Kind of an M-14 carbine of sorts. It has a bit of a muzzle brake built in as well.
Posted on 04/07/2017 7:37:17 AM PDT by C19fan
On the heels of the Marine Corps' desire for a new rifle for its infantrymen, the U.S. Army now says it is contemplating a dramatic switch in rifles. The service is considering going back to battle rifles—heavier rifles that can hit targets at longer ranges. The last time the Army fielded such a rifle was in the 1960s.
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
The M-14 fits the bill.
Tracking Point has a remote viewing option - just hold the rifle up (1 hand and arm exposed, that’s it, if the gun is on a sandbag or other stable rest), aim the shot on your cell phone or iPad, shoot and get to cover. Not cheap for us civilians, but bought in quantity by Uncle, it’d be a lot cheaper (and the simple financial cost savings would dramatically expand as less of our soldiers and Marines were wounded or killed, since they’d all be equivalent to the best snipers). That doesn’t include the reduction in misery for our side, which I cannot reduce to a quantifiable amount of dollars.
I,personally,did much better with the M-14...scoring only two points below "Expert".But I'll say that the M-16 was more fun...particularly on the one occasion that they let us fire it on full automatic (that was before the three round limiter).
I don't know which weapon "experts" considered more accurate but for *me* it was the M-14.
Yup. Newton’s Third Law still pertains!
M1A is a Fine piece of Equipment!
I know the military environment will want to be universal with one or the other, but the personal preference of the shooter should be taken into consideration. A bigger guy might not mind the extra weight and a smaller guy might choose the lighter. I'm not suggesting that we have 15 calibers for every possible scenario, but just 2, .308 and .223. If you think about it, they already feed .50 cal, 9mm, .45, .308, along with .223. There is probably some .40 and others I don't know about as I'm don't follow it that closely anymore. I believe they use a .416 and .338 for snipers along with .308 and .50. I don't think it would be devastating to the supply Sgt to do this. They also feed sniper rifles in other calibers already.
Do you ever notice that the military is always trying to reinvent the wheel?
The got rid of the large caliber weapons because they weighed to much.Now they are changing course.
Kind of an M-14 carbine of sorts. It has a bit of a muzzle brake built in as well.
Why? M-14s are accurate, dependable, and available.
The Stoner design is fragile, has an inaccessible chamber, and if it uses the gas tube, messy.
If we’re going to design a new infantry weapon, start from scratch and ditch Eugene Stoner’s cheapo.
I bought it in 2008. I decided to test it and see when it would fail.
I shot 4,000 rounds through it and had zero failures.
I used mostly surplus ammo from all over the world. Dirty, dirty, dirty crap.
Cleaning was very easy.
Further, I found it accurate with just the iron sights, the differences in surplus ammo performance not withstanding...
I am going to buy a couple more...eventually...
7.62x39 is a decent round (AK 47)
7.62x51 is more powerful (Nato)
A .308 is even more powerful
H&K has their HK433 but that is is a 5.56
Very good gun.
They have planned variants of HK231 and HK123
If they’d build the HK123 to handle a .308, that would be best, as you could fire a 7.62x51 in a .308 gun, but NOT visa versa
Do you arm your guys with the inferior, but battlefield plentiful AK round?
Or do you give them a plentiful, more powerful round?
A .308 gun allows use of the common 7.62 Nato round, that a lot of our allies might carry (if not carrying the 5.56)
But would not allow scavenging from adversaries using AK’s like those being used in the ME
Depends on whether they want off the shelf, or want to break new ground. There might be some interesting options with composite overwrapped barrels - thin steel wrapped in carbon fiber composite, like is done for making lightweight pressure vessels. You need steel to prevent erosion on the inside, but carbon fiber can take many times more pressure per unit weight than steel. And because prestressed CF is much stiffer than steel, you get better accuracy too.
There’s been some research on the concept before. For example, this paper on 120mm overwrap gun tubes:
http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA481065
But I’ve also run into some variants researched for small arms as well. It’d put the US into a whole new class of weaponry.
My FN-FAL built on an StG 58 kit is a tack driver. No problem ringing the gong at 450 yards all day long. Recently added optics to compensate for my 66 year old eyes.
“The military” huh? Guess you didn’t grace a uniform at any point, did you?
Our job is kill people and we need better tools. The “mouse gun” doesn’t work well in the longer distance fight and doesn’t penetrate cover well.
Tough to understand?
If Army want a heavier round, give them a AKM in 7.62x39mm with a side rail. With today’s scopes, good shooters can still hit at 500m with the bigger bullet. The AK Operators Union demonstrated it last year.
We need to stop complicating things.
6.5mm seems to be the big winner in long range competition shooting.
Back when the FN FAL was being designed, the British were wanting something along the lines of a 7mm but the US DOD was rather insistent on using a .30 caliber projectile. The FN FAL was thus produced using the 7.62 NATO standard round which was not what anyone really wanted. Then the US DOD went with the M14 anyways while everyone else in NATO carried the FN FAL, now chambered in a round that was too big for it (in full auto mode anyways).
Time went on and the FN FAL went on to become the right arm of the free world and the M14 went on to become the M16 now chambered in 5.56mm. Yes, after all of that drama, we ended up adopting a 5.56mm round.
Now, 50 years later, we’re back to wanting something bigger than 5.56mm but not necessarily as big as the 7.62 NATO round.
something like the 280 British perhaps?
We should have just gone with the .280 British FAL and been done with it. It’s like the British say, “the Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have tried everything else first.”
My luv is divided between two Springfield M1As & one HK91. When I open the safe, all I hear is, PIC ME, PIC ME!
Stoner pattern (AR-10) rifles are everywhere. The AR-10 uses the same buffer system as the AR-15 and felt recoil is very slight compared to the M-14/M1A-style actions. Very accurate with massive terminal energy out beyond 500+ yards. They are available in both direct gas impingement and piston drive. The only drawback is the significantly heavier 7.62 NATO cartridge weight vs the cartridge weight of the 5.56 NATO. More weight in the infantryman’s pack is not necessarily a good thing. Just my $.02.
My safe has similar cries from my M1A, Garands and Kimber’s...
I love them all the bestest...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.