JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The M5 takes you right back to M14 and the FAL in terms of weight and power. It will suck just as bad in jungles just like they did if the war theater breaks out there or in urban areas. Seems strange that now that we are moving away from open deserts they are just now going to something better suited to that.

The heavier recoil will cause a need for a LOT more training/practice from the troops, especially full auto.

Would I take an M5 w/optic personally? Hell yeah, but it suits my environment. It isn't lost on me that my short frame AR308 weighs only slightly more than an M4 and with the exception of the magic scope is almost as capable and a LOT cheaper to shoot. I predict in the end they will still be looking for an M4 replacement in 20 years,

IMO they will need a mix and the M5 will be great for snipers and SPR/DMR applications. Put that nifty optic on something smaller M4 sized platform with a 6.5 or 6.8mm cartridge for CQB/Urban/Jungle. Ever see an MCX recoil system fail? It's amazing and not something that can be easily fixed in the field. Time and usage will tell.

Nice discussion here on the MAC Channel.
 
Last Edited:
No I would not.

If I had to go to war ever again I'd prefer to use a
M16A2
M203
Or...
My favorite ...my old M21

I used all three at various times when I was on my combat deployments...and they worked just fine for me.
Andy
 
They've got to reinvent the wheel every so many years. It's just the way the Pentagon management seems to think. It's only my opinion, but there doesn't seem to be a reason to ditch the 5.56mm. Yes, buy some specialty weapons to fill out special roles. Which they've already been doing for many years. The idea of a universal, "perfect" weapon that suits 100% of applications is a unicorn that consistently fascinates generals and defense managers. But doesn't exist.

Training is a big point to consider. The 5.56 ammunition seems to be easier for co-ed and citified trainee populations to master. So go with what works, that is, what contemporary trainees are apt to do better with. As many police departments have abandoned .40 S&W (once thought to be the "perfect" police cartridge) for 9mm, which is more shootable for a larger share of users.

The M5 is starting to look at lot more like the original assault rifle, the German MP.44 / Stg.44.

Seems strange that now that we are moving away from open deserts they are just now going to something better suited to that.
This underscores the idea that generals are always fighting the last war.
 
At suddenly just like that all us tacticool mall ninjas became old timers, but at least people wont be asking if they can fire their 6.8 in a 277 Fury chamber...


Im not seeing any reason to upgrade. I do find it interesting they went with a heavier rifle and cartridge. The 3 piece cartridge case looks expensive to make.
 
What is the point of all this ? 1652244095739.png
 
I think that.....I might have hit my self-imposed limit of/on new calibers and platforms.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....I think the military may have forgotten about the "cost per kill". Yeah.....I'm a taxpayer and I consider stuff like that.
 
No. What's being made available to the Army should be viewed as preliminary still. We might witness significant design changes to the platform alone or a significant change in the chambered caliber: both of which are absolutely possible in the near future. Ask me again in five-years or so.
 
The military doesn't always choose right. Also they rely on multiple layers of support. Civilians have access to 50-70 year old design that's proven effective. The new platform may have potential but old faithful has the kinks worked out.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top