Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Rifle Discussion' started by Honor, Oct 9, 2018.
Yep, they'll copy it, just like their comrades from the Southeast.
There was the XM4, which was renamed M4 in 1991 (or so).
They’ll just make another AK. Which we’ll buy and then send to “rebel allies.”
according to the information I could find, the M4 system entered service in 1994. Looks like indeed, there was the XM4 from 1984...based on the Model 653 M16A1 Carbine/CAR-15 carbines (14.5" barrels and .223 rem chambered)
So i take it this means we might finally get some more future looking guns and one step slightly closer to space age gats? Ammo sounds decent but as pointed out before the video says 6.5 but is listed as 6.8?
Either way so long as a bullet travels and can hit something at 300meters someone will still duck their head down when being suppressed plus we've got the god send known as a M2 50cal machine gun and a Mk19 40mm automatic grenade launcher. failing those we have the god blessed 155's and air assets. Failing all of that just drop a JDAM/MOAB/TOMAHAWK
Sounds about right for the Army.
Im tired of M4 clones, only unique one i've seen in awhile is the SCAR everything else is AK or AR with a body kit.
Oh and I'd likely think whatever they do make up for prototypes it'll only get used by some SF and maybe a few Ranger units to field, if it does ok they may adopt it but i doubt this will end up on the conventional light infantry side.
Yeah.. but let us be honest here.... is there any chance of a bullpup type ever becoming U.S. govt issue, like the L85A1, AUG, FAMAS did for their respective countries? Probably not. Otherwise, there's no real difference except in operation systems... there seems to be a good issue of the piston system on a M4 style bolt, that of causing bolt carriers to tilt and thus wear asymmetrically.... (showing Stoner's genius in how he approached his gas system)
Otherwise.... you either have gas piston system, direct impingement, delayed blowback, and then you have rotary bolt head or tilting bolt. Highly doubt the Mil would ever accept something like a recoil operated system (Remington Model 8/81 or a much smaller scale version of Browning 1917) on the basis of accuracy and weight...
Then there's the question of magazine compatibility, if there's a chance of getting the rest of NATO to come together and accept a whole new system.... Of course, NATO accepting the caseless 6.5 or 6.8 design could mean a much bigger contract for the companies involved..and possibly lower overall costs if NATO member countries would be willing to chip in for R&D costs and prototyping and testing
See, that's probably a huge reason why we haven't gotten much replacements for some items....because the R&D is basically done, and NATO members have standardized on whatever they have decided.
The recent 7.62x51 interim rifle contract has been cancelled, in favor of just going full speed ahead on this avenue that may or may not work out to be good in the long run
Honestly, I would be fine with say, a 6.5 or 6.8mmm version of the .308 Winchester....even if it means upsizing the standard carbine magazines and carbines to 308 size..... but the benefits I can think of would be basically improved ballistics and still keeping the thumping good energy afforded by the 308 case......
on the other hand, what's the ballistics look like for either the 6mm AR or 6.5mm AR rounds? I know one of these two is currently not offered commercially..but maybe good idea?
6.5 would likely mimic the Swedish mauser round in performance and accuracy. Not bad. What was old is now new again.
100 gr. 3100fps
170 gr. 2500fps
Using a .308 case and modern powders this is likely doable. Pressures shouldn't be to high probably no more than the 50k cup range. AR10 should handle this and provide a familiar platform.
Of course it will take billions for the government to reach the same conclusion.
Whooooooaaaa there!!!!!!! Slow down on all them technicalities already!!!
Its got joules, man!
Nah, lack of adjustable stocks or some other third reason would become the reason why top brass will say no.
Hopefully this will not go down the path that uniforms did. What a mess
I wunnerif you can reload the joules ?
I wonder if you can reload the joules ?
Them joules is some Big Medicine .
Got this from FN for SCAR rifle:
1. Log on to Youtube.
2. Type in 'Forgotten Weapons'.
3. Select British EM2'.
4. Watch end to end.
5. Shake head in wonder...................
Wow yes that was an interesting video. I saw the second part here he was firing a few rounds.
What year did the M16 become our main service rifle?
In the 60s. The M16/M4 being issued is part recoil, part firepower. More of the latter than the former. The U.S didn’t make a mistake going with an intermediate cartridge, they made the mistake of going with one too late and with one that didn’t have the oomph that previously designed cartridges, like the .280 British, had.
The Serbians are going 6.5 Grendel with theirs.
I know when the AR10/ar15/m16 were designed. N0_regerts made the statement "snowflakes these days can't deal with recoil" I find that to be a odd statement when that's one of the reasons they made the change in the 60s.
It has more to do with firepower, ability to use as suppressing power, and logistics. Cheaper to produce 5.56, soldiers can carry more, and its easier to use as suppressive fire.
Even the Russians went with an intermediate cartridge before us. Rest of Europe was trying the intermediate cartridge concept, and the U.S pissed em off by saying NATO has to use 7.62 NATO, and then turn around and say “hey lets now use an intermediate cartridge WE designed and lacks oomph of the ones you designed.” We had to toss em a bone and accept 9mm as the standard for pistols.
On the plus side it did give us the AR, and 5.56. But still, we were late to that game.
They had issues with the M16 but they corrected some of the flaws with the M16A1.