Thoughts On the L5 Ribbon Rifle

Ghost Magnum · #1 10-09-2018, 02:49 PM

What's y'all's thoughts on the L5 rifle the Army is experimenting with?

Erno86 · #2 10-09-2018, 03:02 PM

Jury's still out on this one...but I think it won't go far.

OLDNAVYMCPO · #3 10-09-2018, 03:09 PM

I think the more likely candidate is the NGSW-AR, the 6.8 mm rifle that might replace the SAW and M-4A1 carbine. Supposedly will penetrate any armored vest in use today. It is under trial by the Army.

Personally, I always liked the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon.

Ghost Magnum · #4 10-09-2018, 03:35 PM

I think it's neat. I would love to have it. But I don't think it's the Army next rifle.

vonn · #5 10-09-2018, 04:24 PM

The best rifle depends very much on the terrain and conditions that the troops are operating in. Not real sure if "best" is possible for everything that might come up in today's world. AR rifles aren't the worst possible grunt toy but there is no such thing as too much firepower.

mtgianni · #6 10-09-2018, 05:10 PM

Since the days of Col. Samuel Colt military armament has had people operating with what may be described as "Not very concerned with the end users". Nothing new to see here.

OLDNAVYMCPO · #7 10-09-2018, 05:25 PM

The major problem that I see with the L-5 is the bulk of the ammo. Way bulkier than a belt for the M-60 or the SAW for the same number of rounds. Firing 5 rounds at a time as it is capable of, it could eat-up a lot of ammo in a hurry. The M-60 was a lot of weight for a grunt to have to hump, even if belts were shared with other squad members.

Ivan the Butcher · #8 10-09-2018, 06:16 PM

My best friend and oldest son were both M-60 gunners. My son was using a 1960 mfg weapon in Iraq, 44 years old and still would do anything he ask it to! There is nothing wrong with that gun! If it ain't broke: Don't fix it. When the nature of war changes, then we will need a new primary weapon. For example: 1) By the end of the Civil War, muzzle loaders were no longer feasible. 2) By the end of WWI, Bolt action and single shot rifles needed replaced. 3) By the end of WWII & Korea, semi auto rifles were questionable at best.

The environment of the Middle East/SW Asia is different, but is long range warfare different? or House to house?

I have heard arm chair warriors (of which I am one!) complain that our current enemy just stays out of rifle range. That hasn't changes from General Custer's day or General Washington's or Ogg the cave man's day. A longer range primary weapon won't change that. In fact deer did that to my family in Ohio and Wyoming!

When we went from the M-14 to the M-16, it took how many years and how many lives to get it straightened out? (6 or 7 years and as many as 10,000 according to my Vietnam Vet Marine friends!)

Are the current rifles and SAW type weapons reliable? Yes! Are they perfect for every situation? No! Are they good enough to work for where we go to defend our country? I think, Yes! Do we need a new system for the foreseeable future? NOT YET! The only place our systems haven't been is Outer Space. (I heard a rumor in the early 80's the Russians had a AK system for Vacuum)

Ivan

Grayfox · #9 10-09-2018, 06:55 PM

Never trust your life to anything that requires a battery.

vonn · #10 10-09-2018, 07:24 PM

M-60 is an awesome weapon. When it’s talking everyone listens. Never heard anyone complain about humping ammo for them,some things you just know you need.

hkcavalier · #11 10-09-2018, 07:33 PM

Speaking as an Army Cavalry officer...

PVT Snuffy irreparably breaks this in about 15 minutes.

Let me know how it does after 6 months at Aberdeen with 250lb soldiers falling off of walls and landing directly on the rifle.

Ghost Magnum · #12 10-10-2018, 05:40 PM

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that not only my rifle needs ammo, but also batteries.

steelslaver · #13 10-10-2018, 06:00 PM

If the military goes to a different caliber because of body armor all that will happen is that in short order troops will end up with improved body armor. Its history. As weapons changed so did armor, then weapons then armor.

Ghost Magnum · #14 10-11-2018, 10:36 AM

This rifle must not be going anywhere if it's not interesting enough to keep this thread alive.

vonn · #15 10-11-2018, 11:57 AM

I think it is interesting but I do not think it does anything better than what is in the field now.

Ghost Magnum · #16 10-11-2018, 06:30 PM

I'm starting a new thread about possible rifles the army can adopt.

Rudi · #17 10-11-2018, 07:53 PM

H&K has been working on caseless ammo for 40 years I believe. If they haven't got it ready for prime time who else will?

Frank46 · #18 10-12-2018, 02:28 AM

On my Carrier I was in the ships armory on one occasion to peek at the goodies stored there. WWII 45's. WWII Garands, 1919 machine guns, only the Marines had made the change to the M14 in 7.62 Nato. Pilots had the old WWII revolvers as side arms as best as I can recall. Don't recall when the M60 came out. So basically the ships company who were on the "Marine Landing Party" were stuck with WWII issue firearms. This would have been about 1965-66. Probably some Bar back in there and maybe some Thompson 45 submachine guns. When they decomissioned her I would have loved to be a fly on that wall just to see what became of all that old iron. She was decomissioned I think late 77 early 78 and scraped shortly after that. And she could still do 32 knots and did a full power run before coming home. Frank

steelslaver · #19 10-12-2018, 07:00 AM

When I went to the rifle range from the MC computer center in Philadelphia we were send to Lake Hurst NJ and fired M1s. This was in early 1970. After the majority of M14s had been replaced by M16s in VN. Where did all those M14s go and why where we qualifying with such an out of date rifle?

Don't get me wrong. There was nothing really "wrong" with the M1s. Except for being a slightly larger round and using the clips, simple to use after already training and qualifying in boot camp with an M14. The 8 round clips were a hassle on a course setup for 10 and 20 rounds strings.

Went from there to Okinawa and qualified there with M14s again. Then a second time with M16s. Back to Camp Pendleton and again M14s.

Yet, in ITR (infantry training regiment) we carried and shot M16s, in Staging battalion, M16s, and once on Okinawa my group was taken out and we were each given a M16 and told to fire a full 20 round mag at about a 10 bull at 50 meters offhand. I nailed all 20 and many others did too. In those days the Marine Corps rifle qual course off hand was fired from the 200 meter line. prone and sitting 300 and prone from 500 meters. We all laughed at 550 meters. Each persons hits on the bull were noted. I was told it was not an individual thing, but, some kind of readiness evaluation for units.

I was a computer operator for the USMC and still fired hundreds of training rounds every year. In those days your level of qualification was part of your cutting score for promotion. Being an UNQ (unqualified) in the Marine Corps was viewed as a serious lack of "the right stuff" or what ever.

It just amazes me that the majority of it was not with the standard battle weapon. I bet there are still Marines qualifying with mM14s.

OFT II · #20 10-12-2018, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Magnum

I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that not only my rifle needs ammo, but also batteries.

I'm sure that they will issue you a bayonet and some jumper cables.