Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

doggtag Yeah, this thing 12/23/2005 9:40:37 PM

Correction, it's Leitner-Wise. link

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Yeah, this thing 12/23/2005 9:42:17 PM

Sorry about that. Here's the link on the .499: link

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Moot point & New Direction 12/23/2005 11:29:47 PM

>>Some time ago (within the past couple years), I read that the USCG was evaluating an upper receiver in .499 Leitner Weiss (sp?) for its boarding parties and small patrol craft personnel, but I haven't really looked into it lately.<< I've seen claims in print that USCG has trialled and/or procured both the Leitner-Wise 499 and the Alexander Arms Beowulf .50 cal (though I don't think Alexander Arms mentions this claim on their website, Leitner-Wise does). It may be that they have taken a look at both weapons, or it just may be poor fact checking by writers -- most people, even gun afficianados would be hard pressed to tell one weapon or round from the other at about five feet. The rounds themselves are almost identical in appearance, with the Leitner-Wise round being a couple of millimeters longer in terms of case and overall length, with ballistics being pretty much identical as well.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/25/2005 9:34:28 PM

Shrek, I'm going to go ahead and give you the last word on this debate, although I don't concede the point. We have been arguing in circles and I think we have each adequately stated our arguments in full. As for the new argument, what would your ideal assault weapon look like?

Quote Reply

shek RE:Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/25/2005 10:16:22 PM

PPT Ranger, As I stated earlier, I'm not too smart beyond what is issued to me in terms of weapons - my focus was on getting the max out of what we had and pursuing kit on the margins of the major end items (getting undergun lights, etc.). I was happy with the performance of my kitted out M4 and was happy that my squad designated marksmen had M14s to perform that role. Beyond that, I'll leave it to the gun afficiandos to talk specs and potential replacements for the M4/M16.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Shrek: Last Word on Auto 12/26/2005 11:58:24 AM

>>As I stated earlier, I'm not too smart beyond what is issued to me in terms of weapons - my focus was on getting the max out of what we had and pursuing kit on the margins of the major end items (getting undergun lights, etc.). I was happy with the performance of my kitted out M4 and was happy that my squad designated marksmen had M14s to perform that role. Beyond that, I'll leave it to the gun afficiandos to talk specs and potential replacements for the M4/M16. << The existing kit works very well, and no current replacement offers the 100% improvement in capabilities that the US Army specified in its ACR competition from the 1980s. Talk about changing bullets (while potentially very interesting), changing weapons systems, etc., is pretty close to splitting hairs until OICW-type technology starts to come into service. Supposedly those weapons offer a 500% improvement over existing technologies, which, even if they fail to live up to such and instead go, say, 3-400% improvement, should be revolutionary. If and when they ever get into service.

Quote Reply

doggtag OICW, follow-ons, etc 12/26/2005 12:34:14 PM

Problem I see we run into here: considering the "battlefield abuse" an infantry weapon goes through during its lifetime: will the built-in fire control comuter be survivable enough to withstand all the extremes the infantryman faces? Will I require 2 or 3 different firing solution computing devices, each for their own extremes of frigid arctic environment, hot desert with powdery sand, or extra sealing for high-humidity tropical areas. Sounds like one weapon could get overly expensive. I wohn't get too in depth on the fuzed airburst round technology, but won't the rounds be far heavier, far more expensive, and less be carried than standard bullets? Seeing all the prior arguments/debates, I don't now seriously think that claiming airburst ammo offers an x-hundred% increase in lethality will really be all that much more beneficial on the battlefield: not if the grunt only gets to carry 1-4-1/6 the ammunition. I think the best future infantryman's weapon would be something designed to be much more reliable & durable, yet is not over-encumbered with too many gizmos, bells, and electronic whistles that it becomes a field stripping maintenance nightmare to the troops using it.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:OICW, follow-ons, etc 12/26/2005 1:15:03 PM

>>Problem I see we run into here: considering the "battlefield abuse" an infantry weapon goes through during its lifetime: will the built-in fire control comuter be survivable enough to withstand all the extremes the infantryman faces? Will I require 2 or 3 different firing solution computing devices, each for their own extremes of frigid arctic environment, hot desert with powdery sand, or extra sealing for high-humidity tropical areas. Sounds like one weapon could get overly expensive.<< The prototype OICW fire control components include a "iron sights" capability for firing point-detonating grenades and 5.56mm rounds. That said, night vision gear, Pluggers and other GPS equipment, thermal weapons sights, and such all seem to take their share of thumping but mostly keep working. They can be broken, and I'm certain that OICW fire control/sensor components will be breakable as well, but provided they can attain a reasonable degree of reliability for the operating environment, this does not seem like a good reason to avoid this sort of technology. Current things in the inventory like Aimpoints and ACOGs, etc., represent an increase in durability and/or reliability over historical analogs and, while they can be broken, still provide an order of magniture superior performance to basic iron sights. As for cost, the individual weapon system will likely be quite expensive, which would be part of the reason why fielding plans for OICW have always focused on putting them into the hands of shooters (infantry, special operations, etc.) while support units or those needing a PDW more than an offensive weapon would continue with the assault rifle backed up by some number of 40mm GLs, etc. >>I wohn't get too in depth on the fuzed airburst round technology, but won't the rounds be far heavier, far more expensive, and less be carried than standard bullets?<< Round for round, obviously a 5.56mm round or 7.62mm is lighter than a smart grenade. But, conventional small arms ammunition does not have a top attack capability for engaging targets under cover. Likewise, smart grenades extend (at least as advertised) the individual infantryman's engagement range out to 1000 meters, which 5.56mm or even 7.62x51mm can't do except in specialized sniper weapons and, even then, 5.56mm is unlikely to score a hit and 7.62mm is pretty marginal as well. And, of course, a smart grenade may generate more than on casualty per round, which small arms ammunition cannot manage except in the statistically irrelevant odd circumstance. >>Seeing all the prior arguments/debates, I don't now seriously think that claiming airburst ammo offers an x-hundred% increase in lethality will really be all that much more beneficial on the battlefield: not if the grunt only gets to carry 1-4-1/6 the ammunition.<< Beyond CQB ranges, as the probability of a hit drops dramatically for a conventional rifle, they will likely be revolutionary. Like an M203 round, the OICW projectile only has to get close, not score a solid hit on a sub-6 MOA target at 400-1000 meters, which should prove superior both in terms of current weapons and the abilities of current shooters. >>I think the best future infantryman's weapon would be something designed to be much more reliable & durable, yet is not over-encumbered with too many gizmos, bells, and electronic whistles that it becomes a field stripping maintenance nightmare to the troops using it.<< Which is the alternative the US Army, the Australians, the French, the British, etc have all rejected in favor of bells and whistles. Bells and whistles provide gross overmatch against savages fighting with AK-47s, and I'm pretty partial to such as a consequence. Bells and whistles have revolutionized the way we presently fight war (i.e. night vision) and will continue to do so. Veering away from the embrace of technology and incorporation of it into our weapons and how we fight is an absolute error.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger Next Generation Assault Rifle 12/27/2005 11:18:11 PM

Like Doggtag, I'd prefer a better, more reliable weapon to one with a lot of expensive electronic bells and whistles. Right now, that stuff, while nice in theory, is still experimental, expensive, and unproven. Not that I'm dismissing the new technology outright. I'm just doubtful that a $10,000 15 lb weapon will ever be standard issue. (Perhaps it will be a squad-level weapon.) Personally, I'd like to see a next-generation assault rifle with a larger bullet, but I'd keep it a high velocity round.

Quote Reply

longrifle RE:Next Generation Assault Rifle 12/28/2005 12:09:05 AM

I wish they would forget ideas of making everyone a 20mm grenadier and go with rifle grenades instead; they would allow for a rifle in a nicer handling package. Newer models are shoot through or bullet trap, eliminating using a blank cartridge for firing as in WWII era rifle grenades. I've heard some of them can be thrown like stick grenades also, I haven't confirmed that though. Go for an all around intermediate round, bigger than 5.56, smaller than 7.62. The 6.8 sounds interesting, but I admit I haven't studied it much. If the round is the best choice for the streets of Fallujia it won't be the best choice for the mountains of Afghanistan and vice versa. Splitting the difference for infantry makes the most sense to me, although different rounds and interchangable upper recievers might be best for SF. Issue everyone a pistol and teach transition drills for CQB; every SWAT team in the country does, so does DELTA. It shouldn't be beyond infantry units. These ideas aren't perfect, neither is anything else.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT