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; 4403 views.
Greg (N9NWO)

From: Greg (N9NWO)

18-Aug

much of the support troops do not need an infantry rifle.  However a pistol is too under powered.  Thus a folding stock PDW with short barrel that could hit out to 300 m would be a better option.

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.

TOP