Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70
Thanks Tree13Thanks

Thread: Looks Like the M-16 and SAW Are on the Way Out

  1. #61
    Veteran Member EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    16,595
    Thanks
    8679

    From
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by OlGuy View Post
    They wanted a round that would have further reach for desert or open terrain scenarios so why wait so long, jungle warfare has been over since the seventies.
    Urban combat is more likely. Our middle eastern enemies have wizened up about being sitting ducks in the open desert with our superior air and ground fire.
    Last edited by EnigmaO01; 3rd June 2017 at 05:10 PM.

  2. #62
    Veteran Member EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    16,595
    Thanks
    8679

    From
    Indiana
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Why don't we just buy a shit-load of AK-47's from our new pal Putin?
    The M-14 I was issued by the Marines in 1968 was a 7.62mm round and it worked just fine.
    We have to do something with all that money that is allocated for defense! And of course congress is beholden to the arms manufacturers.
    Thanks from Dragonfly5

  3. #63
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,811
    Thanks
    4357

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Why don't we just buy a shit-load of AK-47's from our new pal Putin?
    The M-14 I was issued by the Marines in 1968 was a 7.62mm round and it worked just fine.
    Sure but the POINT was weight. That and the fact a lot of troops really don't shoot well enough to need range of 400-800 M.

    The Military looked at the weight of the gun plus a certain amount of Ammo. While you COULD trim weight off the M-14 the ammo still weighs.

    For YEARS there's been interest in a "mid size" and perhaps even a compact bullpup. 6.8 mm has been suggested,and there ARE guns in 6.8. The Military LIKES to keep the logistics simple, yet, we DO have circumstances and roles.

    I could see us sticking with the SAW awhile even if some units go from the M-16/M4 to something a bit larger caliber.

  4. #64
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    36,794
    Thanks
    38805

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    Army almost always gets new equipment before the Marines do.
    Pretty much anything is hard to see at 500 yards.

    Did you guys just have to hit the silhouette to get points on your score? I mean did hitting the target dead between the eyes or the center of where the chest count more than just putting a hole in the target, let's say where the shoulder would be? Or did you get X number of points for just hitting the target and your score was based on hitting so many targets in a specified time period?
    They dropped if hit for a few seconds, then another would pop up at a different range, and yeah, any hit was scored, no bonus for where you hit it.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    65,591
    Thanks
    30790

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    .
    New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56

    After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, soldiers could get a peek at a new prototype assault rifle that fires a larger round by 2020.

    Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in “intermediate calibers,” which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.

    The weapon designs being tested will be “unconventional,” officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available.

    I'd say it's about time.

    https://www.armytimes.com/articles/n...the-m4-and-556
    For Christ's sake, just bring my old M-14 back, along with the M-60 machine gun "The Pig." Why spent money on developing new weapons? Not that tough to adapt an M-14 to use a 30 round mag instead of the standard 20 round.

  6. #66
    Veteran Member Moorhuhn Wanted Champion Hollywood's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    65,591
    Thanks
    30790

    From
    Memphis, Tn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
    Sure but the POINT was weight. That and the fact a lot of troops really don't shoot well enough to need range of 400-800 M.

    The Military looked at the weight of the gun plus a certain amount of Ammo. While you COULD trim weight off the M-14 the ammo still weighs.

    For YEARS there's been interest in a "mid size" and perhaps even a compact bullpup. 6.8 mm has been suggested,and there ARE guns in 6.8. The Military LIKES to keep the logistics simple, yet, we DO have circumstances and roles.

    I could see us sticking with the SAW awhile even if some units go from the M-16/M4 to something a bit larger caliber.
    The problem is not so much the caliber. The old M-16 had a 20" barrel and got the maximum velocity out of the 5.56mm round. The newer M-4 had something like only a 14" barrel so it's not getting the velocity the M-16 did with that same round.

  7. #67
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,811
    Thanks
    4357

    From
    Ohio
    Look up the Desert Tech MDR. Versions exist in 7.62, 6.8 and 5.56... and you can CHANGE rather easy. Having spare barrels ec allows a 6.8 to be switched into another caliber. It IS a Bullpup so length + weight is comparable to M-4. There's a Compact/short barrel version.
    It's "ambidextreous" and the rounds eject somewhat forward. Seems to check off a lot of boxes. There's select fire and Semi Auto versions. I guess a 3 rd burst mode COULD be done?

  8. #68
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    21,671
    Thanks
    4180

    Quote Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
    The problem is not so much the caliber. The old M-16 had a 20" barrel and got the maximum velocity out of the 5.56mm round. The newer M-4 had something like only a 14" barrel so it's not getting the velocity the M-16 did with that same round.
    Why can't the army use both the M16 20" as well as the M4. Use where needed. The longer barrel will up the performance. Maybe even use heavier weight ammo for the 20" to gain down range performance. Assuming barrel twist is suitable. Are M16's still around or would building new one's get complicated for production?

  9. #69
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,118
    Thanks
    6739

    From
    A Month Away
    The M16 is a weapon that the military started using in 1964. It has had three revisions over that timeframe. It is a 5.56 mm (.22 caliber) weapon. Most of the enemies that our service members are facing are carrying 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) weapons.

  10. #70
    Established Member Redwood's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    6,811
    Thanks
    4357

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    The M16 is a weapon that the military started using in 1964. It has had three revisions over that timeframe. It is a 5.56 mm (.22 caliber) weapon. Most of the enemies that our service members are facing are carrying 7.62 mm (.30 caliber) weapons.
    Third World Armies and assorted terrorist groups still use AK 47's the Soviets handed out like trick or treat some 30-40 yr ago. The Russians and Chinese front line guys no longer use those. An AK 47 is cheap and very reliable but.. not real accurate.
    In AFGHANISTAN..... the enemy often had Dragunovs, a semi auto sniper rifle using the FULL LENGTH 7.65, not the short round of the AK 47. Those were pretty good at ranges of 400-800 m. We countered at first dusting off some M-14's then buying SR 25's, using some Barretts.
    Iraq had more "Urban" not only was range useful but you'd LIKE to shoot THROUGH what the bad guy hides behind. Meanwhile if Clearing a rancho you need a weapon that's compact. Then.......we seem to get in wars where it's ungodly hot.If it's 105 degrees and you tote a heavy load? You can't move so good. So..... M-14's don't solve it.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed