Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces Weapons > Weapons Discussion Area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

Old 08-13-2017, 15:28   #31
Brush Okie
Area Commander
 
Brush Okie's Avatar
 
Brush Okie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NurseTim View Post
What about a bullpup design? Not SA-80, more like AUG.
Bullpups have their down side espically if you shoot left handed.
__________________
What doesn't kill me better start running.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-13-2017, 16:05   #32
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by frostfire View Post
No replacement for solid fundamentals
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 Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy, but where are they."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 05:44   #33
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
JJ_BPK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 8,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
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.

Looks like I need to get my M1A2 Abrams ready for trade-in??
Do you think ONE(1) M1A2 will be enough for a 20% down payment??


__________________
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"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 07:17   #34
bblhead672
Guerrilla Chief
 
bblhead672's Avatar
 
bblhead672 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
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!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 07:49   #35
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
JJ_BPK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 8,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672 View Post
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"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 12:52   #36
Team Sergeant
Quiet Professional
 
Team Sergeant's Avatar
 
Team Sergeant is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 20,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bblhead672 View Post
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 are they."
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 13:31   #37
Brush Okie
Area Commander
 
Brush Okie's Avatar
 
Brush Okie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 4,264
Nothing is free. Want a more powerful round it comes with more weight in both ammo and rifle. Want less weight it comes with less range and hitting power. You can not have your cake and eat it to. There were reports coming out of Somalia about having to shoot insurgents several times at close range because they were jacked up on drugs. The extra ammo is not an advantage if you have to shoot someone several times when a larger caliber would do in in one or two shots. Military is stuck with FMJ so we have to live with it like it or not.


The M-14 as a battle rifle was a very good weapon according to anybody I talk to that used it in combat. Empirical data I know but one ex marine I used to work with was there when they did the switch. He was allowed to keep his M-14 due to being a sniper so seen real world side to side and they all preferred the m-14 for many reasons caliber being one of them.

Heavy and not good in close quarters. Studies have shown the 308/ 7.62x 51 does good out of an 18 inch barrel vs the original 22 in of the original m-14, it cuts weight retains velocity etc. Everything is a compromise. I have an 18 in 308 bolt action that is very accurate and velocity down range is plenty for out to 600m. Anything less like 16 inches is probably to short with to much blast coming out the barrel.

Like I said it is all about compromise other wise why not a 338 combat rifle or even a 50 cal. an 18 in 308 might be just what we need. Even the 260 Remington. The 6.5 bullet has an ability to kill beyond what many thing and are regular used on elk size game in Sweden with success.
__________________
What doesn't kill me better start running.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 13:38   #38
bblhead672
Guerrilla Chief
 
bblhead672's Avatar
 
bblhead672 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK View Post
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 View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 17:39   #39
TacOfficer
Guerrilla
 
TacOfficer's Avatar
 
TacOfficer is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Blackhawks-ville
Posts: 328
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-14-2017, 21:10   #40
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
7624U is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Destination Unknown
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant View Post
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.
__________________
"You do not truly own anything that you can't carry in both arms at a dead run"

"Robert A. Heinlein"
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2017, 01:20   #41
JamesIkanov
Asset
 
JamesIkanov is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacOfficer View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2017, 07:54   #42
Combat Diver
Quiet Professional
 
Combat Diver's Avatar
 
Combat Diver is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NC/Kuwait
Posts: 267
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2017, 08:43   #43
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Box is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 3,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Combat Diver View Post
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, or The 1st Special Forces Regiment. The Department of Defense and subordinate elements bear no responsibility or liability for the content of these opinions. These opinions are provided purely as social commentary and entertainment and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

...Hillary Klint0n is NOT my president
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2017, 09:05   #44
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
JJ_BPK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NOVA
Posts: 8,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box View Post
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"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:32.



Copyright 2004-2015 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies