If the M16 was too large and unwieldy by modern standards do you think this chonking thing will actually remain in active duty when we get into another 5 year police action?
If the M16 was too large and unwieldy by modern standards do you think this chonking thing will actually remain in active duty when we get into anothe...
Gee, I think i've seen this rifle somewhere before
POF Revolution is probably two pounds lighter than the XM7
It’s only .6 pounds lighter. Too bad you don’t have access to fricking Google so you could find out before you post.
NTA. POF also makes a lighter, 6lb version of the revolution DI.
>Too bad you don’t have access to fricking Google so you could find out before you post.
Do you?
https://pof-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/REVOLUTION-DI-SPEC-SHEET-1.pdf
It’s 6.8lbs with a 16” barrel. The XM7 is 8.38lbs without the suppressor, which is required. Adding a suppressor, scope, etc will be the same for either. The POF is over 1.5lbs lighter which is nearly 20%.
>Adding a suppressor, scope, etc will be the same for either
FWIW could probably use a somewhat lighter suppressor with 6.5 of 308 vs 6.8 given the pressures involved. Would be interesting to test.
Yeah good point. You should be able to save a few ounces at least.
I do think making suppressors standard issue is a good idea, but 6.5 or .308 don’t require them like 6.8 does. It can function without it but supposedly it’s not hearing safe even with ear protection and the muzzle blast is awful, which makes sense.
Still smaller than an M14, which is exactly the point.
is it really that much larger than the m4? isnt it supposed to have a shorter barrel and hotter ammo?
Naked it's 8 1/2 pounds roughly. With optic, a loaded magazine, a laser aiming module, and a flashlight it's about 13-15 lbs.
that's not that horrible? i'm really not sure if the 6.8 was really needed, seeing how the rest of the world cant into body armor yet, but for the amount of power that weight doesnt seem excessive
15 lbs isn't horrible? That's about the weight with your normal accessories and a suppressor.
>that's not that horrible? i'm really not sure if the 6.8 was really needed, seeing how the rest of the world cant into body armor yet, but for the amount of power that weight doesnt seem excessive
It weighs more than either of its competitors.
And seriously that's a heavy gun. I say that as someone with a .308 semi that's 8.3 lbs naked, and like 13lbs loaded up with can, optic, wml etc. It's heavy.
isnt that about the same as the very succesful FN FAL?
When the FAL was issued you got a magazine and a sling with a rifle. Now you have laser aiming modules, flashlights, and LPVOs that weigh nearly 2 pounds with their mount.
Oh, and armor, maybe a m320 grenade launcher, or missile launchers, etc
Not at all. All the big three cold war battle rifles weigh about the same, and breaking it down to ounces the M14 is heaviest. The AR10 was notably lighter than any of them, but it was an irrelevant commercial failure.
>The AR10 was notably lighter than any of them, but it was an irrelevant commercial failure.
The AR-10 was actually pretty successful. It was adopted by a couple different smaller militaries. A gun doesn't have to be the next AK to turn a profit.
Portugal plus tens of rifles here and there does not make a success story compared to the G3 and FAL.
>The AR-10 was actually pretty successful
Sure, but it wasn't successful where it mattered. Today it's a decent marksman's rifle if it's made to be a precision weapon and that's about it
No
>very succesful FN FAL
How was the FAL successful? All of it's contemporaries are superior, back then and today.
>How was the FAL successful?
Lazy bait
Remember the rounds also weigh more per bullet, so you're also getting less bullets in your combat loadout.
>that's not that horrible
That's pretty frickin' bad.
My FAL is 9 and change, and when you carry that fricking b***h around for a whole day it drags ass hard, making you cherish the M4 lovingly.
Toting 15lbs of rifle alone every day in a combat zone would probably make me a better soldier just because I'd be more ready to die.
>when you carry that fricking b***h around for a whole day it drags ass hard
It's not WW2 anymore where you'd be hauling around with a rifle all day just to move from a to b
Not that I trust modern armies to issue go-karts let alone proper vehicles meant for personnel transport.
>It's not WW2 anymore where you'd be hauling around with a rifle all day just to move from a to b
Meanwhile in reality
>in reality
a training exercise. May as well post a picture of SEALs with logs and argue that the log is a perfect modern weapon.
This was Afghanistan moron
Even if it wasn't Afghanistan, he's still moronic because those "just a training exercise" 's happen all the fricking time. The Marines stationed at king's bay Georgia "ruck" (it's flat swamp, they're really just walking around so I don't know if that counts) all the time in full kit so I can only imagine what a more active unit is going to get up to.
holy shit back when i was a kid they didn't look that blue
RIP people that died because of corruption
captcha Y4RAH (UURAH)
They actually did well in Afghanistan and when faded/worn they become more neutral. Stuffs easy to dye too.
ACU in UCP was so bad for actual wilderness that the light grey literally made it noticeable in a tan/brown environment. And no, they didn't dye the shit that would just be replaced after wear. In any photos with wilderness training exercises with military partners the UCP literally popped out in low light environments compared to the uniforms of the other nationals. People died in UCP because some guy with a PKM next could spot them on the other mountain side a kilometer away.
Cool boomerlore bro. UCP fades and gets dirty quickly and even when it was blue-gray it worked well for exposed troops on the side of a rocky mountain. My dye comment was also just an extra part to my comment. Zoomers just love to shit talk ucp way more than the millennials and gen Xers that actually used it. It wasnt as shit as people try to make it.
>It's not WW2 anymore where you'd be hauling around with a rifle all day just to move from a to b
moron
Then why are there tens of thousands of GWOT vets with completely fricked knees and backs?
Unfortunately that's contrary to my time in Iraq. Yeah there was a lot of sitting in vehicles, but there sure was a lot of lugging around shit for extended periods. All my colleagues who did tours in Afghanistan had to do a LOT of rucking. Ounces to pounds, pounds to blown knees. A hefty rifle can fatigue you in ways you never think possible even though you do nothing but workout because it's infantry and it's virtually prison for manchildren so there ain't much better to do. There wasn't a single unfit person I knew and the A2s wore on you quite quickly back in early GWOT, the M4s were a godsend by comparison. Going back to an even heavier rifle is unfathomable and nonsensical. It was just a ploy for a battle rifle to get adopted by any means necessary now that the BR generation who carried and jerked off their M14s are dying or on their way to climbing Jacob's Ladder.
True, its power to weight ratio is great, but still needlessly overpowered. And you also have to factor in the weight of the rest of the combat load, not just one magazine, which is both heavier than 6 30 round 5.56 mags while comprising fewer rounds.
NGSW cartridge should have been a heavy for caliber .224 with construction similar to the EPR, with a long ogive and hybrid 5.56/5.45 case. Can achieve BETTER trajectory and penetration characteristics over 6.8 while only being a tiny bit heavier than 5.56. As for the gun, a constant recoil quad stack mag fed automatic rifle obsoletes the beltfed, and can still be made lighter than the xm7.
That said, 6.8 is an excellent improvement over the 7.62 and it and the guns chambered for it should replace all 7.62 guns. But it’s no replacement for 5.56. We just abandoning assault rifles, intermediate cartridges, and controllable full auto now?
>True, its power to weight ratio is great
Which also means it recoils heavily (at least compared to the competition). You can’t have that and low recoil. Same reason .357 in a 10oz scandium j frame sucks. Same reason a 7lb .300 win mag might be great for hunting elk and going up and down hills, but it sucks to just shoot compared to a 10-12lb gun
>Can achieve BETTER trajectory and penetration characteristics over 6.8
Better trajectory up close yes (faster bullet).
Penetration - no.
>(You)
Penetration, YES absolutely.
Same SD but better factor = better penetration
Ngl why not just have a 5.56 hybrid case +P case? If the first round fails to pen make it so that a follow up shot or that a burst would annihilate the target. Even a superior distance performance out of a short barrel would be an upgrade.
556 is good, but the bullet is slightly too short for its weight with what we know about modern ballistic coefficients. The ideal would be shrinking it to about 5mm and 62gr, or shortening the case slightly so a longer bullet can fit in the same magwell.
If the point is armor pen, it makes sense to go with a cartridge that can actually penetrate reliably at range, vs some meme hyperburst where you try to get 2 hits back to back in the same spot. If you abandon armor pen capability, this opens the possibility of adopting really small and light cartridges with a higher round count combat load to offset the fact that center mass hits are wasted. Shoot in the extremities/pelvis/head/neck instead.
Additional bonuses: gigacapacity magazines, lol-tier recoil, and much more useful full auto.
But anyways, 5.56 hybrid case won’t work because I ran the numbers through a ballistics computer and the velocities would still be too low (and bullet shape still too poor), you need a bit more case capacity, or a bit more pressure to achieve parity with 6.8x51’s trajectory and penetration. So that’s why I suggested a 5.45x39 case head. It is 0.4mm wider than the 5.56’s case head but this 0.4mm offers a ~10% increase in case capacity.
>If the point is armor pen, it makes sense to go with a cartridge that can actually penetrate reliably at range
What armor at what range? No matter what the shills say you're not getting through level IV plates with 6.8 steel core.
I haven’t seen tests so I wouldn’t know if it defeats level 4. But presumably that’s the point of moving up to a much larger caliber with higher SD. Either way, I just proposed 2 possible solutions for the level 4 armor problem. Maybe you need a Cartridge heavier and faster than 6.8 to satisfy the first version, idk. It just makes the 2nd version more appealing if the alternative is everyone carrying like 300 win mag necked down or something with ~15rd mag capacity and 10lb rifles naked.
>Either way, I just proposed 2 possible solutions for the level 4 armor problem
Sure, but 6.8x51mm is neither, assuming tungsten penetrators are off the table. Heavier gun, heavier ammo, increased recoil, still needs tungsten to pen rifle plates. Going smaller/lighter weight so you can just pepper your opponent's face and crotch makes more sense than this half measure.
Since I brought it up, here, I’ll post a poorly-made mock-up I made of a hypothetical cartridge that we were discussing a couple weeks ago in another thread. 30 carbine case head, .204 bullet, 1.25” case, 1.9” OAL, 45gr bullet with ~5-5.5 caliber L:D and 0.8i7ff (scaled down from turned copped VLD bullet with known form factor) and 0.19B7BC. It should weight somewhere around 120gr (~2/3 the weight of m855) and At 80kpsi with a hybrid case it should get around 3000fps from a 10” barrel (forgot the exact figure the internal ballistics computer produced). The reason for the weird OAL is for a mag-in-grip solution, with a metal mag and steel grip with thin walls that’s essentially a magazine-contoured sleeve for the magazine. This semi-bullpup arrangement also saves a few pounds off the rifle, allowing for even more mags to be carried.
Picrel, it’s the one on the right. 5.56 in the middle, disregard the one on the left.
Why no polymer telescoped cartridge if magazine-in-grip is preferential? I am ignorant of the hurdles of polymer telescoped cartridges but having the magazine in the grip would allow for a longer barrel compared to overall length so pressure could be lessened at least a bit compared to conventional layout. And what about side mounted magazines, like an FG-42.
Side mounted makes the gun difficult to carry, or so I’d imagine, with like a 7 inch long extremity sticking out of the side. An MP7 style weapon like this could reasonably be expected to be carried in a holster, and a side mounted mag would preclude holsterability. Top mounted like the p90 is a great idea though. Gets in the way of optics and other accoutrements but I’m sure an elegant solution can be engineered.
One of the problems with cased telescoped is that they don’t play well with long ogive bullets. I remember reading up on this, don’t remember everything perfectly, but I think the powder still has to be below the ogive of the bullet, which limits the efficiency gains of that type of cartridge. Also, cased telescoped rounds have to be perfectly cylindrical, and so the cross section of a magazine will be a rectangle, instead of having a tapered front like with bottlenecked cartridge mags. For a given grip comfort, you can have a longer magazine if the front is tapered. So there’s that.
Going back to magazine orientation, ideally I think the best solution is where you can mount the mag forward of the grip and trigger, like on a conventional rifle, but with some mechanism inside that will grab and bring the cartridge backwards to feed into a chamber that is above the grip, like in one of those Russian LMGs, I forget which one. Feeding position being forward of the chamber. This way magazine width isn’t restricted, and quad stacks with very high capacity can be used.
>An MP7 style weapon like this could reasonably be expected to be carried in a holster
Is this really a priority? Also, and I think this will make a lot of people on here reeee out of principle, why not just go with a bullpup design? Yes you'll have to design a case ejection system that doesn't get in the way while still allowing access to the chamber for expedient jam clearing/inspection but it just makes more sense to me than these ridiculous chamber pressures coupled with short barrels.
Ridiculous chamber pressure coupled with a short barrel has been the small arms trend for like centuries now. It’s the logical next step. Yeah we’ll need fancier barrel materials to offset the shortened barrel life, but it’s wins everywhere else. Smaller and lighter cartridges with performance in the next higher weight class. Finally making a unified single caliber paradigm possible.
As far as bullpups go, no they’re dumb because their ergos are shit, weight distribution is shit, LOP is too long, they’re usually heavier than their conventional counterparts, and they only make sense for really long barrels. A 10 inch barreled bullpup puts your support hand directly in front of your firing hand, just before the muzzle. A semi-bullpup is IMO a better solution for bullpup SBRs. They also have far better weight distribution, with a center of mass closer to the grip/trigger, where it should be, and there is no reason the trigger needs to be any worse than a good 1911 trigger.
And I personally really like mag-in-grip guns. So I’m biased. That whole category of guns needs to get some more love and development.
Yeah you’re right holstering isn’t all that important, but we’d already be approaching holsterable-size, and it would be an opportunity missed to not make it holsterable. I think it would be really cool
I'm liking the shorter, smaller cartridge idea. Ammo is lighter and we could have higher cap mags. Smaller, PDW-style guns could replace 5.56 service rifles.
I think the perfect PDW that could benefit from this would be one with a P90-style mag, but loaded from the side like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoLskKOqKfI
This way, the gun can be compact even when loaded, and you can get a 50 round magazine, AND be a bullpup without overly long LOP (could even fit adjustable stock). Good weight balance too, and the grip can be smaller and more ergonomic.
Shit, I forgot to mention, the side-loading is so you can get a full length top rail with a P90-style mag. Best of both worlds.
If not even 6.8mm can defeat lvl 4 armor without tungsten, then maybe the best path forward is to use a smaller cartridge firing a subcaliber tungsten penetrator. Lower recoil, more ammo cap and good penetration.
IIRC one of the problems with sabot rounds was the sabots themselves could be dangerous, but if they were made of a super light material (maybe aerogel), that danger could be minimised, no?
despite what people have been claiming, the goal of 6.8 has never been to pop plates, though AP rounds might be able to, it's been to have very long range accurate shooting riflemen who can hit and suppress enemies from distant locations using heavier weapons. Whether it's smart or not, the goal was "US squad pinned down and unable to respond to a haji with a PKM shouldn't happen"
You can add range to an AR sized rifle with a new cartridge. The whole program reeks of kickbacks.
>I haven’t seen tests so I wouldn’t know if it defeats level 4.
No one has because it hasn’t been done. But equivalent or superior rounds with steel cores don’t pen level IV. Standard 6.8 won’t. Tungsten will but so will tungsten .308
>But presumably that’s the point of moving up to a much larger caliber with higher SD
No it isn’t. The “muh armor pen” is cope to justify why they moved to basically a .270 WSM. First it was an LMG project. Then it was for armor penetration. Then on to the next reason after those two can be proven to not be components of the NGSW.
If armor pen wasn’t the reason for the move to 6.8, then what was the initial reasoning? Just because it fails to do what it was designed to, that doesn’t mean it was designed to do something else from the get-go. Maybe the army just blundered and now they’re coping.
Unless it’s corrupt at its core and the whole point was to funnel money into sig’s pockets and the competition was held only as a formality with a predetermined winner.
>If armor pen wasn’t the reason for the move to 6.8, then what was the initial reasoning?
Overmatch. The army didn’t like getting outdistanced in Afghanistan with PKMs vs M4 s, so they asked for a new rifle to fight the last war. Classic mistake repeating itself.
You should at least skim through this powerpoint.
https://www.slideshare.net/James8981/overmatch
It looks like a 12 year old made it and is internally inconsistent. Yet the morons making decisions bought into it. That said, a longer range and more aerodynamic cartridge and bullet isn’t a bad thing. Some 6mm option that stayed in an AR-15 sized frame, was a loss of 2-4 rounds instead of 10, and was a negligible weight increase would be great. Instead we got this
>overmatch
It never occured to them to increase the ogive length of the 5.56? Or load a heavier bullet? Or apply the 80kpsi hybrid case treatment to it? No, they went straight to “NO LESS THAN 3 TIMES THE ENERGY OF 5.56” with frickhuge guns and low capacity mags. Atleast we got a new cartridge case paradigm out of this that is objectively an improvement over brass..
Picrel, the problem of cartridge configuration and free BC was solved in the 70s. They should have adopted this, with minor tweaks and dimensional changes (longer and slightly wider case), a heavier bullet, and high pressure. Essentially what I described in earlier posts. Load it all in a desert tech style quad stack mag, 60+ rounds, and create a lightweight constant recoil automatic rifle for it. Bam. All 5.56 and 7.62 guns obsoleted, just like that
I agree and it’s baffling. Even a 70-80k PSI 5.56 with 77gr TMKs or similar would be a big step up. And that’s the lazy and quick option.
My concern is 6.8 and the XM5/7 is going to suck for the reasons mentioned, we abandon it, go back to normal 5.56, and lose out on the idea of better rounds. Yeah the commercial world has those but military adoption sure makes it cheaper for consumers
>My concern is 6.8 and the XM5/7 is going to suck for the reasons mentioned, we abandon it, go back to normal 5.56, and lose out on the idea of better rounds. Yeah the commercial world has those but military adoption sure makes it cheaper for consumers
I'm not particularly concerned in the medium to longer term honestly. After witnessing the TrackingPoint stuff years ago, I unironically think smart guns will eventually be a true paradigm shift in infantry. The advantages of polymer cased telescoped ammo are also really obvious. Electronic firing as well. All the tech needs more time to bake and get truly effective and refined to the point where it can actually be mass deployed and depended on, but we're now looking at more the 4-7 year timeline not "10-30 years" ie "who knows".
One of the advantages of war and genuine great power competition is that it does tend to light a fire under various parties in terms of ensuring some effort at actual effectiveness. As the Russians have discovered you can't just paper over bullshit if actual fighting kicks off, because the opponent isn't going to cooperate. The US will seek every edge it can and seeing all the current shit is focusing minds, so I think even though NGSW is shit a better round is inevitable, just a question of when.
>that's not that horrible?
Lol. What’s your BMI?
>that's not that horrible?
A combat rifle that's 15 pounds and has a loadout of 140 rounds is legitimately hilarious.
Neverserved/Pentagon gay detected
>mk48 without an ammo belt
>that's not that horrible?
>it's a big gun
for you
Say it has a 100 round box clip and a suppressor, as well as a thermal clip or optic. Devastating LMG.
And say you weren't carrying a bunch of other gear that you may or may not need. Such as if your pack is at base, or if you go with just plates and carriers, let alone pouches or a ghillie suit on top of everything
The M16's main size issue was length, most US conflicts in recent years involve a lot of vehicle transport and a lot of urban room clearing stuff. The XM7 has a short barrel and a folding/collapsible stock so it's a lot better off. It's a heavy gun but not bad compared to other options with comparable ballistics.
The barrel's only short because it's designed to be used with a suppressor. OAL it's in between an M4 and M16 in length with the suppressor attached.
It's shorter than an M4 you moron
I honestly don't know what the frick any of the worlds armies are doing anymore.
>Its almost like the humans in charge are about as dumb as people on this website.
Who the frick actually thought that giving soldiers a bigger, heavier rifle, was a good idea? Literal tech evolving past our military in front of our very eyes. Mechanical Exo-skeletons have been a concept since before the 2000s. Still nothing. Still not a single thing to give our long range soldiers an easier time. Not even something for their legs and backs despite how easy and simple it would be.
>Soldiers come back homeless
>Soldiers come back with horrible joint and health problems, not from active duty, from their backbreaking hikes.
>"OH LETS GIVE THEM A NEW RIFLE THEY'LL LIKE THAT"
I hate it too and also find it weird, particularly for the US which is very hungry for more soldiers. But the big things that kept me from seriously considering it after a bit of research basically boiled down to feeling like they wouldn't give a shit. I'm unironically patriotic, I do think military power is needed, and I can accept there is a real risk of death/serious injury, that training would be hard.
But not sure quite the words, but I sort of feel like IF I had a successful campaign and made it back in one piece, or if it ended up being a peaceful period and there were no serious conflicts fought, THEN I shouldn't inherently be any worse off if that makes any sense. Like, private industry is full of dangerous stuff too, but in general over time the trend has been to have OSHA and so on that tries to make sure that if people aren't treated as entirely expendable. But the US military has this whole culture of ignoring stupid, stupid risk stuff that doesn't actually make much if any military difference either.
I dunno, it's strange because in some cases it's clear there is serious care for that very reason. Like if you're injured or killed a lot of effort is expended to try to bring everyone home, even if it's in a box. And that's good, that's what we should do. But then why shit like being casual with exposure to toxins or massive joint damage or whatever? It's not like it's even a big deal to protect against that stuff very well, certainly not in the context of military expenditures. It's LAZY really and pisses me off.
Even if the most moronic PrepHoleners were in charge of everything instead of boomers, we would still be miles ahead of where we are today.
>Mechanical exoskeletons
>Homeless vets with disabilities
>The Decline of Western Civilization(TM)
The M7 with suppressor weighs less than five ounces more than an M1 Garand
>...
>...
>NOR CAN THE REPUBLIC LONG SURVIVE!
now tell me how much gear weight (including ammo) besides his weapon the average zogbot carried at the time of the garand, and how often he was required to carry out months to years of foot patrols in shitcanistan without vehicles to carry the gear weight for him
>now tell me how much gear weight (including ammo) besides his weapon the average zogbot carried at the time of the garand, and how often he was required to carry out months to years of foot patrols in shitcanistan without vehicles to carry the gear weight for him
Load is like 80-100lbs now which is fricking moronic and they want to push it higher. It's definitely shit, and the exoskeleton thing is a real reasonable criticism frankly given how much R&D gets tossed into way, way more ambitious and less sexy thing. Maybe part of the problem is people have this weird scifi-pushed fixation on "power armor" as their only notion of "exoskeleton" and obviously that brings up issues of energy density, which are true. But you don't need any energy at all for a simple exoskeleton that just routes worn weight to the ground, or if some really basic autobalance is desired the energy reqs are still tiny. Such a system doesn't change the energy required to move around, and doesn't mean someone can now jump 20' straight up or run and gun with an M2, but it would mean that very high pack loads would cause vastly less stress on the soldier's body and create zero issues when just standing still. A bunch of research efforts have shown that's eminently achievable with existing tech, hell with tech from 20 years ago, but leadership doesn't see ground pounders as sexy, important to think about after their tour is done, or worth of investment that fancy new weapon systems, aircraft, capital ships etc get.
The Garand is a pretty heavy rifle already. With all of the gear thrown on the Xm7 it's more like 4-5 lbs heavier than a garand.
>five ounces more than an M1 Garand
How much weight was the average troop carrying in WWII? Why was the M1 carbine so loved even by frontline troops?
We don't even need new tech. Recent US conflicts in the middle east and now the war Ukraine have shown us that modern logistics with helicopters and resupply vehicles are inefficient and and not cost effective and in some situations an actual liability. Soldiers will end up carrying all that gear and then some themselves anyway.
You know what isn't inefficient and very cost efficient? Fricking pack mules like they have in the Marines. I tell you, animal handling getting standardized in military education and more mules, maybe even modern gene edited mules get bred so every squad has one or two and the effectiveness of any operation and the quality of life for soldiers would absolutely skyrocket.
Shoot the mule and render useless a majority portion of the enemy unit’s equipment. All of a sudden everyone’s down to the rifles and magazines they have on their person..
Now a supersoldier eugenics program on the other hand, to breed a race of non-pathological 7 foot giants with the skeleton and musculature of a strongman, who can wield and shoulder fire a 40 pound full auto 50BMG all while carrying 1000 rounds as a standard combat load.. that just might work.
If they find their way into the civilian population/breeding pool though, the rest of us will never frick again kek
I promise I'm not trying to flex my pessimism on you, I just think you need to be reminded that the people in charge of the decisions you're describing couldn't possibly give less of a shit about the welfare of our soldiers. We are in a zero-trust, slash and burn style society from head to toe. If the military could put a chip in their heads that would improve effectiveness by 25%, but it was guaranteed to kill you immediately upon returning home, they'd buy into it in a heartbeat. No exosuits for you. They don't raise productivity enough to justify the cost in the short-term and your lifelong impairments aren't their problem.
>but it'd help recruitment
They've historically shown their only tactic for getting kids to die for Israel is to outright lie to them, never to actually improve circumstances. Why would you ever waste money on baiting in people who don't know any better to begin with? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of this is sustainable, but it is the way things are.
Have the troops tried not being mercenary cattle?
>hurr mercenary cattle
>not knowing how much VA claims cost
You will die a virgin.
May god have mercy on the ears of anyone who winds up firing that thing without the suppressor.
imagine having a helmet with sound deadening, in cqb without the suppressor. it would need auto darkening lenses like a welding helmet. the blast would be a flashbang with every round.
>i hate that every soldier has DMR capability
When it comes at the expense of capacity and volume of fire, yes I do. I was saying it was stupid even before Ukraine kicked off, and now you've got a nice showcase of a war where volume of fire maximum ammo carriage are both key to firefights; so there shouldn't really be any argument about it.
>a nice showcase of a war where volume of fire maximum ammo carriage are both key to firefights
where are we seeing that? all im seeing is proof that without air superiority, war goes back to the 1900s
the trench raids come to mind, and the times when insane rushes are caught out of position
6.8 is even more moronic when you realize the exact same external ballistics and energy retention could be achieved in .224 caliber with a far smaller case and propellant charge. No change in capacity, barely perceptible increase in cartridge mass (offset by using fewer magazines with higher capacity like quad stacks), and only slightly increased recoil (offset by constant recoil to retain controllable full auto). A 75gr .224 bullet with boat tail, ~3.2 caliber ogive, ~5 L:D ratio, and fine meplat has a G7BC of .267, greater than the 150gr 6.8 bullet. Right off the bat you can cut the powder charge in HALF for no loss in trajectory.
Inb4 “but Muh tracers” homie frick you and your tracers
I like .224 Valkyrie too, anon, but nobody wants to hear about it. Believe me. I've tried.
I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the Russo-Ukrainian War. It's a specific set of circumstances that may not be indicative of wider trends, and we as outside observers aren't even seeing the full picture.
the us doesn't expect to wage a war holed up in trenches and only supplied by land, if the next gen scope is actually functional and the rifle is accurate at unprecedented ranges there would be no use engaging at ranges where they don't have overmatch advantage, and if they did plan on conventional ranges they could just use old rifles
>engaging at ranges where they don't have overmatch advantage,
Overmatch advantage is meaningless when 95% of the planet isnt mountains surrounded by open desert. It doesn’t matter if your gun can shoot 800 yards if you only have a 200 yard sight line
>dude if every soldier is a sniper the enemy will never be able to hit us
Drones will out-snipe you everytime and hit you with HE.
And HE will deal with ‘muh body armor’ better than your 25 rounds of 6.8
>your 25 rounds of 6.8
It’s 20 round. 25 round mags exist but they are even bulkier and heavier. I don’t see them being used
whats the point of having full auto if you only have 20 rounds
Ask the braintrust in the army. Clearly they’d never make a bad decision
you clearly do not understand why squads have roles
>.US Army Ordnance Board circ. 1958
It's 3 fricking inches longer than an (unsuppressed) M4. Which means it's still 4 inches shorter than an M16A2.
I think we'll be fine.
M16 was too big for what it was, this isnt
you are very dumb
NGSW is essentially a crypto National Guard rifle so the weight doesn't matter. Everything they're promoting this program as is a fricking lie
You morons aren’t getting that this program isn’t about the rifle - it’s about the optic with built-in targeting computer. Its weight and size are necessary evils to support a caliber that can take advantage of said computer, which 5.56 really can’t.
What? What is your definition of “National Guard Rifle” and why do you think the NG will be the ones getting this first in large numbers?
Reminder that the "optic with built in targeting computer" is literally just an LPVO with an auto BDC. Adjusting elevation for range is literally the easiest part of shooting longer distances. Windage and flight time is still being left to basic grunts to deduce, something that anyone who has actually served is going to find laughable, and that's not even getting into the other annoying realities of engaging mobile targets at 300+m.
Yes which is another strange thing about the NGSW program given that literal smart guns that could let a noguns reporter ping steel at 1000yd on their first time on a rifle in their lives were getting developed literally a decade ago. If the military wanted to get serious about a service rifle replacement at a time of such massive high speed tech change they should have gone for the whole package. True smart guns, sensor fusion tied into HUD, polymer cased telescoped ammo, hybrid propulsion, serious try everything, and test hard if/how that makes for a whole new doctrine and can represent a true leap forward worth the enormous trouble of shifting standard rifle platform.
NGSW feels like a lot of money and trouble spent in a very strange and disjointed way.
If they wanted armor penetration why didn't they just use tungsten tips?
Only good sources of tungsten are china and canada. The US wants to remain purely self sufficient, so enjoy your 15 pound meme gun.
Just annex Canada
It's incredibly ironic that a military force that is increasingly known for depending on a generation of recruits that are nearly half female and more than half mexican are opting for this massive rifle that's probably much more than half the average height of the force in length is beyond hilarious.
I want to see a 4'11" Marine named Rodriguez shoot this thing. Whole doctrine is putting emphasis on rucking massive loads, and those loads are going to be even more massive with this fricking thing. I don't know how the hispanics do it.
Dude no way half of infantry (or whoever is gonna carry this rifle) are women. women are memes, remember? They do the girl jobs, they can’t be expected to get their hands dirty.
You've never seen the shorty Hispanic in a squad hauling around the M249?
The M249 might be heavy but the recoil is minuscule.
>a generation of recruits that are nearly half female and more than half mexican are opting for this massive rifle that's probably much more than half the average height of the force in length
just like Mexico and G3s. Little Indios carrying artillery pieces
this has got to be fricking shooped
this thing was NOT that fricking big when I shot it
The opposite.
In peacetime troops want light dinky rifles firing the smallest possible round since its only used for Exercises firing blanks so range and penetration are irrelevant, just the ability to make noise.
E.g M249 SAW in 5.56mm was a peacetime replacement for the big heavy M60.
As soon as shit get real, everyone goes back to big rifles make big holes and turn cover into concealment.
E.g. using M240s as squad MGs, dragging M14s out of storage to make EBRs, 7.62 DMRs etc
Yeah I'm sure people pushing trenches right this fricking second hates having thirty and forty round magazines at the ready to magdump around every corner.
>In peacetime troops want light dinky rifles
>M16 was adopted mid war.
>dragging M14s out of storage to make EBRs, 7.62 DMRs etc
This was for DMR's, neither example given was for actual general issue rifles. 7.62 already was a round used in DMR's, the m14 upgrade was simply that, not a switch back to 7.62
My point is nobody was running around NATO Reforger or other 90s play-games with a heavy-ass DMR or humping an M240, its only when the excrement hits the ventilation that units up-gun to GPMGs over SAWs and break out the DMRs to get effective penetration over just blanks.
It will be the same with M5 in peacetime, every unit will try to keep their M4s as long as possible, then bleat for M5s as soon as they deploy for real.
Moron, moron, imbecile, amoeba.
Again, the m16, an actual lightweight small caliber rifle, was adopted in wartime and fully replaced the m14.
When the next war broke out, they didn't rush to get m14's. They kept using the m16. When there was another war, they made the gun even lighter with the m4 at the cost of muzzle velocity. For SOCOM, who sees an awful lot of combat, they use even smaller guns. They tried the SCAR, and pretty quickly it was dropped and they returned back to 5.56
240's may have sometimes been used, but 249's saw plenty of use. M14 dmr's prove little as they were only in the DMR role, which is regularly reserved for full sized cartridges. There was no return the 7.62
You’re point is wrong and based on a false premise. You’re comparing different types of guns. Was 1944-45 not real fighting in Europe? The M1 carbine was increasingly popular even among frontline troops. Why is that? Wouldn’t they want the Garand instead?
War games weren’t using those because no one war games for fighting goatherders in the desert. They aren’t a significant threat. Fighting Russia in Europe was viewed as that. Fighting China over Taiwan is. Neither of those have 1000+ yard engagements because of terrain. Very few places hard those sight lines for long range firefights AND would be somewhere the military deploys.
You’re an idiot or this is peak boomerposting, minus the signature.
>mid war
>M14 was still more popular than the M16
Ooooooooof
>using M240s as squad MGs, dragging M14s out of storage to make EBRs, 7.62 DMRs etc
LMGs and DMRs are very different than a general issue service rifle. M14s being pulled out of storage was dumb and to make it look like they were doing something. Commercial AR-10s weren’t what they are today but they existed and would have worked better.
If soldiers wanted “real guns” why weren’t they ditching M4s for the aforementioned? Why did they complain about room clearing in Iraq with 20” M16s instead?
>saw replaced the M60
The 240 did that and still fills the platoon level gun team/vehicle mount niche, the SAW exists to give squads a shitton of volume of fire
The Mexican military uses G3s and our military is mostly Mexicans, they'll be fine.
>do you think this chonking thing
do you think 5'6" pfc gonzalez can hump and accurately lay down fire with that? no way was this thing intended to be widely adopted
I don't think grunts are high-IQ enough to take care of a delicate glass optic. Scopes mounted with rings are fine for civilians or snipers/special ops people, but for things you're issuing to crayon eaters it needs to be more rugged than that.
bros... it hurts
I can never get over the potato suppressor. I get why it’s that way but it looks so goofy
>bullpup
Into trash it goes where it belongs
I got to fingerfrick the sig guns. The machineguns are actually nice, easy to handle and are light. The Spears a fricking M14 2.0 though and likely will just be relegated to marksmen or spec ops cheerleader groups.
The MG does seem nice but the absence of a quick change barrel is pants on head moronic
i held one in .308 at LGS, lighter than my stamped AK. it's definitely not 8 pounds empty
>it's definitely not 8 pounds empty
You’re right it’s 8.6lbs if you get the same config as the army. It is 7.6lbs if you get different furniture (which doesn’t make sense to me but whatever). The 16” version is 9.2lbs. However you slice it the gun isn’t light.
https://www.sigsauer.com/spear.html
All weights are from here
The M16 is perfect and easy to use if you aren’t a pencil dick small armed manlet.
The new rifle is fricking gay and sucks dick. They should’ve went with 6mm arc
whats your point?
The M16 is a great rifle. Any homosexual who thinks it’s unwieldy never shot one and is noguns
I cut a magpul handguard and shoved it in there.
how did you put a foregrip on that handguard
M16 is not a large rifle. It gets "large and unwieldy" with all the standard attachments that weigh it down.
My fully set up block 1 M4 clone is like 10ish pounds, the weight sits mostly where your hands are anyways so strain is minimal.
Why the frick did we ever assume infantry would be effectively engaged by small arms past 300 meters and not just suppressed/hit with explosives? The entire concept of a long range armor penetrating round for grunts is moronic when the doctrine is to suppress and wait for fire support.
>5 year
>policing action
That's way too short.