So, they took all their knowledge and designed a modular weapons system that has both a .223 and .308 version.
Posted on 12/20/2009 5:53:12 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
I need to get me some of these.
Bookmark for later.
That’s good news. Seems like they should go with the .270 replacement round (or the .260) while they are at it to increase lethality of the weapon as well.
ROTFLMAO at more PR Bumwad
Yes, the magazine was a problem area. However it is one on of many problem areas. E.G., The weapons must be kept spotlessly clean to function reliably, the direct-gas impingement cycling mechanism is, and always has been a cause of fouling and stoppages in heavy continuing fire operations, say 5 magazines or more. The M-16 and M-4 variants are always reliable in only 1 category: i.e.,, coming in dead last in trials against other weapons, which invariably use a piston to recycle the action. Reliable? Yes. In many reported incidents, dead realiable.
One more question: Can the new magazine actually take 30 rounds, or is it wiser to load 25? The system/series is much better than it was in the early days, but still not good enough.
Time for a CHANGE.
How many bazillion has the army spent improving this trash piece already.
So, they took all their knowledge and designed a modular weapons system that has both a .223 and .308 version.
We're stuck with the AR platform for the forseeable future I'm afraid.
What an innovation!
The sim shows the ENTIRE cartridge being fired from the weapon (M16/M4).
Only the Army could come up with this.
We Marines stick with the tried and true method of having bullets exit the barrel and empty cartridge cases eject from the ejection port.
The 308 should be the weapon of choice, one round they stay down.
Grunts have bitched about their issue weapons for centuries, nothing new here.
The M16 family of weapons is cost efficient for their intended purpose. And as such, will remain our militarys’ popgun for the forseeable future.
Small arms don’t defeat the enemy, that job is done by crew served weapons and airpower.
Wow...
Now if only the Army would do something about the low-bidder POS M9 magazines.... To say they provide gavity would be an understatement.
M4’s and M16’s don’t need to be “spotlessly clean” to run - they just need to be wet, and FN makes the M16’s for the Marines, but Army M4’s are made by Colt.
But yes, mags have been a problem, and I’m glad to see it’s getting taken care of. But Magpul followers have been out for years, this really should have happened long before now.
Hmm. The Wikipedia page on the SCAR says it was about 4x more reliabe in the super dust reliability test than the m4. The article reads as if More widespred testing is continuing.
Of couse Wikipedia is not always right. Got any links on the SCAR real world testing?
Unforrtunately the FN-SCAR costs $2,799 new to civilians the last time I saw one for sale. The military M-16 is less than half that cost to civilians in the AR-15 version.
I've always wondered about this... I mean, Eugene Stoner is a genius weapons designer, but this just seems like such a bad idea from the very begining! Yes, the direct-gas impingement design will have lower reciprocating mass, with lighter weight, but it shouldn't be enough to really matter. The design allows combustion gasses to travel all the way back to the locking lugs, which are also needlessly (IMHO) complex! And bad things will happen to the shooter if he or she is left handed and have a case blowout! Plus, the idea of such a long, thin gas tube that can foul just seems dumb. And then there's the need for a "forward assist," which I've read that Stoner opposed.
It just seems that so many problems could have been avoided with the use of an operating rod (and maybe an operating rod handle too). Ruger decided to use it on their new rifle.
Mark
Can you believe that absurd video? What a joke.
C.W.
I always take Wiki with a grain of salt. The statement about "4x more reliable" can be 100% true, and yet totally misleading.
I've read some of the test reports, where most of the tests are designed to be torture tests under once-in-a-century conditions, whether heat, cold, sand, water, unlubed, etc. Vendors submit their weapons, and then complain or brag about how theirs turned out.
In almost every case, the M4/M16 came in dead last with a reliability of about 99.4%. The best weapons, which varied by brand depending on how the testing was done, never did better than 99.7% reliability. Remember, this is "reliability" under the worst conditions the testers could dream up.
These weapons are all almost as perfect as anyone can make them. We're excluding oddballs like the British SA80 and French FAMAS. Things can be tweaked, but we're at the point of diminishing returns. I have my own preferences, but I couldn't gripe too much being issued any one of these. It's still my responsibility to keep it working properly because it's still my own life that depends on it.
Now 5.56mm magazines are another matter, and that problem has been around for almost 40 years. Weapons get political attention, because they are sexy, especially if built in your home district. But debugging springs, curves, followers, lubes, etc. is not sexy, although the magazine is probably the most common source of day-to-day trouble, not your average sandstorm.
The world has pretty much shaken things down to either the NATO 5.56mm, or the ex-soviet 7.62mm round. Usually the choice for most countries is cost and availability. Most countries that use 5.56mm now have weapons that use M16-type magazines, rather than their own unique types. This is a benefit because a lot of people are now working on their own ideas of how to improve these magazines. And we have millions of American civilians participating in the testing and debugging process, which is also a benefit.
The US military has always listed this magazine as "semi-expendable", meaning "get a new one when you get back to base". The problem is surviving until you get back. The price point for magazines of this type is about $5, as far as government purchasing goes, but they buy in lots of hundreds of thousands. Civilians buy a few at a time in the $20-$40 price range, and expect them to run perfectly, and last forever, at that price. So there's a difference in viewpoint between some bureaucrat buying what the military will use, and me buying something with my own money. But overall, the picture continues to improve.
And before anybody mentions it, the "perfect" AK47 spent ten years in debugging mode, with large numbers issued starting only in 1957. It was only with the appearance of the AKM ("modernized" Kalashnikov) in the late 1960s that the weapon started to look (and be built of stamped parts) the way Kalashnikov originally envisioned. It had it's teething problems too, but we never heard much about problems like that coming out of closed dictatorships.
By no means am I minimizing the logistical difficulties involved in making a change., or for that matter, the "overall" excellent service the series/system has given.
However, I have personally received information that the direct-impingement system has caused, and is now causing, some serious problems when a weapon is most needed, and in enough cases that it warrants serious attention.
In those cases where people are choosing their own unit weapons, they are rather uniformly choosing weapons with piston-driven systems.
PS, I know nothing about operations in arctic conditions, but thanks to you, I'll try and get up to speed in that area as it relates to this. Thanks for the heads-up and
Merry Christmas.
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.