Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: edpc; SWAMPSNIPER; Ronald_Magnus; Durus; knarf; cripplecreek
"The applications are different in combat and hunting"

Well, no kidding. How much have you spent in combat? As far as the Chinese and Russians adopting itty bitty calibers - swell - I don't mind it all if our adversaries adopt bad ideas. But close range "pray and spray" isn't effective in most fights. It's those rare folks who aim their fire carefully that win battles.

The M-16 family is NOT robust: it's aluminum and plastic and the breech is deeply enclosed and inaccessible. It gas system fountains carbon into the bolt and breech and the whole thing bends with very little effort. It is and was an inexpensive weapon to produce and field and the army is loathe to look at anything else, no matter what the field experience shows. During the height of the Iraq War we had requests from commanders in direct combat for M-14s because of the ineffectiveness/imprecision of the 5.56 round at longer ranges/penetrating brick and earth walls/lethality but those requests were turned down because stateside clowns with zero combat experience were determined to keep going with M-16s only.

There are many excellent designs out there and much better calibers yet the army establishment is perfectly happy to keep the status quo - or offer idiotic alternatives like that XM-25 - a beast in no way suited for the realities of infantry combat.

It's time to put veterans with combat experience into weapon development programs over the civilian developers at Picatinny.

25 posted on 02/21/2014 5:57:36 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Chainmail
It's those rare folks who aim their fire carefully that win battles.

Which is why the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument is invalid. When our forces have gone toe-to-toe with the AK, they've won with the "inferior" caliber. They bad guys wouldn't be more dead with a larger bullet.

During the height of the Iraq War we had requests from commanders in direct combat for M-14s because of the ineffectiveness/imprecision of the 5.56 round at longer ranges/penetrating brick and earth walls/lethality

Great for an engagement at range, but not the weapons platform you necessarily want for house clearing, like Fallujah.

29 posted on 02/21/2014 7:23:01 AM PST by edpc (Wilby 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail
I don't understand anyone that would call the AR platform flawed and then ask for an M-14/M1-A. Any person that spent enough time shooting both would realize that the AR for all of it's much maligned "weaknesses" is simply a better platform. It's more reliable, more accurate and more adaptable. Lot's of people bitch about direct gas impingement and ignore it's primary strength; namely accuracy. A DGI AR will always be more accurate than a firearm where the piston is attached to the barrel due to simple physics. Not to mention that modern powders, materials and coating have mitigated the weaknesses of DGI to large extent.

Most firefights in our current theatre of combat are not sustained fights that require resupply, so it seems kinda stupid to redesign our weapons platform to do something that it isn't being used to do. Considering that the average load out of ammo is 210 rounds and pretty much any AR that is even in poorly maintained condition is going to be go through the load out without problems (or even 10 times the load out), it makes me wonder where the complaints are coming from. Assuming the complaints are real (and a lot are a media/industry fabrication) then it's reasonable to assume that the carbine in question was probably so worn that something was out of spec. I've read about and seen pictures of weapons deployed to soldiers that were literally falling apart. It's well known that our supply of AR are aging but that isn't a platform issue.

There are many excellent designs out there...

In context it appears that you mean excellent designs that are better than the AR. What do you think those are?

The caliber discussion has nothing to do with the AR platform and should be a separate discussion as the AR platform can handle pretty much any caliber that any other battle rifle can.

It's time to put veterans with combat experience into weapon development programs over the civilian developers at Picatinny.

The best weapons designer the world has ever seen didn't have any combat experience. Combat experience doesn't increase knowledge of Materials science, metallurgy, engineering or machining. Troops should be used in testing programs sure but weapons design and development? To paraphrase a Japanese saying "you can either be master of making a sword or using a sword but not both".

32 posted on 02/21/2014 9:02:03 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail

“It’s time to put veterans with combat experience into weapon development programs over the civilian developers at Picatinny.”

Same goes for Natick Labs.

The Army is developing it’s what third combat uniform in ten years?

For years on end when I was on active duty we would rag on anyone wearing faded “cook whites” BDU’s, then the Army introduces the ACU that seems lighter in color than a bleached set of woodland BDU’s. Then there is the velcro with the loud “RIIIIPPP” when trying to get something out of your pocket.


89 posted on 02/24/2014 3:30:41 PM PST by 2CAVTrooper (Politicians and diapers need to be changed for the same reason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail

Mark.


92 posted on 02/24/2014 3:44:45 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Mohammed was a pedophile and Islam is a Totalitarian Death Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson