Army bad, Marine good?

Army bad, Marine good?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    oh boy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      who whole thing feels totally antithetical
      the army making a 13lbs .27 cal 80k psi heavy recoiling rifle doesn't make sense for asymmetric or full spectrum warfare

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        seems like a gun than can shoot further with deadlier force and accuracy isn't antithetical at all to future wars

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          small arms hardly matter in full blown conflict suppressing/killing is better done by machine guns/artillery
          having a big fuck off heavy rifle with a 20 rnd magazine limits the individual soldier's ability to suppress

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The NGSW program is also replacing the fireteam's LMG. Giving the rest of the fireteam a rifle that can engage at the same range as the machine gun improves the team's ability to suppress as a whole.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeah personally I think its a good idea for the fireteam LMG's. The 240b's are outdated and getting long in the tooth I just think giving every rifleman a rifle in the same cartridge is pretty pointless. Only reason I can think thats really "good" is logistics but I don't think it would be that great of an issue

              it would be interesting to read about reports from Vietnam where squads had their 5.56 M16's and 7.62 M60's and how their supply/ammo situation was

              another interesting idea would be putting those smart optics on M4's and seeing whether or not increased barrel length in conjunction with the optic would increase hit probability at range (and see the rate of diminishing returns from increased barrel length)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The optic can probably work for the M4 in terms of the instant zeroing, but I think if you want to advance to the full fire control solution you probably only want to have to develop that for one cartridge since it's not going to be easy.

                That said, it seems worth it in terms of making ammo go further and lethality. People with no training could nail moving targets with those things at distance, but getting them robust, reliable, and energy efficient enough seemed like the problem. I bet calculating the rainbow trajectory is significantly harder.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah I figured that you couldn't just slap those optics onto any old rifle with any old chambering
                surprised the military hasn't tried to modify it yet for 5.56 though

                I think the IDF developed a similar optic for their Tavors and AR's although I don't know if the capabilities are the same as the Vortex

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Israel is now dumping the Tavor, unless they've reversed again? They were going to switch to the M4, although this is predicated on the US Army switching to the M5, because they are moving to the M4 out of cost considerations, using US stock.

                The way I saw it explained, Israel has a lot of things it could spend money on. Autonomous batteries, UAVs, squad level ground drones with machineguns or smart mortars, etc. The service rifle just isn't a priority.

                And any war Israel gets into at this point seems almost sure to feature mostly urban combat, so following the US on a more powerful round doesn't make sense.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Israel is now dumping the Tavor, unless they've reversed again?
                think it was just their SF guys that were in favor of some in house produced AR
                and in fact the urban warfare they expect was the big reason for them pushing for the Tavor

                https://i.imgur.com/j4ZcV16.jpg

                Just popping in to thank you for saving my picture.

                Carry on.

                np anon probably my favorite collection I've seen posted here

                >The M5 has too much recoil to be used at close range.

                Come the fuck on Anon. I will allow that it will be worse at very close ranges than the M4 and that there is a tradeoff here. However, it's not going to be unusable. American troops killed plenty of enemies at close range in trenches with .30-06 out of a 24 inch barrel. 140lb Depression kids fired the BAR on the move and in house to house fighting. Israel stomped the Arabs in their big post independence wars using virtually all 7.62mm. The round is going to be plenty usable in CQC, just not ideal. But there are always trade-offs. 5.56mm isn't the ideal weapon if you're only doing CQC against unarmored opponents either, it's good enough though and advantageous to pick a middle ground that does enough things well for all the engagements you can expect.

                while true that soldiers have been fighting close range with long rifles using .30 cal cartridges it should be noted that the combat .270 round has 80k psi a full 20k more than .30-06 and ww2 squads still had speciialized soldiers with smg's where I think the current plan is to give everyone but the machine gunners M5's

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Israel is now dumping the Tavor, unless they've reversed again?
                It was a story made up by a retiring IDF officer, I think I saw somewhere that he got a job with a rival arms manufacturer to IWI and was trying to poach export contracts or something like that.

                The Israelis put out a denial pretty quickly.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just popping in to thank you for saving my picture.

                Carry on.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That’s a really nice collection, anon. Excellent taste.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That's my read on the matter. TV arguably had the better rifle, but Sig had by far the better machine gun vs TV stating their machine gun is a 240 rebarrel.
              The combination of M250 being lighter and the 6.5 being lighter than 7.62 will probably allow the army to go to a 3 machine gun squad.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is a retarded post in line with the "Why cant we give every soldier a sniper rifle" logic

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              how exactly? I'm just saying it limits the individual in closer range combat

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There are people on both sides of the aisle saying this. The part you miss is that dense urban fighting, in cities, which inevitably occurs in invasions and civil wars- you absolutely need to have good service rifles. You need to have the right tool for the job, and that's going to be different depending on exactly where you're going to be fighting in an urban area.

            Sure, you can say small arms don't matter, but you can't use the GWOT as an example because that theater was so rural and resistance wasn't consistent across the population and they just don't have the same tightly packed megacities that you see in Europe or Russia or Ukraine or the United States. Usually the important places that you need to take are going to be armed and densely packed. A tangled mess of rebar, concrete, destroyed buildings.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why carry the weight of big and heavy bullets that will still largely be used for suppression when that weight could be spent on a load of 40mm loitering munitions that have a much higher accuracy and deadly force, with the side benefit of not having something that recoils so heavily that it will have issues being used on full auto in building clearing, one of the few situations where gunfire is actually still a killing tool instead of a fixing tool?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          when you have air, armor and support an infantryman's rifle is not much more than a long PDW.
          Modern Tactical Shooting talks about this on his video about carrying the MK18 in GWOT despite it's 5m range.
          >team gets engaged by PKMs/mortars/etc from out of range
          >Jeff fires like 3 rounds at them
          >then goes to the vehicle
          >M240 waiting, marksman rifle waiting
          >instead uses the vehicle's radio and calls in supporting fire
          >PKM position deleted/displaced
          >returns to day as normal
          Sure they could have all carried EBRs in case that one scenario happened again, but that would make them a lot less effective at kicking doors and moving through villages, which the MK18 was great for and which helicopters/air/artillery/armor ISN'T great for.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            future wars aren't going to be like the GWOT. you have to focus on fighting the next war, not the last one.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Funny, because the exact thing it seems like the rifle is made for is to remove enemy positions out of range without involving support.
              As the current war shows, rifles as PDWs isn't too far off the mark since both sides rely heavily on artillery and vehicles while static infantry are either standing on a town so the enemy doesn't, or digging holes in a forest so the enemy doesn't dig holes there.
              And as we've also seen, russoids barely issue body armor and I doubt the chinks have enough cognizance of human life to issue plates widely. So the M5 is designed to fight the next war against an enemy with a penchant for buying up Level IV plates with a lot of long sightlines and rural ground involved.
              Gee I wonder who that could be.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the military is gearing up to fight a war its never going to fight with a round that will never be developed.
                >the actual round isnt designed for plastic plates of the kind our main adversary wears, and could conceivably mass produce

                the gubbmit going after its own citizens would cause an implosion in the US. retard.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                have a nice day you subhuman shill

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the main argument against this is those people are not genuine
                they are perfectly fine with government tyranny - serving them
                they want wear the government jackboot treading on minorities, gays, trans, liberals, etc
                that is what their so-called fear is a mask for

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >they're all still kicking with nothing but AKs
                Isn't that entirely because the US military doesn't like the optics and geopolitical consequences of genocide through nuclear fire? Civvies with rifles only endure for as long as the US government hasn't gone completely mask off with what it can unleash.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How well do you think unleashing nuclear hellfire or anything more stringent then the Hearts and Minds RoE on fellow citizens would play out internal optics and geopolitical wise, much less how the actual soldiers would feel about it? The US government only survives through the trust of the majority of it's citizens and going full gestapo would destroy that cohesion.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                How does MAD work when a government starts nuking its own country?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Isn't that entirely because the US military doesn't like the optics and geopolitical consequences of genocide through nuclear fire? Civvies with rifles only endure for as long as the US government hasn't gone completely mask off with what it can unleash.
                My broher in Christ, are you dumb or do you have you problems reading and understanding what you read?

                Firstly, Yes, the "optics" if you want to use that word, that the US government doesn't / can't use Nuclear weapons to crush an insurgency, because asyou mentionned, it's Genocide and Indiscriminate killing.

                Killing indiscriminately, is what separates a Legitimate military from a Terrorist Organisation.
                That's why weapons of mass destruction are banned from use in warfare because of the Indicriminate Killing part.

                Secondly, there is no point in using Nukes to pacify a population.
                You're comitting genocide on a civilian population to kill a few insurgents.
                Completely counter-productive.

                As soon as the first Nukes go off, everyone immediately turns against you.
                Oh, you destroyed One Insurgency in Bumfuckistan?
                - Good, now you have 10 new insuregencies against you that just popped up.
                - Oh, and also all your allies now turn against you. Everyone on Earth hates you with a passion and wants you gone. NATO ? Hah say goodbye to that.
                - Europe? Now aligned with Russia and China to take down the Genocidal USA
                - You also used nukes on Civilian targets, so you just gave nuclear powers around the world
                a reason to nuke your entire country. Iran, North Koera, Pakistan, Russia, China and other nuclear powers can now Diplomatically justify glassing your country eiher in revenge or as apreventive measure to ensure their own safety.
                2 Weeks after you dropped your first nuke on cvilian target, your country is now a barren radioactive wasteland, as is a quarter of the landmass of the entire planet.

                And so what did you accomplish by using nukes??
                Literally nothing. You lost everything.
                Congrats, you lose.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                What the fuck is your point here? If the US government started using even a fraction of the force used against those same poor politically incorrect brown people the entire country would shit its pants and all bets would be off. The government can't even deploy the military domestically without setting off majoe alarm bells

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > This copypasta written during a literal 20 year complete occupation of a nation where the locals were absolutely unequivocally shit on in every single engagement to the point that they fled their own nation and only crawled back when the occupiers left

                The sentiment is right, occupying a nation is an absolute mother fucker if the locals are actually not-retarded and fighting their own government, but the ME is a horrible example of that, kek

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Who the fuck is patrolling Kabul now you stupid fuck?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Taliban and their new Chinese overlords.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >muh China
                The Taliban answer to no one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                the tali"chads" answer to the chinks, and their own pedophillic desires

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He doesn’t know
                Every single faction in the Afghan civil wars have been funded and equipped by different intelligence agencies. The Taliban have been glowies since day one.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The copypasta never made the point that civilians would fight with equal numbers of casualties, the point is precisely that they can simply overwhelm the occupier with numbers and guns.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I will always love that it was a fucking jap that type that whole copypasta.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More likely a Muhreen or sailor stationed there, anon.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                More likely a Muhreen or sailor stationed there, anon.

                more likely a weeb with a vpn

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Retard take
                Pre Ukraine invasion Russia still projected a strong image. Whether its MIC fear mongering for govt money or lack of intelligence is uo for debate but I think it's reasonable to assume your peer adversary would be able to issue body armor.
                >a lot of long sightings and rural ground involved
                See: Ukraine

                US doesn't have to physically repress its people, certainly not to the extent you're implying. The US can and does effectively placate its population with bread and circuses

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I think that just amplifies the problem with the new rifles though
              The sig rifle design feels very much like it was designed with the mountains of afghanistan and the flat plains of Iraq in mind rather than the expected combined arms warfare in europe or the pacific

              will be interesting to see what Ukraine/Russia reports post war since this is the closest thing we have to modern combine arms warfare

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >heavy, even when slick
              >20 rd magazine
              no.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I agree with that up to a point. I think Ukraine would be a very good test bed for what the next war is going to be like with the caveat that a war with China would likely be close quarters on pacific islands, not 500m is baby distance Afghanistan or whatever the fuck Ukraine's situation is. Personally I think the military needs to just quit the impossible fantasy of a singular do it all weapon. They've got a 7.62x51 and 5.56 divide, so just replace 7.62x51 with their new bullet and allow a bit more bleedover IE where before it was DMR/GPMG is the heavier bullet, now have it be DMR/GPMG/Service Rifle and bring back the concept of a carbine for non-riflemen.

              Were the Marines still going to do their dumb shit idea of eliminating belt feds? That seems quite dumb. The only way it makes sense is if those drones they are piloting proliferate to the squad level and you have a treaded drone for each fire team that can lay down indirect machinegun fire and 40mm grenades for you on demand, with decent autonomous targeting for when opportunities present.

              Most common complaints against the M249 was lack of lethality and lack of range. Are they sticking with the M249 to keep the ammo standardized? Seems to make more sense to use the M250 even if they don't adopt the M5. Firepower is key.

              5.56mm will stick around for a bit. Optimizing for urban warfare doesn't make sense. That isn't where most fighting occurs.

              Law enforcement style raids are what special forces are for. Unfortunately, after 2003-04, much of the last wars revolved around such actions and people began to fetishize special forces. You see it in threads like "could Seal Team Six and Delta Force have taken Hostomel?"

              To which the answer is no. They would end up like the VDV because light infantry is light infantry regardless of training and can't hack it out toe to toe against massive firepower disadvantages.

              But everyone is obsessed with special forces and has come to think special forces weapons optimized for door kicking and shooting goat fuckers outdoors who lack NVGs is the same equipment you want for a major war.

              The places the US is most likely to get into a major war that threatens high US losses is:
              >The Korean Peninsula
              >Iran or surrounding locales
              >Taiwan/China/South China Sea
              >Eastern Europe
              >The Middle East again, particularly Saudi Arabian if there is even major destabilization there from within.

              The fighting in these cases will generally be conventional. I would hope we've learned our lesson about nation building and try to avoid urban combat. A key difference would be Taiwan itself, but it it comes to urban we already lost.

              From Ukraine it's clear that at some point you have to go urban fighting. My guess is the US military sees how much it sweeps the floor of conventional fighting in the past and doesn't expect to get bogged down in a situation where there's long-distance firefighting out in the countryside. Which honestly checks out. I hate spec-op worshippers, I hate door-kicking fantasizers but the primary context where US infantry would make or break a situation will be urban for the forseeable future. Especially as more population live in urban centers (68% by 2050).

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If the US was focused on urban fighting, wouldn't they stick with 5.56mm?

                Maybe not. Cities offer plenty of long lines of sight and your goal should be to avoid going from room to room. But I figured the switch seems more like a focus on more open engagement areas.

                Maybe not though. Idk how much improvements in the optics and fire control matters. In an urban enviornment you can see people at a distance but they quickly can move behind cover. If this smart scope stuff is as good as it could be then maybe the ability to pick off guys moving between buildings at 600m is worth higher recoil and lower capacity if you get stuck up close.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this would check out, but it gets two big things wrong- firstly, that the ,277 was far too much recoil to usable at close ranges, which was one of the primary factors in the shift toward 5.56, and the down-loaded versions that have been made since then are lower velocity than 5.56, which defeats the whole purpose of the cartridge in being easy to shoot at long ranges. Also the Army hasn't actually taken the full contract option for 120k units, and only the first 10k, 3k of which are the machinegun are scheduled for delivery so far, meaning the army saw the purchase as a mistake after the program climaxed. The smart scope is a good idea- firefights at 300 yards are already ludicrously wasteful and m4 equipped troops would be benefitted by such a development regardless, it should be put on the M4 family.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The M5 has too much recoil to be used at close range.

        Come the fuck on Anon. I will allow that it will be worse at very close ranges than the M4 and that there is a tradeoff here. However, it's not going to be unusable. American troops killed plenty of enemies at close range in trenches with .30-06 out of a 24 inch barrel. 140lb Depression kids fired the BAR on the move and in house to house fighting. Israel stomped the Arabs in their big post independence wars using virtually all 7.62mm. The round is going to be plenty usable in CQC, just not ideal. But there are always trade-offs. 5.56mm isn't the ideal weapon if you're only doing CQC against unarmored opponents either, it's good enough though and advantageous to pick a middle ground that does enough things well for all the engagements you can expect.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >house clearing with a proof load rifle
          >entire units are deafer than if they'd fallujah cleared every room with frags+multiple magazines of wallbanging

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >multiple magazines of wallbanging
            >wallbanging
            Back to /v/, you noguns zoomie fag.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >zoomer
              Counter strike came out 23 years ago, anon. And that's only the official release.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              People cleared rooms with Thompsons and Grease Guns and M1 Carbines during WW2.
              Garands were last resort choices. Because even back then we knew that rifle power was a detriment when you're in close quarters.

              Not the OP in either reply, but the Isreali's had a whole doctrine based around bringing numerous 7.62 rifles for house warfare specifically to get wall pen kills, esp in houses that were heavily spiderholed by the enemy. "Wallbanging" is just the popular nomenclature to describe the concept thanks to CS but its a very real and strived-for tactic.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Israelis are looking for excuses to shoot random civilians. Not pure combat effectiveness.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >American troops killed plenty of enemies at close range in trenches with .30-06 out of a 24 inch barrel.

          yeah lol cause germany and japan only had bolt actions

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People cleared rooms with Thompsons and Grease Guns and M1 Carbines during WW2.
          Garands were last resort choices. Because even back then we knew that rifle power was a detriment when you're in close quarters.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was actually referring to people doing killing just fine with Springfield 1903s at close range in the trenches, but yes, you are correct, the Garand and BAR are not ideal for house to house fighting. This is partly barrel length, partly the power of the round, partly capacity, partly lack of select fire. But they certainly weren't unusable for that sort of fighting.

            And we're talking about significantly less recoil, a barrel 10inches smaller, and select fire with 20 rounds. The comparison is more to NATO armies and Israel that stuck with 7.62mm for a long time.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Just fine?
              People hated using 1903s and other bolt actions for trench warfare they invented an entire new category of weapons to do it instead. In the SMG.
              Later the Germans would take that SMG and amp up its power to extend it out to the 300m limit of most combat and entirely eliminate the place for rifle caliber weapons in the hand of assault infantry.

              Nothing is ever unusable. Humans are creative.
              But there are tools that are good at jobs and tools that are bad at jobs. And rifle caliber firearms are not good at jobs requiring you to exchange fire within 100m of the target and mediocre between 100m and 500m further given the existence of SCHV cartridges.

              No NATO army that stuck with .308 for combat was doing it willingly other than like Turkey. And thats because half of Turkey's warfare was shooting from mountain top to mountain top.
              Otherwise they kept using their FALs and G3s because they were poor and couldn't afford to buy new guns.
              The British might have used the FAL until the 90s, but their special forces were using AR15s and AR10s for decades before, as an example.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am totally willing to allow that 5.56mm is better for smaller distance due to the reduced weight, ability to carry more ammo, and thus ability to lay down a heavier volume of fire.

                However, the ideal that 6.8mm and 7.62mm are mediocre up to 500m? You're talking about the edge of the effective range, dealing with a significant amount of drop. It is within the effective range, but it certainly isn't easy to hit a target flitting between cover.

                Particularly, it's difficult if you have different threats presenting different opportunities at times in close proximity. Here the instant zeroing is a huge asset, and 6.8mm will help soldiers take more advantage of that capability. It's probably easier to compute for a flatter trajectory too.

                Nor do I think 7.62mm is becoming a major liability right at 100m, more so a progressive liability as you get closer and closer within that range.

                6.8mm is isn't .30-06 either. You're talking about less weight and recoil, not going back to the old rifle cartridge.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My problem isn’t with the rifle or round, it’s with the new GPMG. The m250 is shit, the barrel life sucks and can’t be quickly replaced like with the M249 SAW. Compared to the M240B or M249 it’s shit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >army requirement of 5,000 rd barrel life
        >M250 upwards of 10,000 rd barrel life
        >barrel change takes all of 5 Fuckin seconds

        The M5 may be up for some debate (I still think it’s a good weapon) but the M250 is a clear and obvious upgrade over the M249 anon. My question is why the Army isn’t taking the obvious next step of replacing the M240 with it as well.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          the m240 is a lot more accurate than the m250 (something along the lines of 1 MOA vs 8 MOA). that's why they're trying to upgrade them with 6.8mm kits rather than replacing them.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            wait so they are trying to copy the TV ammo and barrel swap meme? seriously?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              im honestly still kinda upset that they didn't go for the 240 barrel swap. They could have upgraded every 7.62MG in inventory in one swoop and given a noticeable advantage for things like tanks where you have a fuckoff FCS to make it laughably easy to reach out and touch people with a coax. Or you can free up weight on rotary wing assets with the lighter polymer ammo all and all they needed to do was by one part that is universal for the entire 240 series

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’d like to see a source on that, not saying you’re lying I just haven’t seen that claim myself. If you ask me the Army should adopt either Sig’s or someone else’s .338 Norma Magnum machine gun to replace both the M2 and M240, given that at least Sig’s offering is actually lighter than the M240 and .338 Norma Mag is more capable than .50.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I don't know if the 240 MOA is accurate from him, but the one for the 250 is about right. It wasn't a concern for them, and there is a case to be made that a higher MOA is a goodish thing since it means a larger beaten zone when you're laying down suppressing fire without having to manually and predictably walk the hose back and forth within a very small circle.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I don't know if the 240 MOA is accurate from him, but the one for the 250 is about right. It wasn't a concern for them, and there is a case to be made that a higher MOA is a goodish thing since it means a larger beaten zone when you're laying down suppressing fire without having to manually and predictably walk the hose back and forth within a very small circle.

              Just to add, the M29 has an MOA of 12.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              > .338 NM is the same as .50 BMG
              Except having less than a third of the muzzle energy, a bullet of half a grain, having significantly more drop especially after 1,000m and going subsonic around 1,500, while BMG is still going strong.

              If you have a mounted gun, you're still going to want 12.7mm in most cases (or 14.5mm). Better penetration of cover and effect against buildings, vehicles, and low flying aircraft. Better range and much flatter trajectory so that if an opportunity for traversing fire opens up you don't have to worry about some rainbow maximum ordinate path (biggest issue with the M249 along with stopping power). Much better for supersession psychologically, the M2 absolutely keeps heads down better.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What a stupid fucking post and you should feel bad for sharing it. The army could have literally adopted 6mm PPC or 6.5mm Grendel and done the same thing. OR, they could have continued to develop the XM25 which would have been a game changer had they properly developed it.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >post explains exactly why you can't just use 6.5 grendel
        the next generation of reformists live on PrepHole

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      PrepHole being professional contrarians
      I bet in 1930s germany 4chan would be hiding garden gnomes and joining underground commie movements to own the normies

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This image is a joke. PrepHole is actually with the majority everyone but sig shills hate this m14 2.0

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Everyone on PrepHole who has demonstrated that they've actually tested it loved it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The rifle just reeks of preparing for the last war. NGSW might have had some practical application in say, Afghanistan. But giving every already overloaded infantryman a 13lb rifle complete with a heavier ammo load when their primary job is suppression outside of specific situations makes absolutely no sense to me. Surely they could have developed ammunition with better AP capabilities without resorting to a hard recoiling battle rifle.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >move away from .308 real fucking nato because suppression, weight savings
      >press the new .223 into every role
      >find out its terrible at range to the point better equipped and trained enemies can take advantage of the weakness by forcing long range engagements
      >go right back to a heavy, low capacity, full power battle rifle in 277
      It's like a merry go round of stupidity

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    how about we wait so an actual fielding of this gun

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are the Marines getting the same fire control system/range finder and IVAS?

    DESU, the potential for IVAS sounds pretty game changing, but I have heard mixed things about it actually being ready. IVAS working seems key to making the M5 a better pick because in theory IVAS + the proliferation of a lot more drone recon elements means you should be getting more chances to actually use your extended effective range and hit the enemy at a distance where they will not be effective against you.

    The fire control shit also sounds game changing except all of the coolest shit isn't ready yet. As far as I am aware, the range finder + GPS for each soldier cannot yet send in a target to artillery batteries/aerial assets or squad level autonomous mortars. This is a future capability that sounds game changing, but I've only heard of Israel using it in small test cases. Of course, you don't need any particular cartridge to have an optic guide a shell or drone fired missile right on target.

    Then the actual fire control part of the system, where the rifle only fires on calculated hits, allowing you to just keep the trigger down and move it on to targets at a distance, is also not ready yet. It's been used in the field in Syria, but won't be standard. That seems like a huge plus for the thing, since it would negate any recoil and capacity issues, at least for combat at distances where you'd use it. I imagine you use way less ammo if the gun only fires on hits and follow up shots will be easier regardless of recoil. I'm assuming the cartridge and flatter trajectory actually does help here. All tanks use computers now, it only makes sense to use them on guns eventually, but I suppose the question is if the tech is ready.

    Marines are going to have more grenade launchers though, right? They have a sweet modular treaded drones body too that can carry a machinegun, mortars, and anti-tank missiles. I'd assume these have autonomous targeting but can also be directed on target.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Army super gay
    Marines a little less gay

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    marines is prison gang shit
    weyland yutani "the power company

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both are bad now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That mag looks funny

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >never served's caring about what the army's service rifle is
    the sweet smell of PrepHole

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not sure, I am always impressed seeing the new pictures of military AR15s. Some of these guys just seem to like classic photographs and feel nostalgic for stuff where they werent even there

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For now, no.

    Future? Maybe.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It looks like both branches have good taste in weapons. Im not sure why people complain about these

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    will anyone ever try to design a gun with all this stuff built in, or designed to have it mount?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would you want a non-modular system with everything integrated that means you have to replace the entire rifle when something becomes outmoded instead of being able to just replace the offending part. If anything, a modular magwell, barrel, and feed system where you can change literally everything would be ideal if you didn't run into issues getting all the legos to stay fixed perfectly enough to hold zero.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >or designed to have it mount?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >what is integrated keymod, mlock, quad rails, and the new powered quad rails?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would you want a non-modular system with everything integrated that means you have to replace the entire rifle when something becomes outmoded instead of being able to just replace the offending part. If anything, a modular magwell, barrel, and feed system where you can change literally everything would be ideal if you didn't run into issues getting all the legos to stay fixed perfectly enough to hold zero.

      >what is integrated keymod, mlock, quad rails, and the new powered quad rails?

      the XM8 did that

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Don't think it was caliber interchangable, but a lot of the XM8's ideas were good even if some of the execution was terrible.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think a 7.62 option was floated as a future development

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty sure that would have been the SCAR-H to the SCAR-L where it's the same gun shape, but not like you could take a 7.62 kit and just slap it in a 5.56 rifle since the mag well and other parts were part of the base frame as shown in the picture.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              aye, most likely

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think a 7.62 option was floated as a future development

          Pretty sure that would have been the SCAR-H to the SCAR-L where it's the same gun shape, but not like you could take a 7.62 kit and just slap it in a 5.56 rifle since the mag well and other parts were part of the base frame as shown in the picture.

          look at the HK416 and 417, not that hard

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >5.56 ar pattern carbines that are more or less the same
    >this is extremely relevant for the future of a 1st world army over the m4

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think one important thing that PrepHole is missing is that the old rifles aren't going anywhere and that infantry will still be trained in using them

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Infantry less so, POGs like me however are going to be keeping them around. Tankers and probably canon crew too

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Were the Marines still going to do their dumb shit idea of eliminating belt feds? That seems quite dumb. The only way it makes sense is if those drones they are piloting proliferate to the squad level and you have a treaded drone for each fire team that can lay down indirect machinegun fire and 40mm grenades for you on demand, with decent autonomous targeting for when opportunities present.

    Most common complaints against the M249 was lack of lethality and lack of range. Are they sticking with the M249 to keep the ammo standardized? Seems to make more sense to use the M250 even if they don't adopt the M5. Firepower is key.

    5.56mm will stick around for a bit. Optimizing for urban warfare doesn't make sense. That isn't where most fighting occurs.

    Law enforcement style raids are what special forces are for. Unfortunately, after 2003-04, much of the last wars revolved around such actions and people began to fetishize special forces. You see it in threads like "could Seal Team Six and Delta Force have taken Hostomel?"

    To which the answer is no. They would end up like the VDV because light infantry is light infantry regardless of training and can't hack it out toe to toe against massive firepower disadvantages.

    But everyone is obsessed with special forces and has come to think special forces weapons optimized for door kicking and shooting goat fuckers outdoors who lack NVGs is the same equipment you want for a major war.

    The places the US is most likely to get into a major war that threatens high US losses is:
    >The Korean Peninsula
    >Iran or surrounding locales
    >Taiwan/China/South China Sea
    >Eastern Europe
    >The Middle East again, particularly Saudi Arabian if there is even major destabilization there from within.

    The fighting in these cases will generally be conventional. I would hope we've learned our lesson about nation building and try to avoid urban combat. A key difference would be Taiwan itself, but it it comes to urban we already lost.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think there should be dedicated CQC infantry that keeps the M4 and field infantry that can take the bigger caliber.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just make a plastic cased telescopic top loaded p90 style mag system for a bull pup rifle with a 20 inch barrel and call it a day. Theres literally no way this is impossible. bros just lazy and cheap.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hey lads does anyone here have any guides/ advice on maxing VA disability? Asking from one infantryman to another

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *