Above is the M1, a fully powered rifle just like the ones America used to win both world wars. Below is an AR-15, an intermediate cartridge rifle used in America's infamous proxy conflicts.
The intermediate cartridge was used in WWII for smaller, carbine rifles for officers and rear echelon troops. It wasn't considered suitable for front line infantry. Rifle technology has improved a great deal since WWII, but calibers for standard issue rifles became smaller.
The modern rifleman can be far more accurate and deadly with a modern fully powered rifle and optics. The M1 Garand weighs 11.5 lbs fully loaded. A fully loaded AR-10 is about the same, but is far more deadly with modern manufacturing standards, optics, and attachments.
Even the new M7 chambers an intermediate cartridge. A modern rifleman could be so much more, technology has improved to allow it. But instead we have people running around with carbines fighting at 1940s ranges dumping ammo.
To this day, the guerrilla sniper remains the bread and butter of guerrilla armies as well as the bane of conventional forces in these costly proxy conflicts. If the rifleman evolved to a greater range and armor piercing power, then the entire force becomes a far more formidible threat.
What constitutes a "marskmen" is subjective when fully powered rifles are now relegated to their own niche roles. The standard can be raised.
Correction:
The M1 is pictured below and the AR-15 is above. Should be obvious but worth correcting.
You fricking Black person, you have only two jobs, one is to shitpost and the other is to suck wieners for a cigarette and according to the gay truckers at the local truck stop, you're no good at that either. Go back to dis cord and tell them you are a failure before you have a nice day. Picrel (You)
I hope things get better for you
Im trans btw 🙂
I don't. I hope I fricking eat shit and die.
top is a FAMAS and bottom is an M14
If you don't want your gun to be as small and light as possible you're just way too used to driving up and punching holes in paper at the range (assuming you're even doing that much).
This
It's not like a fully powered rifle is too heavy historically. I am physically fit. The idea behind an intermediate rifle is that it is lighter, but physical fitness standards have slackened.
If you want the rifle to be as light as possible, you are sacrificing firepower to compensate for physical weakness.
How many 30k missions in mountainous terrain carrying full rucks and a combat load have you done with your full sized rifle?
>The idea behind an intermediate rifle is that it is lighter
the idea is that an intermediate rifle also shoots smaller and lighter intermediate cartridges and you carry a frickton more of those
No you dummy, the problem with using a heavier rifle isn’t just carrying it but also using it in combat and not just shooting steel from the prone. Additionally, bigger bullets=heavier and larger=can carry less total ammo and magazines typically hold less ammo as well. The near universal move away from battle rifles by everyone was because volume of fire is the single most important metric in winning a firefight and shooting past 300m is an anomaly. Telling people to just get more fit is not the solution and has never been the solution because they’re carrying 60-120lb of gear as is.
The concept of Suppress and Maneuver has replaced marksmanship for the majority of enlisted soldiers in infantry battles.
Suppress the enemy, maneuver while they cannot respond. Either you hit them and they die or you maneuver into a position so superior that it doesn't matter what you shoot them with. This means that volume of fire matters more than the power of each shot. Intermediate cartridges have more range and power than pistol rounds and more can be carried than rifle rounds.
This is why you occasionally still hear about seemingly obscene shots per kill stats. In Vietnam the paper pushers started counting the amount of bullets needed per kill but in reality neither statistic is worth keeping track of. And if you needed to expend 100k rounds per dead enemy to complete the objective so be it.
And that's not even mentioning fire support, which are the actual killers on the battlefield. This can range from light mortars to JDAMs.
Suppressing and maneuvering is a skill that can be taught to a lot more people. They just need good enough physical fitness, good enough marksmanship, good enough communication, combined with rifles good enough to suppress at range and kill if necessary, to become a vast pool of good enough soldiers. This means that your exceptionally talented individuals are free to get more specialized training. If a man is good enough to become a sniper do you want him to stay with the regular infantry because the rifle you chose requires his ability, or do you want him to go off and become a dedicated sniper for missions that require his skill? When some rando can fill his place you want a dedicated sniper.
> If you want the rifle to be as light as possible, you are sacrificing firepower to compensate for physical weakness.
In practice, yeah that probably plays a part. But every pound saved in rifle weight is a pound that can be carried in ammo. And smaller intermediate rounds are more controllable and useful in full auto, which also lend themselves to smaller and lighter guns, so there’s another angle too.
>Why are AR-15s so small?
Are they?
>tanker m1 still nearly as long as a 20" m16
Just slap a full length barrel on it.
And standard M16 length handguard while he is at it. Just like God and Stoner intended.
>Above is the M1
>Below is an AR-15
obviously not you tard
above is new famas
below is old famas
The M-16 was bought as the replacement for the M1 carbine.
The M-16 was a replacement for the M-14
Hit probability for any target beyond 600 yards is ~15% for any infantry rifle in field conditions.
Guerilla snipers can scarcely be located in time and they would be concealed and covered anyway.
GPMGs and grenade launchers are just better for general purpose longer range stuff. Don't compromise the average rifleman for civil war era memes and some sort of Freudian response to the AR-15's insubstantial recoil.
Because having 30-50% more rounds on the soldier and in the magazines is worth the tradeoff of slightly reduced lethaltity.
People discovered that battle rifle cartridges really aren’t that much more deadly at most engagement distances.
I love good rifle marksmanship, and all my guns are influenced by this. Learning the ballistic trajectory of your rounds and your holdovers at different ranges is so much fun. That being said, unfortunately, Ace Riflemen and excellent rifle marksmanship do not win wars. Artillery, air superiority, mortars, armor, automatic weapons, and explosives do. Most of the time the terrain doesn't allow engagements past 300 yards or so. Long open areas are considered "Danger Areas" that you wish to minimize time in because an actual sniper might've beat you to it. When it comes to AR-15s I prefer a flat top "A2 clone" with a prism optic, X3 or X5. Try an AR-10 build for the range, hunting, and innawoods if you want. The concept of a Designated Marksman would probably appeal to you.
TLDR: Rifle marksmanship doesn't win wars, big guns do. 20 inch ARs with optics are sweet, research the Designated Marksman concept.
at this point i cant tell if its real slide threads or fake slide threads to make russia look bad
>fully powered
That is the ugliest handguard I have ever seen
In Vietnam, Americans fired ~50k rounds for every enemy killed. In Iraq that number was ~250k. Americans need a smaller caliber so they can carry more ammo because they can't hit shit.
I think they expend so much ammo because their strategy is to lay down suppressive fire until an air strike or arty kills the enemy. I don't think they're actually waiting to get the guy in their sights before firing.
> calibers for standard issue rifles became smaller
This is a far more general and long-enduring historical trend, only recently broken (debateable) by the 6.8x51. Whether it replaces the 5.56 though remains to be seen, though it is doubtful. The same is true for rifles - they are getting smaller and lighter, and SBRs are all the craze these days (merited). Why hump around a heavy and cumbersome gun when you don’t have to?
>even the new M7 chambers and intermediate cartridge
Just because the Wikipedia article and smoothbrains say it’s intermediate, does not make it intermediate. The 6.8x51 is a more energetic cartridge than the 30-06 the M1 Garand chambers. Its recoil is equal to that of 308. And total cartridge mass is well above what one could consider intermediate - about the same as 308. Nothing about the 6.8 is intermediate, except maybe bullet diameter.
Anyways, the average is soldier is a poor marksman. The super fancy optic on the XM7 will be helpful and lower the skill curve needed to make long range shots, but it is by no means an aimbot - marksmanship must still be applied. On top of that, the majority of engagements do take place inside of 300 yards, and I keep reading everywhere that the outcome of a gunfight generally still comes down to which side has a greater volume of fire. So obviously this favors small and light cartridges, and that’s why the world switched over to intermediates. That is unlikely to change anytime soon. But if it does, the solution is not a move back to full power cartridges. It is high sectional density small caliber bullets at the same ~3000fps. All the benefits of the larger cartridges for little weight penalty.
You cant win wars by sniping. You have to ride up to the enemy in a bradley and jump out and kill them eventually. M4 good for dis