08-14-2017, 07:17
|
#31
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,588
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
Actually there is........ and it's on the market. Soon the fundamentals you speak of will be out the door.
https://www.tracking-point.com/
Very very soon it will be point in the general direction and push a button.
|
The Army will need to increase upper body strength requirements to lug around a 12 pound rifle and its ammo!
|
bblhead672 is offline
|
|
08-14-2017, 07:49
|
#32
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,901
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672
The Army will need to increase upper body strength requirements to lug around a 12 pound rifle and its ammo!
|
Did you ever carry an M1 Garand with basic load?? 12lbs, plus.
Or M14 or L1a1 or M60 or .......
In WWII the standard load for the M1 Garand was only 80 rounds, but in Nam my troops carried 420(21qty 20rd mags).
Infantry will carry what ever they need, based on mission and resupply timing.
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh
"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
|
JJ_BPK is offline
|
|
08-14-2017, 12:52
|
#33
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,929
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672
The Army will need to increase upper body strength requirements to lug around a 12 pound rifle and its ammo!
|
How about a $500 rifle that does ok on the battlefield and you only have to carry a basic load of lets say, 200-300 rounds. Or how about a 12 lb rifle that you only need 50-100 rounds for.......
Careful Squidward, you're entering a ground combat discussion.
__________________
"The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where they are."
|
Team Sergeant is offline
|
|
08-14-2017, 13:38
|
#34
|
Area Commander
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,588
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK
Did you ever carry an M1 Garand with basic load?? 12lbs, plus.
Or M14 or L1a1 or M60 or .......
In WWII the standard load for the M1 Garand was only 80 rounds, but in Nam my troops carried 420(21qty 20rd mags).
Infantry will carry what ever they need, based on mission and resupply timing.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
How about a $500 rifle that does ok on the battlefield and you only have to carry a basic load of lets say, 200-300 rounds. Or how about a 12 lb rifle that you only need 50-100 rounds for.......
Careful Squidward, you're entering a ground combat discussion.
|
Sorry, forgot my sarcasm font.
Was trying to cross reference the debate about decreased requirements for women combat troops.
|
bblhead672 is offline
|
|
08-14-2017, 17:39
|
#35
|
Guerrilla
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Blackhawks-ville
Posts: 356
|
To whom.......
I completely agree with the analogy "it's the Indian, not the bow" vis a vis training and practice, but should advancements in body armor, as the general suggests, have an impact on the choice between a carbine or battle rifle?
Do are rivals even issue body armor to their infantry? It seems like top drawer equipment that is very expensive for million man armies to issue.
__________________
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the law
Plato
Last edited by TacOfficer; 08-14-2017 at 18:06.
|
TacOfficer is offline
|
|
08-14-2017, 21:10
|
#36
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,461
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
How are they?
(Never used a Scar.)
|
bit bulky but they run well its gas piston.
I don't like the charging handle on them could have made it none reciprocating like the G-3.
__________________
"Make sure your plan fits the terrain or you will be slurping mud puddles”
"Me"
|
7624U is offline
|
|
08-15-2017, 01:20
|
#37
|
Asset
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 41
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacOfficer
To whom.......
I completely agree with the analogy "it's the Indian, not the bow" vis a vis training and practice, but should advancements in body armor, as the general suggests, have an impact on the choice between a carbine or battle rifle?
Do are rivals even issue body armor to their infantry? It seems like top drawer equipment that is very expensive for million man armies to issue.
|
I know Russia does, but I couldn't tell you how widely it's issued right now. I was under the impression for a while that Russia mostly issued soft shrapnel panels, but apparently they started a modernization program a few years ago that puts them on parity with ESAPI. Not sure how successful it's been but apparently that's their new standard issue kit, along with the AK12. They have their own standards that are joint military/police, because Russia. Scroll down a bit, they're in there. My best guess says they're pushing for a 6 or 7 rated standard issue plate. Various Russian SF units are generally equipped with an equivalent plate, AFAIK.
http://dacsarmored.com/normas/DIN52290.pdf
I don't think China does.
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/20...fantry/102654/
As for insurgents/terror groups..... well, that depends entirely on the group, money, location, local legal concerns, planning concerns, and probably a million other things I don't know about or won't think of.
There's probably a lot "black market" armor floating around (not that armor is particularly regulated, usually) but most of it is soft or NIJ 3 equivalent, so I can't see any real bonus.
That said, reading between the fine lines, I'm not sure I'd say complete coincidence that the interest in advanced armor penetrating rounds is coming in as Russia finalizes it's armor modernization program..... but that is just speculation.
IMO, given modern armor systems, I'd say that the primary concern for beating rifle rated armor is bullet construction and materials... not caliber. If it can stop 5.56 it can probably stop .308/7.62x51 as well. If it can't stop 7.62 AP, then 5.56 AP is also likely going to poke holes in it. Likely. There is some room for error there, but I can't think of a 7.62 bullet that will beat a class of armor that doesn't have a 5.56 bullet "cousin" that will beat that same armor. Example being that M80A1 and M855A1 both beat NIJ 3 armors but both fail against NIJ 4 armors, and that the M995 Tungsten/Steel 5.56 AP will beat NIJ 4 armor..... exactly the same as the 7.62 equivalent.
There are a bunch of reasons why someone might want to switch out 6.5mm for 5.56, and basically all of them are for increased terminal performance or range advantages... whether that's a worthwhile trade off is something I'm not sure I'm qualified to discuss. Main point being that as far as I can tell there's not much performance against body armor reasons to switch caliber as long as you're staying between .223 and .30-06.
Maybe this will help clear things up in terms of what the point of this program is (page 38):
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y..._5_PB_2017.pdf
The program in the OP is (speculatively) because they want rifles that can work with the ammo mentioned in this post in wide usage that don't suck. I speculate, that the main point of going with 7.62 first over 5.56 is that they want it in MGs first. This is mentioned explicitly in the program text above, although I don't understand enough of small arms doctrine (right word?) to understand why they would prioritize having AP for MGs in widespread use over carbines and individually issued weapons......
I hope everything I am typing is tracking logically. It fits together pretty neatly for me, but I don't know if I'm really expressing the point correctly.
|
JamesIkanov is offline
|
|
08-15-2017, 07:54
|
#38
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NC/Baghdad, Iraq
Posts: 474
|
How about just using the money for rifle training and optics so the soldier can see at 600m. Cut the EO/PC classes out and train the war fighter to do his job.
CD
|
Combat Diver is offline
|
|
08-15-2017, 08:43
|
#39
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: State of Confusion
Posts: 5,747
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combat Diver
How about just using the money for rifle training and optics so the soldier can see at 600m. Cut the EO/PC classes out and train the war fighter to do his job.
|
This line of thinking is unacceptable - how can you support teaching people how to be more violent and lethal as preferable to teaching dignity, respect, and tolerance?
...in fact, since you did not specifically denounce sexism, transphobia, and bigotry as problems facing our troops, I am going to hold you in low esteem until I can become outraged about something else.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Screen Actors Guild, The Boy Scouts, The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly. These opinions are provided purely as overly sarcastic social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.
"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
|
Box is offline
|
|
08-15-2017, 09:05
|
#40
|
Quiet Professional
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,901
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box
This line of thinking is unacceptable - how can you support teaching people how to be more violent and lethal as preferable to teaching dignity, respect, and tolerance?
...in fact, since you did not specifically denounce sexism, transphobia, and bigotry as problems facing our troops, I am going to hold you in low esteem until I can become outraged about something else.
|
So,,
We're talking what??
20 minutes??
Do I have time to get another cup of coffee??
LMAO
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh
"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
|
JJ_BPK is offline
|
|
08-30-2017, 22:12
|
#41
|
Auxiliary
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Portland, Oregon area
Posts: 74
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7624U
bit bulky but they run well its gas piston.
I don't like the charging handle on them could have made it none reciprocating like the G-3.
|
I agree about the charging handle. I've hit my thumb with it a couple times. Didn't hurt so much, but did cause a malfunction. There is an aftermarket adapter to convert it to non-reciprocating but add that to the already expensive $2500+ and just keep throwing money at it! and you have to be careful what mags you use with them to prevent bolt damage from the bolt catch. It doesn't center on the mag well and with anything older than GEN 3 MAGPUL or just a std mil spec metal mag there may be issues with it holding the bolt catch up a little and causing problems. Easy enough to fix, but weird that they designed them that way.
I love the way my SCAR 16 shoots and ergonomics are very similar to AR15/M16/M4 series rifles. Super clean to shoot, but the action is also very noisy! Much louder than most ARs I've shot and owned. Accuracy is fair, but not great at about 1-1.5MOA with 69gr match ammo, I expected better for that kind of money. And unfortunately EVERYTHING for the SCARs are VERY expensive. swap a barrel for $1000!! When the Army is spending $400/M16A2 it's hard to see them shelling out that kind of money to go with SCARs...
FWIW
g
|
G2squared is offline
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:36.
|
|
|