LeMas developed, the rounds are called Blended Metal Rounds, simmilar to frangible rounds but they react to the target they hit according to temperature. if they hit something hard, lik steel or armor plate they heat up and pierce through, if they hit an organic target, they will literally "explode" inside the target, inflicting horrific wounds. I read a report from a "un named" US soldier currently employed with the iraq police. he hit an insurgent in the lower back with a BMT round from his m4 se said something like "he went down like somebody hit him with a sledgehammer" upon examining the downed enemy the entire lower abdomen was shreadded, this bmt round quickly and effectively took down the target, this is what we need.
Also, the US never signed the Geniva convention, also we are not fighting a country under a flag, so standard ammunition isnt required.
check out the review for this round
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=361
yet again politics at their best, seems like this round will never make into the hands of troops. too bad.
also imagine issueing both 5.56mm and 9x19mm rounds to troops, effectively "killing two birds with one stone"
as far as stopping power with the 5.56mm goes, i have personally droped deer in their tracks with it (hollow points rounds though) and with FMJ i have shot clean through a 1/2'' cast iron stove door. clean hole, looked like someone drilled through it. Any one heard of the BMT rounds LeMas developed, the rounds are called Blended Metal Rounds, simmilar to frangible rounds but they react to the target they hit according to temperature. if they hit something hard, lik steel or armor plate they heat up and pierce through, if they hit an organic target, they will literally "explode" inside the target, inflicting horrific wounds. I read a report from a "un named" US soldier currently employed with the iraq police. he hit an insurgent in the lower back with a BMT round from his m4 se said something like "he went down like somebody hit him with a sledgehammer" upon examining the downed enemy the entire lower abdomen was shreadded, this bmt round quickly and effectively took down the target, this is what we need.
Also, the US never signed the Geniva convention, also we are not fighting a country under a flag, so standard ammunition isnt required.
check out the review for this round
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=361
yet again politics at their best, seems like this round will never make into the hands of troops. too bad.
also imagine issueing both 5.56mm and 9x19mm rounds to troops, effectively "killing two birds with one stone"
Eightball
Member
You accuse me of NOT having a rail gun in my basement? What kind of uncouth firearms enthusiast do you take me for?
As has been stated previously, anecdote =/= report. I would wonder what CO and/or armorer would let a troop under their watch use non-standard ammunition of his own procuring in his rifle for a combat situation. If you can provide a link to this "report", then I"ll lend it some credibility.
Just as there is no "wonder rifle," there is no "wonder round." There are compromises in both departments--so make do with it. And adopting the 6."wonderrounds" won't solve all the problems--like the NATO supply lines. Indeed, it would complicate things, and sacrifice one aspect of the ballistics for another--another compromise.
As it sits, for all the complaints I've heard about the M16/AR family, a lot of them seem to come from internet fanboys, rather than guys who use them and whose life depends on them. There's a couple in every camp that break the mold, but generally speaking, this has been my observation. Most of the troops I've come in contact with enjoy the AR, and, as long as they follow their training, have no problems with it.
Just my .02.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
Yes
outofbattery
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 874
Funny,I just read House to House and the author makes the comment of the M-4 being the finest rifle in service today.He also sings the praises of the usefulness of the,albeit finicky,SAW.
OUTSTANDING book BTW: http://www.amazon.com/House-Soldiers-Memoir-David-Bellavia/dp/1416546979
OUTSTANDING book BTW: http://www.amazon.com/House-Soldiers-Memoir-David-Bellavia/dp/1416546979
MatthewVanitas
Member
Exactly how many armies have main battle rifles today? So you're saying that the rest of the world's armies are wrong?
Ever notice that the vast majority of countries widely issued 7.62x51 (308) rifles are those who can't afford to buy new rifles for their troops?
Apparently, Iran and Pakistan are two of the only countries not "lacking" currently. Better hope we don't go up against them...
icebones
Member
ok because some people are so quick to shoot down comments made without the "seal of congress itself!!!" attached,
and so many people can call a report an "anecdote",
if you are not now, or ever have been a soldier in any branch of the military, dont act like you know combat.
here is the exact article envolving the use of BMT rounds by ex-Navy seal Ben Thomas, he was working for a private US company
"aka mercanaries, contractors whatever you prefer" simmilar to Blackwater USA.
here is the website with the article--- http://www.wlhoward.com/id618.htm
---Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them. In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the
attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.
He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly. "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said.
Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new - and controversial - bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn't passed the military's approval process.---
I simply said "un named" solider because I couldnt think of his name at the time.
if you dont believe me now, well i cant help you,
instead of complaining about made up reports and dismissing reports as "anecdotes" actually search the net for BMT rounds used in combat.
i cant say that all "reports" are 100% true, I dont know about every one else but I aint going to make up something up, but then again how many times every day does the News and CNN twist around reports from the middle east? This thread was started to get everyone opinion on an ideal military rifle, not to shoot down other poeples posts.
then again i never said the m4 or the 5.56mm are bad things, i would rather have an m4 than an AK
and so many people can call a report an "anecdote",
if you are not now, or ever have been a soldier in any branch of the military, dont act like you know combat.
here is the exact article envolving the use of BMT rounds by ex-Navy seal Ben Thomas, he was working for a private US company
"aka mercanaries, contractors whatever you prefer" simmilar to Blackwater USA.
here is the website with the article--- http://www.wlhoward.com/id618.htm
---Ben Thomas and three colleagues were driving north out of Baghdad in an SUV on a clear mid-September morning, headed down a dirt road into a rural village, when gunmen in several surrounding buildings opened fire on them. In a brief but intense firefight, Thomas hit one of the
attackers with a single shot from his M4 carbine at a distance he estimates was 100 to 110 yards.
He hit the man in the buttocks, a wound that typically is not fatal. But this round appeared to kill the assailant instantly. "It entered his butt and completely destroyed everything in the lower left section of his stomach ... everything was torn apart," Thomas said.
Thomas, a security consultant with a private company contracted by the government, recorded the first known enemy kill using a new - and controversial - bullet. The bullet is so controversial that if Thomas, a former SEAL, had been on active duty, he would have been court-martialed for using it. The ammunition is "nonstandard" and hasn't passed the military's approval process.---
I simply said "un named" solider because I couldnt think of his name at the time.
if you dont believe me now, well i cant help you,
instead of complaining about made up reports and dismissing reports as "anecdotes" actually search the net for BMT rounds used in combat.
i cant say that all "reports" are 100% true, I dont know about every one else but I aint going to make up something up, but then again how many times every day does the News and CNN twist around reports from the middle east? This thread was started to get everyone opinion on an ideal military rifle, not to shoot down other poeples posts.
then again i never said the m4 or the 5.56mm are bad things, i would rather have an m4 than an AK
Boy if I had a Nickle for every thread about the AR/5.56 not being "ideal" for our troops and us....
As a matter of fact, I believe there is a rifle that takes good from the AR platform and improves on it's faults. I'm looking forward to that ACR/Masada from magpul and bushmaster. Although, its not a bullpup it still looks promising.
As a matter of fact, I believe there is a rifle that takes good from the AR platform and improves on it's faults. I'm looking forward to that ACR/Masada from magpul and bushmaster. Although, its not a bullpup it still looks promising.
mljdeckard
Member
Other than a few tweaks, reliability improvements were never needed. Most of what was done to improve the reliability of the M-16 was to build it to the spec that Stoner designed it for.
- Status
