1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

WSJ - Army's new rifle

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by mrskeet410, Feb 2, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    link above
     
  2. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
  3. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,758
    Looks to me like they may be going back to the M-14, which I carried in Vietnam. Or maybe some kind of enhanced shorter lighter version. In my opinion the M-14 is a much better rifle than the M-16. But it's heaver and one can't carry as many rounds as they are much heaver. I carried them both during the change over in Vietnam. Just an opinion.
     
  4. avery53

    avery53 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    That's just too ugly!!!!

    Steve
     
  5. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,169
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    "That's just too ugly!!!! "

    That's what they said about the M-16 way back when.

    Matt
     
  6. Hawk46

    Hawk46 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    I, too, carried both the M-14 and M-16 in Nam. The 14 was a great rifle, but not suited to jungle warfare as was the 16. The venerable AK-47 is arguably the greatest combat rifle ever invented. More lethal than the .223 and simpler in design as well as dependable. Seems to me that the AK could still serve as the base platform for a new heavier caliber carbine design that would be at home in both Afghani and jungle style terrains. We have great sniper rifles now, but I agree that it's time for a new carbine weapons system. The technology certainly has to be there to get it done.
     
  7. Ahab

    Ahab Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,650
    If you talk to anyone from the Middle East, especially ex miltary, the most favored weapons are anything that shoots the .308!
    Second is anything that shoots the 8mm Mauser. Third is the AK47 and fourth is the SKS. The 5.56 is a distant fifth!

    They consider the 5.56 a wounder, not a man stopper!
     
  8. Hawk46

    Hawk46 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    Rick, you are correct in terms of the military looking to the private sector for a solution.

    I do disagre with your statement that control under full-auto is always the answer. I do think it is paramount in jungle and close quarters combat, a there we agree. Under other circumstances, range, accuracy and terminal velocity will dictate the better success. Maybe the answer lies in maintaining two separate weapons systems or a system with interchangeable barrels/calibers?
     
  9. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Russians today use the AK-74, 5.45 mm.
     
  10. W.R.Buchanan

    W.R.Buchanan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Messages:
    913
    Location:
    Ojai CA
    The reason all of those 3rd world countries use the AK47 is because they are cheap and there is over 100 million of them and more coming everyday. Sure they are reliable but more importantly you can teach sombody who is completely illiterate to run one in about 2 minutes, and since they don't have to be taken care of, that's a good thing, since they won't be taken care of. It doesn't matter. Plenty more where they came from.

    It has nothing to do with relibility or lethality, all that matters to them is having "something" that will shoot something. They don't give a shit about the people who are shooting the weapons, all they care about is killling the enemy, (us) and if that means wasting 50 men to kill one of ours, they simply say, "plenty more where they came from!"

    They have absolutely no regard or value on human life. To think they are evaluating firepower and relibility issues in arming their people is ludricrous. In their world, more is better. They don't have such a thing as "Arms Developement", they rely on "Arms Procurement" and hoards of stupid people to get the job done.

    I watched a show on TV about an arms bazarre in Pakistan. They were making AK's with hammers files and hand drills in the dirt. and they worked. They had kids reloading Steel cartridge cases by Hydraulically knocking the primers out and dumping some powder in and stufffing a reclaimed bullet in the hole. No resizing no powder measure, just get'er done.

    These people have been very successful at killing a bunch of American and Russian Soliders with the kind of crap they call guns. Think of what they could do if they had M16's and M14's. We'd be screwed.

    They are motivated by the prospect of a line of pussy waiting for them on the other side that they will never even see on this side. They don't get Playboy! They don't even know what they are working towards, It just sounds good to them. And if you lived in that shithole it would probably sound good to you too!

    I personally think they need to convert all of the existing M16's and M4's to gas pistons systems and be done with it. But How would we be able to arm all those Mexican Drug Cartels and who would Congress give all of our money to?

    I must say I would rather they gave my money to an American Arms Manufacturer than to a bunch of god damn greedy bankers on wall street.

    Randy
     
  11. Hawk46

    Hawk46 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    Good points Rick. Opinions will vary on a new grunt rifle but, in the end, we will probably be amazed with whatever the military adopts. Lots of technology out there. Whatever it is, I already want one!
     
  12. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,169
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    I think they should look into the Japanese Type 99. It is already eguipped with a high tech anti-aircraft sight. Maybe just upgrade the noisy dust cover on the bolt and the coat hanger bipod.--Matt


    grntitan_2009_2503190.jpg
     
  13. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,169
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    Rick--Can you believe they actually used those sights to shoot at the US aircraft. Word is they were very crude weapons but actually worked fairly well. Of course it takes a pretty darn well placed 7.7 Jap round to actually bring down an aircraft. The concept isn't hard to understand.

    Trap gun use. Hmmmm Not a bad idea. Wonder how it would look mounted on my 682 rib? LOL

    Matt
     
  14. grntitan

    grntitan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    17,169
    Location:
    IL(The gun friendly Southern Part)
    Rick--I have no idea on that as i'm not familar with what you described.

    Going into WWII the Japanese weapons were far outdated. They believed they didn't need new weapons. They thought the true weapon was their warrior attitude. Wrong!! They figured out that they had screwed up and couldn't make updated guns fast enough. I'm pretty sure they didn't have a machine gun until the very last stages of the war.

    My Grandpa was a Ball Turret Gunner on an Avenger aircraft on the Aircraft Carrier USS Salamaua(CVE 96). He brought that Type99 along with a very nice Colt 1911 back. He said they were all allowed to bring one Jap rifle back. He aquired (2) and traded one for the Colt. Good trade. They were recovered from Iwo jima after the fact. The rifle has the Emperor's Chrysanthemum ground off which was ordered by the Japanese before they could surrender. The US agreed to honor that and any recovered after the surrender were supposed to have it ground off before bringing it back. Some escaped that fate and demand more money. The one i have is in poor condition and probably worth $150-$200. It has more sentimental value to me.--Matt

    P.S> I'm done with my useless babling now. :)
     
  15. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    9 out of 10 German KIA (including POWs that died in captivity) were killed by the Soviets.
     
  16. Hawk46

    Hawk46 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    Skeet, not sure what point you're attempting to make as regards the subject, but you're a little off on your stat. Russians actually killed about 75% of those German soldiers who died in combat in WWII. This link is an interesting read:
    http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii_soviet_experience.dot
     
  17. Hawk46

    Hawk46 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    Skeet, just noted that you included POW's killed so your stat is probably very close to correct. Russia had it very much harder in WWII than what many people realize.

    Anyway, what was your point relating to a new military rifle?
     
  18. REA

    REA TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    47
    A law enforement officer told me this weekend the .223 wouldn't ever be replaced by the military. There is a new heavier bullet that doesn't have any lead in it to melt while sitting in a hot chamber and can kill at longer distances. Time will tell, but I still can't see those little bullets doing much good in Afghanistan at long range.

    I picked up an AK-47 replica for the first time and it has the worst stock I've ever seen. Too short and just plain doesn't fit. Junk. I wouldn't have one. Most of them must shoot 'em from the hip.
     
  19. shannon391

    shannon391 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,477
    No such thing as a "do all rifle," The M-14 shines in open country but the more compact variants of the AR can't be beat for urban or jungle areas.
     
  20. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    The M16A2 happens to work quite well with heavier bullets.

    The problem is the M4 does not. Instead of coming up with a new rifle, upgrade the M4s by rebuilding them back into rifle configuration. Issue short buttstocks for body armor or keep the telestock. Come up with a better method for attaching a grenade launcher instead of reducing the barrel diameter. This has been proven to cause a shift in POI when they get very hot. The longer barrel helps prevent destabilization of the bullets at range (yes, I know the twist rate is the same, but nevertheless the M4 has issues in this area). If optics are desirable, then configure the A2 as an A3 flattop. The M4 is actually a machine carbine, not a rifle.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.