May 10, 2017 at 5:23 pm #51840
M16 being replaced? Army testing new rifles, bigger ammoMay 11, 2017 at 6:59 pm #51841
What’s “best” for one situation is rarely “best” for a vastly different situation. They already have several generations of battle-proven long range rifles, both foreign and domestic. Are they trying to come up with one light enough to suit female infantry? Or is it just time to funnel a few more $$ into the right pockets?
Cry, "Treason!"May 11, 2017 at 8:52 pm #51842
Considering the failures that have become more controversial since the adoption of the M4 variant over the A2, one has to wonder what might have happened if the military had just stuck with the 20″ barrel.
While not as handy, there is a marked difference in effectiveness between the 20″ and the 14.5″.
The other option is an already proven and in production choice, the 6.8SPC.
A bolt head, barrel and magazine change and good to go. Reasonable recoil, better terminal effect and range, and minimal changes to gear, logistics and training.
An armorer level change, it is the logical choice and for that reason alone will never happen.May 11, 2017 at 10:15 pm #51843
L Tecolote said “……Are they trying to come up with one light enough to suit female infantry? ”
No , just one light enough for the next generation of GMO fed , cell phone addicted , Meterosexuals . Not quite females , but getting there .May 12, 2017 at 1:00 am #51844
I seriously doubt it’s to accommodate the women. But I certainly do expect that it’s driven by $$$ – most everything is anyway. The fundamental evil that exists – call it the Dark State or whatever – uses money to create more money for themselves and their purposes. And one of those fundamental purposes is to keep military forces well established throughout the world, thereby continuing their reign of carnage and destruction across the earth – destruction of both infrastructure as well as large percentages of whole generations of human beings. All just part of the plan, don’tchaknow.
Side note: And yes, the women have arrived. They are indeed in Infantry basic training as I type, FWIW. I have no further comment on the subject.May 12, 2017 at 5:23 am #51845
Let’s go back to the M1 carbine.May 12, 2017 at 10:07 am #51846
Dont use anything less than a 308 , seriously . Why give our soldiers a glorified 22 ? its insane . Its most likely just time . It had a good run but is most likely just showing its age . They got rid of the Jeep , and the Sherman eventually , as they were no longer up to the task . We should have adopted the FAL , like the rest of NATO at the time , but again , politics .May 12, 2017 at 11:52 am #51847
With good ammo there’s nothing wrong with the AR platform or the .223 round.
Here’s an interesting read for those interested:
His comment on missing is classic.
The FAL? Love it.
But there are issues with it also.
Parts are 30+ years old at best, some are nearing retirement age.
Very few FAL’s can compete with an AR for accuracy. .223 or .308 versions.
AR for the win.
Sure the .MIL could have DSA or FN build a mess of them, South Africa wildlife Rangers just bought a bunch of 700+ DSA FAL’s (irony) recently for anti poaching use.
The Rangers with the DSA FAL has also been seen in Botswana.
But when you are humping 75+ pounds of other junk, additional weight in a rifle is not something that would be appreciated by the troops.
Sticking with FN, the SCAR is a better weapon, whether I like it or not for the modern warriors if one had to stick with the .308, but even then, a 6.5 Creedmore or 7-08 makes more sense for range.
May 13, 2017 at 11:16 am #51849
- This reply was modified 3 years, 12 months ago by Whirlibird.
That brings up some questions in my mind . I myself have worn and own a suit of Medieval plate armor , plate armor alone = 65 lbs , chain mail underneath = 30 lbs . both in 14 gauge steel . The worst thing is not the weight , but the HEAT , your cloths have to be saturated with your own sweat before your comfortable . I wore it all day long on occasions . That was in my younger days . I currently back pack in deep woods , with a pack thats at 70+ pounds . Now granted , you dont just do either one of those things from day one , you have to build up . That being said , why were past generations able to carry just as much , or more , without problems , and our people now have difficulty ? Examples : Roman soldiers , ( Marius is the one that came up with the standard of 70 lbs of kit , generally still used as a limit today ) , British soldiers kit of WW1 , etc , etc . Knowing what I myself can do , and seeing what people in the not so distant past have done . Why are we now having a problem ? It seems obvious to me that if Metero Mark cant handle the load , then he heeds to hit the weights , and the Army’s PT is obviously lacking . Give them a good weapon , with a REAL projectile , 10 lbs for any rifle is not outrageous . Almost every rifle we , and other countries went to war with in the past , weighed at least that much . Were past people just tougher than we are today ? I dont think so , human biology doesnt change that fast . It seems clear that its the lack of PT , not the gear . Give these poor bast*rds a chance , with at least a 30 cal. intermediate projectile , that has a good chance of punching through the enemy’s cover . Yes the AR platform is , and will continue to be a solid platform , much like the AK , but advances in firearm development are worth exploring . Put the burden on the manufactures . The military puts up the call , and sets up the criteria for what they want , and the manufactures compete with a design . No reason that they also cant do the same with ammunition manufactures , create one that does not currently exist on the market , set the criteria , and let them come up with something . Americans are very good at that kind of thing I know how that all must sound , but its very confusing to me , WHY people are having such a problem with their kit , these days ? To me , its a question that needs to be asked . Whats are we doing wrong with our training ? The training is there , with special units , thats obvious , because those guys can do some almost super human things . Perhaps we need to reevaluate the structure of the regular infantry , and not skimp on the weapon they are given ? Just a thought and observation . I consider myself average , but I can do it . If I can handle the load , I know everybody else can also , if they build up .May 13, 2017 at 12:18 pm #51850
Perhaps we need to reevaluate the structure of the regular infantry.
“We” already did. She is already here, in training, as I type.May 13, 2017 at 8:57 pm #51851
Were past people just tougher than we are today ?
Yes Tolik, they were — at least on average. Given the harder conditions of past ages, the survivors (many died, just growing up) had to be, on average, tougher than people raised in easier conditions. Not only did they have to do more physical labor to get done all the tasks of just producing a living, but they had less ease when chores were done. Are some people today as tough? Yes, indeed some are, but far too many are not.
As you point out, it takes deliberate effort to gain, and maintain, physical conditioning, and the never-give-up attitude that it takes to fight battle after battle, and still come home human. Can some of today’s young people do that? Yes, but certainly not all, and nowhere near as high a percentage as in times past? Will they? The numbers tell the story.
Certainly some of the impetus to train and perfect comes from the Drill Instructor screaming commands and insults. But not all. Some of it must come from the toughening (or not) that the individual developed growing up, physical, mental, and attitudinal. Some of it must come from example, by what a kid sees others do, growing up, and from a natural spirit of competition, allowed and encouraged.
Given the way most modern kids spend more time under the influence and tutelage of the Public Fool System, than under the guidance and example of their parents, given the way they, boys especially, are constantly encouraged to “get in touch with their feminine side,” and are given high grades for mediocre work and trophies for “participating,” much of the mental and physical competitiveness gets (deliberately, to my mind) stomped out of them. The requisite toughness can’t all be restored by simply screaming at them as young adults, no matter how loud the DI”s voice.
At least within my own experience, there were far too many things I was asked, or expected to do, for which I had no natural, innate talent. I won’t say that I overcame all deficits, to be anything remotely resembling the perfect man. But I will say that the example of my parents, the desire not to be left behind, and the desire to accomplish what I could, pushed me to learn the 3R’s, do many tasks that I might rather have left undone, and become as independent as a suburban upbringing would allow. Had I not had those examples, and some latitude in being competitive (even, on occasion, combative) I’d surely have been the lesser for it.
The chores and lessons I groused about as I went about my childhood and adolescence were advantages that can only be appreciated in hindsight. Sadly, Metro Mark often lacks those advantages, and likely, he’s had schoolteachers diligently feminizing him for twelve years. After he acquires an adult body it’s a bit late to try to resurrect both the mental and physical toughness he, by rights, should have developed as a boy. He’d better watch out, or his kid sister will kick his @$$.
GS, no doubt, it’ll be a kinder, gentler military, especially once they get that 5 lb. self-cleaning battle rifle squared away.
Cry, "Treason!"May 14, 2017 at 1:29 am #51852
A lot of the grunts I know would love to drop to 70lb for full kit.
The SF combat medic I was arguing this with runs one of the heaviest packs in his squad, and he’s pushing 120lbs. Nobody is under 90.
FYI he’s trying to cut more weight off his M4!
Rolling gear? If it don’t go bang, boom or have a sharp edge, is still hitting close to 50 lbs.
The whole metro bs, sorry gents, these aren’t the volunteers of today’s military.
Thirty caliber ain’t all its cracked up to be.
Heavy bullet, larger case limits the number of rounds that can be carried. And the carbine rounds like the .300 BO or x39 don’t have the long range accuracy or punch they are looking for.
Go tell your ground pounder he’s suddenly carrying half the ammo, see what response you get. I’ll wait.
Finding a middle ground choice is the best option. Unless you want to spring for a whole new weapons system and gear with your tax dollars. .
Again, the 6.8 SPC is proven, commonly available and no changing of handling or maintenance.
As to the snips about the modern military not being as tough as earlier generations, I don’t know which kids you are looking at, but the ones I’ve run into lately are not the pot smoking officer fragging shitbirds of yesteryear.
These kids are smart enough and tough enough to have the intelligence call Barrett customer service during a firefight to get their .50 back in service.
We still have the best military and the best people out there. And the gear ain’t bad either.
May 14, 2017 at 3:03 am #51853
- This reply was modified 3 years, 12 months ago by Whirlibird.
Whirlibird, it gives me no pleasure of any sort to say this. I’m beyond sad to say that anyone believing our current military is mainly composed of our best and brightest, would have their reality gut-wrenchingly reconfigured if they spent some extended non-stop time, closely observing, on a major deployable military installation these days. This is a completely unsecure web site, open to the public on all quarters of the globe. Thus I will not share the changes I’ve witnessed over “just” the past quarter century, up close and personal, on a daily basis. It has brought me to private tears more than once.May 14, 2017 at 4:00 am #51854
Tax dollars ? Well yes , thats how it works . I would much rather it be spent on a completely new weapon system , than paying for some illegal aliens health care . After all , they are going to tax me , with or without my consent , so it may as well be productive . The M16 was exactly that when it was introduced . Have you also asked them about how being on the receiving end of a 30 cal round is , vs , trying to uproot the bad guys cover with the 556 ? and coming up short . You need a sniper , get a sniper . Fact is , as you well know , both now and historically , infantry vs. infantry combat is not long range , but uncomfortably close in . 100 yards or less . As far as telling them they have to carry half the ammo load ? We are not talking about a 3rd world army here , they have the logistics to keep them in ammo , you know that as well as anybody else . They dont have trouble keeping the machine gun fed , their rifles wont go hungry either . Just Sayin
All things aside , it really isnt any big deal from a manufacturing point of view . Thats what they do . They do it on their own , every time they come out with a new product .Its a win / win situation . The military gets Exactly what they want , and not having to settle for off the shelf . The manufacturer wins with a contract . It goes deeper than that tho , The manufacturer makes it for the military , AND then starts selling a civil version to the people , much like the AKM and AR15 . Yes they have to retool , etc , but thats part of being in business , its an expected , and one time expense , for both the manufacturer and the government paying for it . New cartridges ? Hell yes , send them down . Manufactures also tinker , would not be surprised if they already have prototypes already tested , and put on some back shelf , waiting for the need , much like auto manufactures do . Everybody wins , the Military , the Manufactures , the People . Your absolutely right , it doesnt have to be a 30 cal . , but its a good place to start . The Russians use a 9mm rifle round in a designated marksman role . Vietnam pot smoking shitbirds ? Yes , but it was that kind of war now wasnt it ? I mean seriously , kill off a bunch of guys to take a position , just to turn around and give it right back to the NVA ? WTF ?!!!! That goes against all common sense and principles of warfare ( for those that want to win a war ) Ground once taken from the enemy , must not be given back . If I got drafted , for a crap war ,in a crap country , where we had no intention of winning ( in the actual meaning of the word ) . I would smoke some pot , and frag bad officers as well . It did accomplish one positive thing tho . Which is that the Supreme court ruled that the draft was a two edged sword , meaning that yes congress has the right to start conscription , in order to raise an army , but at the same time , they must first declare war on an enemy . IE : the only constitutional need for an army to be raised with conscription . Hence , the all volunteer military , because we have not actually declared war on an enemy sense 1941 .May 16, 2017 at 10:30 am #51857
Tolik et all. no one votes for more taxes. They just happen like the rain. And then we get new rules. Until one day everybody decides to tear it down and start over again. It happens on a regular basis. The technology lives on and new monkeys come to take their places in government. Our next scheduled tear down looks to be fairly close. The old racket is getting to complicated and not quite convincing. This is an unsecure and possibly subversive thought. There aren’t enough paying passengers on the train to pay for all the new weapons systems. That is a problem. The democrats would kill everybody and the republicans are just more selective in their enemy selection. 1941 Deja vu. Screw fox and CNN. The scotus can’t even read the old document these days. Death by hackers seems an appropriate outcome. New weapons to fulfill the ancient urge. Enjoy the carnage and live.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.