autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3173
    MEMBERS
  • 180206
    MESSAGES
  • 3
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

What is the US Army up to?   Ammunition <20mm

Started 8-Aug by autogun; 4398 views.
RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

18-Aug

Indeed, but you have a large amount of M4s which are probably issued anyway.

Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

18-Aug

a large percentage need to have their upper receivers replaced.  Barrel wear and such.

RovingPedant

From: RovingPedant

18-Aug

If you need to refurbish things rather than use those made available by the NGSW I would have thought it would be cheaper to use existing supply lines to replace what you have rather than go to the bother of qualifying a new system, ammunition, armourers etc.

 

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

18-Aug

The Army is keeping the M4 in service for rear echelon roles.

The Army has just adopted brand new 9mm handguns and a brand new 9mm Subcompact Weapon (SCW). They are not going to do some foolish thing like spend a ton of money to convert old shagged out rifles to replace the brand new guns they just bought. Silly.

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

18-Aug

One would assume you might designate such a rifle as a "Carbine". Perhaps a compromise barrel length, say between 14-15"?

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

18-Aug

So if your proposal is to replace the entire upper receivers, stocks, pistol grips, optics, caliber, magazines, etc, then what are you saving? A $50 hunk of aluminum?

QuintusO

From: QuintusO

18-Aug

Perhaps I am prematurely becoming a cranky old man, but where is the use in such an idea? You reuse little more than a serial number, introduce an entirely new caliber, and a dangerous one at that, and you don't fill any niche that's currently unfilled. The only benefit to such an idea that I can see is that on the surface it seems fairly clever. But only on the surface.

In reply toRe: msg 17
QuintusO

From: QuintusO

18-Aug

We also hear that "replace the pistol" line again... What person decided that pistols were no longer useful? Hell, they're so useful that the Army went out of its way to solicit a compact version of its new handgun. You could argue there is a gap, sure, but between SCW and the M4A1 that field seems pretty well filled by now.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

18-Aug

This doesn't even touch on the fact that for way less money you can put lpvo's on nearly all your remaining m4's (of all varying stripes) and have a 500+ meter gun instead of a 300 meter gun.

The idea of switching to 300/6.8 also implicitly assumes that everyone everywhere is going to stick with 7.62x39 AK's even though we see in places like Syria that 5.45 is catching on bigly among those who can beg steal or borrow guns and ammo in that chambering.

5.45 is NOT a 300 meter cartridge.

Throw in the unfortunate tendency for some of the best piston AR's to basically not be capable of using truly modern ammo loads without beating themselves to death, especially in shorty configurations, and you have a never ending fail train.

nincomp

From: nincomp

18-Aug

Greg, I apologize if you feel insulted.  Over the last couple of decades, the very issues that you have raised have been discussed a number of times on this forum, so some members have formed strong opinions of them.  I think that I can safely say that most of the people here have come to the conclusion that .300 Blackout has the fatal flaw of being able to be chambered in a 5.56x45 weapon with disastrous results.  That pretty much rules it out.  The 6.8 SPC was developed in response to the perceived low lethality of 5.56x45 ammo in the early 2000's, but the introduction of M855A1 and Mk318 from the US seems to have solved that problem.  In addition, both .300 BO and 6.8 SPC are heavier than 5.56 and our troops are already heavily burdened.    The 6.5 Grendel is another cartridge designed to replace the 5.56, but it too is heavier and has a larger-diameter case than the BO and even the SPC.  The larger diameters sometime lead to feeding issues in a converted M4 (or other AR15-based weapon).  In short it seems that most militaries consider 5.56x45 to be "good enough."

The pistol vs. PDW vs. Carbine debate is neverending.  It tends to come down to the argument that it is easy to carry a holstered pistol around, but PDW's or carbines are bulky enough that they tend to interfere with normal activity, say for a cook or mechanic.   At the moment, 9mm seems adequate.  The various arguments re-emerge frequently, especially when the discussion includes the increasing use of body armor.  This is a good article  "Where Next for PDW's"  http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/PDWs.htm

If you have not already found it, our host has another site with numerous articles that you may find interesting.  It is called "Articles and Resources on Military Technology"  http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/miltech.htm

p.s.  LPVO = Low Power Variable Optic  (I did not know this until recently, so some others may be unfamiliar with the term.)

TOP