StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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?

I have a brilliant idea.

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.

Supposedly the Marines though are considering something like the C7A2 for a possible "M16A5."

Speaking of the 'competition' though, not even the industry has the greatest faith, just ask a guy behind LWRC:

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.”

While some of the "hot shit" 5.56x45 mm weapons are supposedly entries, for some reason Colt's got a 7.62x51 in there. (Could be because this "CM901" is supposed to use a 7.62x51 mm lower receiver that's also compatible with a 5.56x45 mm upper receiver.) However, looks like 6.8x43 mm and 6.5 mm Grendel are out of luck:

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.

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.

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.

Shoulda clarified that I meant as a carbine, but you're right re: the issues of "going carbine Army-wide" running smackdab into Afghanistan.

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.

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.

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.

Define functional, at what range.

Also at the whats the point of a carbine in the military schtick.

Zaune wrote:

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.

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.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Define functional, at what range.

Also at the whats the point of a carbine in the military schtick.

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.

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.

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.

Whoops. You better not try that trick

Also, it turns out people making body armor know what they're doing when they make special trauma plates instead of using scrap

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.

The real question, is why not switch to a modern bullpup. You will not have to suffer from barrel length problems (F2000's overall length is 694mm while the M4's is 757mm to 863, depending on the stock) while still having a compact enough weapon.

Oh, right, it's unconventional and would require some genuine expertise to make rather than just refurbish existing models. Better stick to an older and more cumbersome settings.

Not even. It's probably just not American enough.

I mean seriously, they complain about it being "different to reload", for chrissake.

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.

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.

Yeah, that reduced size does help in city fighting, good point.

Ryan: To be fair, re-training is an issue. Soldiers are taught to do the basic motions of fighting (like reloading) to be muscle memory, as under fire you don't want to think about how to reload. So, if you were to issue a new bullpup, you would have to re-train how it is to be used for every soldier armed with a rifle. That can measure the entire armed forces.
But yeah, a lot of criticism about bullpups is simply "I'm not used to it".

Ryan Thunder wrote:Not even. It's probably just not American enough.

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).

Re: Afghanistan and ranges -- apparently the military can't decide (as a "fits all" solution) whether the problem is the caliber or the barrel length, and of course there's the opposing camps on that question. From what I can tell, that's also what killed the XM8 project. >_>