I have a brilliant idea.Zaune wrote: US Army really is committed to a conventional layout, however, why not an intermediate-length barrel -16.5 inches, maybe- combined with the telescoping stock from the M4?


Moderator: Edi
I have a brilliant idea.Zaune wrote: US Army really is committed to a conventional layout, however, why not an intermediate-length barrel -16.5 inches, maybe- combined with the telescoping stock from the M4?
While some of the "hot shit" 5.56x45 mm weapons are supposedly entries, for some reason Colt's got a 7.62x51 in there.Army Times wrote:“It is my belief if given the choice tomorrow, the Army would not compete a new rifle,” said Darren Mellors, executive vice president of LWRC International. “They would like to buy more M4 carbines sole-sourced from Colt with a few hand picked incremental improvements.”
Because the tests will be done with enhanced — or “green” — ammo, industry also will get those specs to optimize their weapons for that round, he said. If the submission is other than a 5.56mm or 7.62mm caliber, the manufacturer will have to supply its own ammo.
It has it's own drawbacks obviously, but yes a collapsible stock, rifle length barrel, and standard magnifying optics deals with a lot of the issues inherent with trying to use a carbine platform in a theater like Afghanistan.Edward Yee wrote:This is better how exactly, with that 20 inch barrel? The closest to Zaune's suggestion from Colt Canada would be the C8SFW (L119A1 in UK use), but as I mentioned before, the 16 inch barrel requirement has already resulted in several US rifles (AR-15 based or not) with that barrel length.
You know, I think you might have a point there. Seriously, what exactly is the point of a carbine in this century's armed forces? They might have better penetration of light body armour than an SMG firing common pistol rounds, but you can make a functional trauma plate out of scrap metal if you have to, and I can't imagine the improvement in effective range is that substantial either.Edward Yee wrote:Shoulda clarified that I meant as a carbine, but you're right re: the issues of "going carbine Army-wide" running smackdab into Afghanistan.
Zaune wrote:You know, I think you might have a point there. Seriously, what exactly is the point of a carbine in this century's armed forces? They might have better penetration of light body armour than an SMG firing common pistol rounds, but you can make a functional trauma plate out of scrap metal if you have to, and I can't imagine the improvement in effective range is that substantial either.
You have no idea what you're blathering on about. This post is some of the stupidest shit I've seen in weeks. Seriously, just shut the fuck up and let the adults talk. You might even learn something.Zaune wrote:You know, I think you might have a point there. Seriously, what exactly is the point of a carbine in this century's armed forces? They might have better penetration of light body armour than an SMG firing common pistol rounds, but you can make a functional trauma plate out of scrap metal if you have to, and I can't imagine the improvement in effective range is that substantial either.Edward Yee wrote:Shoulda clarified that I meant as a carbine, but you're right re: the issues of "going carbine Army-wide" running smackdab into Afghanistan.
Depends how inconveniently heavy the guy wearing it was prepared to put up with it being, I suppose, but a 1/8th-inch plate of even ordinary mild steel would sort of work for one or two hits at the upper third of the weapon's effective range.His Divine Shadow wrote:Define functional, at what range.
Alsoat the whats the point of a carbine in the military schtick.
No it won't. 1/8 inch is only 3.1 millimetres. This nicely sourced article shows the 5.56 goes right through mild steel doors three times the thickness of your proposed "trauma plate" at ranges from 25 to 100 metres.Zaune wrote: Depends how inconveniently heavy the guy wearing it was prepared to put up with it being, I suppose, but a 1/8th-inch plate of even ordinary mild steel would sort of work for one or two hits at the upper third of the weapon's effective range.
Also more and more of combat is moving into urban locations and even when it's not it's usually within 300 yards. Hence the smaller carbine is more useful than a battle rifle.Zixinus wrote:The point of carbines is shorter, lighter weapon that is easier to carry and fit into tight vehicles (that military armored whatevers usually are, if my friend tells any truth) while still able to fire standardized ammunition.
I don't think that this one applies, seeing as (according to Magpul) the military wouldn't even give a look at their own proposed bullpup "PDR" (think the "Micro Tavor" but WAY shorter, with the ejection button forward of the pistol grip instead of behind).Ryan Thunder wrote:Not even. It's probably just not American enough.