What would you Change the US Assault rifle to
- Thread starter 68'chevelle
- Start date
- Status
Deaf Smith
Member
I wouldn't change it. Ain't worth the cost.
Look, even the super new 'assault rifles' shoot a small bullet, 3000 or so fps, hold 20 to 30 rounds, and have a optic easly added. Really they don't offer that much over the M4/M16 does. And the cost in logistics is so huge it could end up with no real rifle when they need it.
Unless, and until, they produce a rifle that is MILES ahead of the AR system, miles as in a totaly new concept where it gets a much higher velocity, holds more ammo, hits harder, and is lighter than the current weapon, then I don't see it happening.
Look, even the super new 'assault rifles' shoot a small bullet, 3000 or so fps, hold 20 to 30 rounds, and have a optic easly added. Really they don't offer that much over the M4/M16 does. And the cost in logistics is so huge it could end up with no real rifle when they need it.
Unless, and until, they produce a rifle that is MILES ahead of the AR system, miles as in a totaly new concept where it gets a much higher velocity, holds more ammo, hits harder, and is lighter than the current weapon, then I don't see it happening.
Shadow Shock
Member
I agree that the .223/5.56 is not perfect, but it does the job. I hear people complaining about it on the internet and TV all the time. Of all the actual combat vets I have talked to in real life, not one of them was unhappy with the 5.56. Not trying to trash anyone here, just making an observation.
I use .223 with 55gr soft points for hunting whitetails. Since I skin and clean the deer, I get an in-depth look at what the bullet actually does when it hits the target. My observations are that when it hits, it shatters bone, fragments, mushrooms, bounces around and follows bone (depending on where you place youre shot). The fragments spray all through the chest cavity, turning the vitals into mush. The last buck I took, was an 8-point at 300yd. The bullet struck his spine, shattered it, and followed it back out the hind quarter. One whole backstrap was ruined
, and we couldn't tell what most of his guts were.
I wouldn't expect this kind of preformance from a FMJ, but it should be sufficient in my opinion, especialy if you shoot them more than once. I think that if we just ignored the outdated conventions, and issued our troops with soft points or hollow points, we'd see the effectiveness go way up.
But no, the 5.56 was never designed as a sniper round. If the military wants to simplyfy their logistics, and have just one rifle round instead of two (currently 5.56 and 7.62x51), 6.5-6.8mm is probobly the way to go.
I use .223 with 55gr soft points for hunting whitetails. Since I skin and clean the deer, I get an in-depth look at what the bullet actually does when it hits the target. My observations are that when it hits, it shatters bone, fragments, mushrooms, bounces around and follows bone (depending on where you place youre shot). The fragments spray all through the chest cavity, turning the vitals into mush. The last buck I took, was an 8-point at 300yd. The bullet struck his spine, shattered it, and followed it back out the hind quarter. One whole backstrap was ruined
, and we couldn't tell what most of his guts were. I wouldn't expect this kind of preformance from a FMJ, but it should be sufficient in my opinion, especialy if you shoot them more than once. I think that if we just ignored the outdated conventions, and issued our troops with soft points or hollow points, we'd see the effectiveness go way up.
But no, the 5.56 was never designed as a sniper round. If the military wants to simplyfy their logistics, and have just one rifle round instead of two (currently 5.56 and 7.62x51), 6.5-6.8mm is probobly the way to go.
More interesting info. I've been looking at 6.5 Grendel for a while, because the ballistics look really impressive, but it is starting to look like Alexander Arms erred by starting the a 7.63x39 derived case. Using a short case means a long bullet, but it's not the advantage it seems to be. As noted, I designed a case based on the Czech 7.62x45 - the 6.5x42. This case has the same boy taper and shoulder as the 6.8 SPC, but with a case head of 0.452 rather than 0.422 ib the SPC. Even with the incresed taper, the 6.5x42 has a larger internal volume than the 6.5 Grendel. But the 6.5 Grendel can use longer bullets like the 142gn SMK, while the 6.5x42 is restricted to the 123 SMK and lighter bullets.
Does this matter? The 142gn SMK has a BC od 0.595, while the 123 SMK is only 0.510. But the 6.5x42 can drive the 123gn at 2600 fps compared to 2200 fps for the Grendel shooting the 142gn at the same chamber pressure.
When you run the numbers, the 6.5x42mm beats the 6.5 grendel in drop, velocity and energy at any range out to 100 yards. At 10 yards, the Gredel is going 1183 fps, has 311 ft-lbs of energy and has 46 MOA drop from a 200 yard zero. The 6.5x42mm is going 1329 fps, has 482 ft-lbs of energy and has only dropped 34 MOA from the same 200 yard zero.
Does this matter? The 142gn SMK has a BC od 0.595, while the 123 SMK is only 0.510. But the 6.5x42 can drive the 123gn at 2600 fps compared to 2200 fps for the Grendel shooting the 142gn at the same chamber pressure.
When you run the numbers, the 6.5x42mm beats the 6.5 grendel in drop, velocity and energy at any range out to 100 yards. At 10 yards, the Gredel is going 1183 fps, has 311 ft-lbs of energy and has 46 MOA drop from a 200 yard zero. The 6.5x42mm is going 1329 fps, has 482 ft-lbs of energy and has only dropped 34 MOA from the same 200 yard zero.
I agree with everyone who says the 5.56 is good enough. Anything else is really just a minor incrimental upgrade. That is exactly the reason the military is looking at things like the XM-25/XM-307. The reality is that conventional small arms have pretty much reached their peak. There are a few tweaks we can make - thing like lighter designs and caseless ammo, but these will have very little impact on the battlefield.
These little excercises are more mental stimulation than anything else.
These little excercises are more mental stimulation than anything else.
pinstripe
Member
I would like to see something along the lines of:
The reliability of the AK
The recoil of a 9mm carbine
The weight of the Hi-point carbine
The knock down power of a .308
The looks of a M1-A
If we can do this, then we would have a show stopper.
The reliability of the AK
The recoil of a 9mm carbine
The weight of the Hi-point carbine
The knock down power of a .308
The looks of a M1-A
If we can do this, then we would have a show stopper.
Change The AR?
I would change it into a rifle that cannot be regulated by Billlary, or Oboma or other Gun grabbing commies. Voting for Ron Paul would do that. Nothing else will do that. Then we can modify it. A 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel upper would be a great start.
I would change it into a rifle that cannot be regulated by Billlary, or Oboma or other Gun grabbing commies. Voting for Ron Paul would do that. Nothing else will do that. Then we can modify it. A 6.8 or 6.5 Grendel upper would be a great start.
For me it would be a....
Caliber: something in between a 6MM up to a 6.8MM blended metal bullet made by RBCD weighing in between 80 and 140 grains traveling at somewhere in between 2800 to 3200 FPS.
It would be something like a FNC, AK5 or a Daewoo DR-200 w/ a piston and rigid folding stock except that it would have a bolt handle on the left hand side so that most (of the right handed) people can use their non-dominate hand to load and release the bolt while still keeping their dominate hand on the pistol grip. But then have the bolt catch on the right hand side so that (left handed people or people using their left side for barricade shooting) could still slap the bolt catch to send the bolt forward when they reload like most people do with the AR-15.
Install all the rails, lights and other gadgets that have become required but make them out of light weight material to save weight and then maybe throw on a 20MM to 40MM grenade launcher on the underside if you really want to get crazy with it.
See these? Okay now imagine these with a left handed bolt like the FAL and a right sided bolt catch like the AR-15/M-16 only on the reverse side for lefties and barricade shooters instead of where it is on the AR right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blended Ammo By RBCD
http://www.rbcd.net/
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2003_main1
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread144989/pg1
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/december2003/instead_it_effectively_explodes_inside_a_body.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/315.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Crist And Alternatives To The 5.56
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_4_93/ai_n6362162
http://www.65grendel.com/art0036mmopt.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/1-9942.aspx
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html
Something like that would would be just about perfect.
Caliber: something in between a 6MM up to a 6.8MM blended metal bullet made by RBCD weighing in between 80 and 140 grains traveling at somewhere in between 2800 to 3200 FPS.
It would be something like a FNC, AK5 or a Daewoo DR-200 w/ a piston and rigid folding stock except that it would have a bolt handle on the left hand side so that most (of the right handed) people can use their non-dominate hand to load and release the bolt while still keeping their dominate hand on the pistol grip. But then have the bolt catch on the right hand side so that (left handed people or people using their left side for barricade shooting) could still slap the bolt catch to send the bolt forward when they reload like most people do with the AR-15.
Install all the rails, lights and other gadgets that have become required but make them out of light weight material to save weight and then maybe throw on a 20MM to 40MM grenade launcher on the underside if you really want to get crazy with it.
See these? Okay now imagine these with a left handed bolt like the FAL and a right sided bolt catch like the AR-15/M-16 only on the reverse side for lefties and barricade shooters instead of where it is on the AR right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Blended Ammo By RBCD
http://www.rbcd.net/
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/?s=2003_main1
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread144989/pg1
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/december2003/instead_it_effectively_explodes_inside_a_body.htm
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/315.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Crist And Alternatives To The 5.56
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_4_93/ai_n6362162
http://www.65grendel.com/art0036mmopt.htm
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/1-9942.aspx
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html
Something like that would would be just about perfect.
atblis
Member
Yeah
Daewoo K2 gets my vote.
Daewoo K2 gets my vote.
There are 7.62x39 Bolts available. Off the shelf part.
Nolo
Member
GunTech's gonna yell at me for this one.
This is a big problem I've been trying to address.
Someone told me of a powder (which GunTech doesn't think is in truth) that can reduce weight by almost half. So I designed rounds accordingly:
5.5mm Firebrand Alpha
-Muzzle Velocity: 3100 f/s
-Bullet Weight: 64 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1350 ft-lbs
-EPP: 10800 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Delta
-Muzzle Velocity: 3000 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 90 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1800 ft-lbs
-EPP: 94000 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Epsilon
-Muzzle Velocity: 3550 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 90 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2500 ft-lbs
-EPP: 92000 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Eta
-Muzzle Velocity: 3100 f/s
-Bullet Weight: 77 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1650 ft-lbs
-EPP: 94000 ft/lbs/lb
6mm Firebrand Gamma
-Muzzle Velocity: 2900 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 110 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2050 ft-lbs
-EPP: 80000
6.5mm Firebrand Delta
-Muzzle Velocity: 2800 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 123 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2100 ft-lbs
-EPP: 63000 ft-lbs/lb
EPP is Energy Per Pound, which basically tells you how much energy for your weight you are getting. A higher EPP rating is better.
I've been thinking heavily on using 5.5x28mm (5.5mm Firebrand Alpha), because of it's small size. This is what the rifle would look like:
Is is a very rough sketch, so it doesn't have much detail. It uses the Kriss Super V's action with the Kel-Tec RFB's forward ejection. I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of that, but I think it'll work. No, the resemblance to the Tavor is not coincidental. I haven't perfected its magazines yet, either.
This is a big problem I've been trying to address.
Someone told me of a powder (which GunTech doesn't think is in truth) that can reduce weight by almost half. So I designed rounds accordingly:
5.5mm Firebrand Alpha
-Muzzle Velocity: 3100 f/s
-Bullet Weight: 64 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1350 ft-lbs
-EPP: 10800 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Delta
-Muzzle Velocity: 3000 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 90 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1800 ft-lbs
-EPP: 94000 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Epsilon
-Muzzle Velocity: 3550 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 90 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2500 ft-lbs
-EPP: 92000 ft-lbs/lb
5.56mm Firebrand Eta
-Muzzle Velocity: 3100 f/s
-Bullet Weight: 77 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 1650 ft-lbs
-EPP: 94000 ft/lbs/lb
6mm Firebrand Gamma
-Muzzle Velocity: 2900 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 110 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2050 ft-lbs
-EPP: 80000
6.5mm Firebrand Delta
-Muzzle Velocity: 2800 ft/s
-Bullet Weight: 123 gr.
-Muzzle Energy: 2100 ft-lbs
-EPP: 63000 ft-lbs/lb
EPP is Energy Per Pound, which basically tells you how much energy for your weight you are getting. A higher EPP rating is better.
I've been thinking heavily on using 5.5x28mm (5.5mm Firebrand Alpha), because of it's small size. This is what the rifle would look like:
Is is a very rough sketch, so it doesn't have much detail. It uses the Kriss Super V's action with the Kel-Tec RFB's forward ejection. I'm still trying to figure out the mechanics of that, but I think it'll work. No, the resemblance to the Tavor is not coincidental. I haven't perfected its magazines yet, either.
The 7.62x45 and 6.5x54 MS have the same case head size as the 7.62x39mm. Thus, the 6.5x42 would use the same bolt as the 6.5 Grendel. Any 6.5 Grendel could be easily rebarreled to 6.5x42. You might have to use 6.8 SPC magazines, but there would be no other changes required.
Nolo, the problem isn't the powder, it's the case volume. Remember your chemistry
P1*V1/T1 = P2*V2/T2
Halving volume doubles pressure.
Even if the powder only requires half the room, you need a certain amount of gas volume to achieve a certain velocity. Unless you can radically change burn rate, generating a large volume of gas in a space half the size is a recipe for disaster.
P1*V1/T1 = P2*V2/T2
Halving volume doubles pressure.
Even if the powder only requires half the room, you need a certain amount of gas volume to achieve a certain velocity. Unless you can radically change burn rate, generating a large volume of gas in a space half the size is a recipe for disaster.
I think the FNC upper is very close to what we want. The M16 lower is a better design, incorporating fences around the mag release and reinforcements where impacts are likely to occur.
My main bitch with the FNC, which I have figured out how to fix, is that you can easily lose the cocking handle. Putting a captive cocking handle on the left side would effectively fix this. I'd like to see the handle at about 11 o'clock, so that it can be accessed with either hand.
The downside of the FNC is that the bolt lock into the reciver a la the AK. It should lock into a barrel extension like the M16, making the reciver a non-stressed part and allowing for a simplified barrel change.
Anyone who swaped out a barrel on an FNC knows exactly what I am talking about.
I prefer the M16 fire control groups as well, although I'd like to see the FCG packaged as a unit, something like the McCormick match AR-15 trigger.
Make everything as modular as possible.
Also, the FNC is still designed around iron sights. If you scope it, you end up needing to put some sort of cheek riser on it. The M16 is much more optics friendly. A slight modification to the upper receiver and a new stock fixes this.
Basically, I want an FNC upper that fits an M16 lower - with the option of a heavier barrel. The pencil thin barrel on the FNC does nothing to help accuracy.
YMMV
My main bitch with the FNC, which I have figured out how to fix, is that you can easily lose the cocking handle. Putting a captive cocking handle on the left side would effectively fix this. I'd like to see the handle at about 11 o'clock, so that it can be accessed with either hand.
The downside of the FNC is that the bolt lock into the reciver a la the AK. It should lock into a barrel extension like the M16, making the reciver a non-stressed part and allowing for a simplified barrel change.
Anyone who swaped out a barrel on an FNC knows exactly what I am talking about.
I prefer the M16 fire control groups as well, although I'd like to see the FCG packaged as a unit, something like the McCormick match AR-15 trigger.
Make everything as modular as possible.
Also, the FNC is still designed around iron sights. If you scope it, you end up needing to put some sort of cheek riser on it. The M16 is much more optics friendly. A slight modification to the upper receiver and a new stock fixes this.
Basically, I want an FNC upper that fits an M16 lower - with the option of a heavier barrel. The pencil thin barrel on the FNC does nothing to help accuracy.
YMMV
Nolo
Member
I understand that, GunTech, that's why they're telescoping. The small charge at the base pushes the powder and ball further down the barrel, giving it extra room.
Also, GunTech, I would not discount bullpups, it's just so much more effectiveness for a small packages. There are downside, sure, but I think the rewards are greater than the sacrifices.
Shadow Shock
Member
"I understand that, GunTech, that's why they're telescoping. The small charge at the base pushes the powder and ball further down the barrel, giving it extra room."
Thats an excelent idea Nolo. Now theres just the problem of getting it to propell the bullet and powder before igniting the powder. And making sure the ROF is tuned so that the cycling action doesn't accidntally let some powder fall in the chamber, which could cause jams.
Thats an excelent idea Nolo. Now theres just the problem of getting it to propell the bullet and powder before igniting the powder. And making sure the ROF is tuned so that the cycling action doesn't accidntally let some powder fall in the chamber, which could cause jams.
I understand you theory, but the pressure rises too fast. Look at a pressure/time curve for just about any cartridge. In general, near peak pressure is reached before the bullet has moves more than a fraction of an inch. Most of the powder combusts in the case before the bullet even moves.
A telescoped round is, in terms of pressure, no different than a conmventional round. Telescopes catridges make for more compact packages, nothing else. The only way to reduce chamber pressure with a given load is to increase case volume. This is exactly the reason those big double rifles have such giant cases. Double rifles actions are much weaker than bolt guns. A large case measn that you can have the necessary volume of gas to achieve the velocity you need, without having a high chamber pressure.
A telescoped round is, in terms of pressure, no different than a conmventional round. Telescopes catridges make for more compact packages, nothing else. The only way to reduce chamber pressure with a given load is to increase case volume. This is exactly the reason those big double rifles have such giant cases. Double rifles actions are much weaker than bolt guns. A large case measn that you can have the necessary volume of gas to achieve the velocity you need, without having a high chamber pressure.
RevolvingCylinder
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 782
Make the M4A1 and an M16A3 version of the AR10 standard issue. That way you have the ideal "urban" carbine that could fill the SMG role and you have the range and hitting power of the 7.62x51mm cartridge. The weapons can be issued/configured/used to fit the mission requirements and everybody's happy.
Nolo
Member
GunTech, you use two different powders in construction. One powder (the base charge) is fast burning, and it pushes the powder and ball down into the barrel. The second kind is slower-burning, and it creates the velocity you need.
Prince Yamato
Member
Why is it that the "bad guys" have been using the same gun (AK-47) for the past 60 years and don't complain. But we, the US, get nothing but complaints about the m-16 from our guys but keep building more crap off of its design? Seriously, switch to "their" gun. Why spend a couple billion bucks to just create a new piston based rifle just so you can avoid saying that your design has Soviet roots?
"Their" gun works fine and has for over 60 years. "They" have successfully killed millions with them. I'm pretty sure in our guys' hands, the AK could do MUCH more damage.
"Their" gun works fine and has for over 60 years. "They" have successfully killed millions with them. I'm pretty sure in our guys' hands, the AK could do MUCH more damage.
If you mean the Soldiers and Marines who actually use it (I'm talking Infantrymen) they don't complain. 99% of the complaints about the M16 series weapons comes from hobbyists who have no experience using the weapon for what it was designed for who pick up on the few complaints from Soldiers and Marines that they hear and use them to justify their own personal biases.
Of those Soldiers and Marines who have complained in any of the many official surveys done since the GWOT started, most of them were in jobs where they didn't use the M16 in combat and they were simply parroting what they had read in gun magazines and on the internet.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
Jeff
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Jeff White I am here to agree with you with the exception of one point. You were the tooth of the Army (Infantry) I was the tail (Heavy tank mechanic) I never suffered a jam that I can remember with either the M16A1 nor the M16A2. I wasn't infantry but I would have trusted my life and had all the confidence in the world with both of those weapon platforms. Every time I deployed I never heard a complaint coming from the infantry in my twenty years in the Army and I supported many. What pissed me off inthe Army was the priority point of weapons training before the war. We qualified alright but we could have ratcheted that qualification to a level of personal confidence with a weapon that you don't normally get by shooting once a year.
With good fundamentals and a governmant issue M16 500 meter targets go down with iron sights with no cross wind in my experience, there is no reason in the world to change over to another caliber or another platform.
Like I said I never had a jam in twenty years not even in basic training if you put that weapon together right. If you lack the discipline and need someone to stand over you to hold your hand and to support you while you put your weapon together.... What some people needed was a swift kick in the pants..
I always felt that if one of my soldiers weapons ever jammed while firing then I wasn't doing my job in making sure that he wasn't doing his. You get the point.
By the way because I was a mechanic I don't feel guilty in giving you infantry guys out HUMMWV Glow plugs soldiered with two 20" leads so you can attatch them to a battery and heat your own coffee and when the glow plug cooled off you could roll it up and put it in your pocket. (I did it for a small fee.)
With good fundamentals and a governmant issue M16 500 meter targets go down with iron sights with no cross wind in my experience, there is no reason in the world to change over to another caliber or another platform.
Like I said I never had a jam in twenty years not even in basic training if you put that weapon together right. If you lack the discipline and need someone to stand over you to hold your hand and to support you while you put your weapon together..
.. What some people needed was a swift kick in the pants..I always felt that if one of my soldiers weapons ever jammed while firing then I wasn't doing my job in making sure that he wasn't doing his. You get the point.
By the way because I was a mechanic I don't feel guilty in giving you infantry guys out HUMMWV Glow plugs soldiered with two 20" leads so you can attatch them to a battery and heat your own coffee and when the glow plug cooled off you could roll it up and put it in your pocket. (I did it for a small fee.)
HorseSoldier
Member
Scariest thread ever? Perhaps.
I know every time I get issued my M4A1 out of the arms room, I think to myself, "I do wish this thing weighed 20 pounds and was four feet long. Because a 14.5" barrel is really too short to be hopping in and out of vehicles with and clearing rooms . . ."
The ones I've had a chance to shoot were okay, but they don't do anything an M4/M16 won't do already.
Needs to be match the accuracy of an M4 if we go that route, and the HK 416s we're being issued don't. I'm not entirely sure if the cleaner action of the gas piston is justified when it means trading in a 2 MOA carbine for a 4 MOA carbine.
7.62x39 is excessively heavy for what it does, with poor external and terminal ballistics. Even before considering the merits of accepting that we'll rely on some 3rd World nation's quality control in ammunition manufacturing, I don't see it as a very viable idea.
Me too, actually. Or "bring back the M14."
7.62x39 is an optional conversion of the SCAR, intended to replace the SR-47. It requires a bolt, barrel, and magazine change to work, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd think we don't adopt it primarily because it has perhaps the worst control layout for efficient operation of any currently serving assault rifle on the planet. Always nice to have a weapon whose safety requires finger off the trigger and possibly hand off the pistol grip to deactivate. Add to that the fact that they're slower handling than an M4 due to greater recoil, slower on magazine changes, etc etc etc., and I'd put the AK only a notch or two above the BAR as a new service weapon.
Outside SOCOM, there's very little real training with AKs until folks get in country and may or may not get some familiarization training with them. While I think this is a mistake (think AK manual of arms should be taught in basic training since if you do battlefield recovery of an enemy weapon . . . it's going to be an AK), I'd note that the people who actually have them in their arms rooms in SOCOM are not exactly lining up to use them instead of issue weapons.
Aren't those the rounds that no one has heard a peep about after the military tried testing them and the manufacturer's claims were not substantiated and could not be duplicated?
+1 what Jeff White said. What we've got works. While I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a SCAR in the near future to see what it does (barring further procurement fumbles), the other latest-and-greatest, cover of Army Times winner, the HK 416, has been pretty unimpressive in actual use, at least from what I've seen personally. I can't speak for a lot of the more reasonable suggestions on this thread from personal experience, like the XCR, Masada, FNC/AK-5, etc., but they'd all have to do a whole lot that the M16/M4 doesn't do . . . and I don't think any of them bring that to the table except for certain specialized applications (very short barrels, suppressors, etc.).
I know every time I get issued my M4A1 out of the arms room, I think to myself, "I do wish this thing weighed 20 pounds and was four feet long. Because a 14.5" barrel is really too short to be hopping in and out of vehicles with and clearing rooms . . ."
The ones I've had a chance to shoot were okay, but they don't do anything an M4/M16 won't do already.
Needs to be match the accuracy of an M4 if we go that route, and the HK 416s we're being issued don't. I'm not entirely sure if the cleaner action of the gas piston is justified when it means trading in a 2 MOA carbine for a 4 MOA carbine.
7.62x39 is excessively heavy for what it does, with poor external and terminal ballistics. Even before considering the merits of accepting that we'll rely on some 3rd World nation's quality control in ammunition manufacturing, I don't see it as a very viable idea.
Me too, actually. Or "bring back the M14."
7.62x39 is an optional conversion of the SCAR, intended to replace the SR-47. It requires a bolt, barrel, and magazine change to work, if I'm not mistaken.
I'd think we don't adopt it primarily because it has perhaps the worst control layout for efficient operation of any currently serving assault rifle on the planet. Always nice to have a weapon whose safety requires finger off the trigger and possibly hand off the pistol grip to deactivate. Add to that the fact that they're slower handling than an M4 due to greater recoil, slower on magazine changes, etc etc etc., and I'd put the AK only a notch or two above the BAR as a new service weapon.
Outside SOCOM, there's very little real training with AKs until folks get in country and may or may not get some familiarization training with them. While I think this is a mistake (think AK manual of arms should be taught in basic training since if you do battlefield recovery of an enemy weapon . . . it's going to be an AK), I'd note that the people who actually have them in their arms rooms in SOCOM are not exactly lining up to use them instead of issue weapons.
Aren't those the rounds that no one has heard a peep about after the military tried testing them and the manufacturer's claims were not substantiated and could not be duplicated?
+1 what Jeff White said. What we've got works. While I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a SCAR in the near future to see what it does (barring further procurement fumbles), the other latest-and-greatest, cover of Army Times winner, the HK 416, has been pretty unimpressive in actual use, at least from what I've seen personally. I can't speak for a lot of the more reasonable suggestions on this thread from personal experience, like the XCR, Masada, FNC/AK-5, etc., but they'd all have to do a whole lot that the M16/M4 doesn't do . . . and I don't think any of them bring that to the table except for certain specialized applications (very short barrels, suppressors, etc.).
68'chevelle
Member
I know the AR-15 has stopping power but the AK has more, check out this movie I found on YouTube it shows the M16 vs the AK-47,
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0
SammyIamToday
Member
AK-47. Used one as my door gun in the Humvee in Iraq. Did everything I wanted it to do.
- Status