So, we have a new rifle(s)..

[JJ_BPK]

Who has any experience playing with the new toys??

Rifles XM5 and the squad XM250
Ammo 6.8x51
XM157 monster optic, weather station, micro-wave, and communication gizmo
and maybe a New suppressor?


Tell me your experiences, likes, and dislikes

[JJ_BPK]

oops :[

[bubba]

Just a couple of observations, but no real experience with playing with these new toys.

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics:

- New round (not a NATO round) will cause supply issues like it’s 1965 again (We are already seeing this with the new MK22 Sniper system. There is NO ammunition for the gun? I mean… WTF, Over!)
- The High Velocity ammunition coupled with the heat from the suppressor will likely increase the failure rate of internal parts and will definitely cause issues with barrel life
- Battery powered gizmos are prone to fail exactly when needed most
- Has anyone thought about changing out the MG’s on all of our armored vehicles and what that is going to cost?

Now that the Professional stuff is out of the way, here is the look at the tactics:

- Most (somewhere around 80-90%) of enemy casualties are from explosive munitions delivered via artillery and air-borne platforms
- Rifles are there to protect the Machine-gun
- Machine-guns are there to pin down the enemy and prevent them from moving
- APC’s are for moving Infantry around the battlefield quickly and safely with additional firepower
- Tanks are there to maneuver a machine-gun to the flank of the enemy and destroy enemy vehicles & hard points with direct fire
- The Artillery and Air is what kills enemy forces.

With all of that, I’d rather spend the money on training ammunition for the systems we already have stockpiled. We have troops that don’t know how to zero their PEQ Lasers or what the purpose of small arms is (yes, here in Special Forces too), so what makes us think a shiny new gun will change that?

Bottom line, why bother?

[PRB]

No idea on the hybrid aspect but I shoot 6.5 x 55 and 6.5 x 50 in a WW2 era Swede Mauser sniper and Jap sniper. Both rounds are extremely flat shooting, predictable and accurate as all hell. The Swede M 41 B is a tack driver (1910 action snipered in Sweden in '42).

If the can they use is like an OSS can the gasses are expelled out the front and there is no over gassing and that reduces wear. As the can is removable I doubt it would be used on all occasions.

This needed doing.... the 5.56 was issue prone. As to cost. Don't paint an aircraft carrier for one year...done. Buy one less Fighter.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by PRB

No idea on the hybrid aspect but I shoot 6.5 x 55 and 6.5 x 50 in a WW2 era Swede Mauser sniper and Jap sniper. Both rounds are extremely flat shooting, predictable and accurate as all hell. The Swede M 41 B is a tack driver (1910 action snipered in Sweden in '42).

1) I also have a nice 6.5x55 M38 swede.

I believe Grande's original round for the M1 was the .276 Pedersen and the FN/FAL trials started out with a .270 before the US forces the 7.62x51 on the world.

Amazing, what goes around comes around.. g

2) I asked about the can as this new round is set at a chamber pressure of 80,000 psi SAAMI rated, so something is going to get HOT HOT HOT.. Barrel burnout and can meltdowns, even more significant to the SAW

3)The Scope doodad-gizmo. Looks to be an inclusive unit, I'm guessing 2lb or better??

[7624U]

What is Hyper-Velocity I am trying to pin a definition to that ?

[tom kelly]

Originally Posted by bubba

Just a couple of observations, but no real experience with playing with these new toys.

Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics:

- New round (not a NATO round) will cause supply issues like it’s 1965 again (We are already seeing this with the new MK22 Sniper system. There is NO ammunition for the gun? I mean… WTF, Over!)
- The High Velocity ammunition coupled with the heat from the suppressor will likely increase the failure rate of internal parts and will definitely cause issues with barrel life
- Battery powered gizmos are prone to fail exactly when needed most
- Has anyone thought about changing out the MG’s on all of our armored vehicles and what that is going to cost?

Now that the Professional stuff is out of the way, here is the look at the tactics:

- Most (somewhere around 80-90%) of enemy casualties are from explosive munitions delivered via artillery and air-borne platforms
- Rifles are there to protect the Machine-gun
- Machine-guns are there to pin down the enemy and prevent them from moving
- APC’s are for moving Infantry around the battlefield quickly and safely with additional firepower
- Tanks are there to maneuver a machine-gun to the flank of the enemy and destroy enemy vehicles & hard points with direct fire
- The Artillery and Air is what kills enemy forces.

With all of that, I’d rather spend the money on training ammunition for the systems we already have stockpiled. We have troops that don’t know how to zero their PEQ Lasers or what the purpose of small arms is (yes, here in Special Forces too), so what makes us think a shiny new gun will change that?

Bottom line, why bother?

Somebody is getting a BIG PAYDAY for this contract & lets not forget 10% for the big guy....