Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:02 PM
Ghost Magnum's Avatar
Ghost Magnum Ghost Magnum is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 522
Likes: 1,082
Liked 564 Times in 211 Posts
Default Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army

It's proving difficult to knock the 50 year old rifle off it's pedestal.
The L5 Ribbon Rifle could be the next rifle.
But there others that already been proven in battle.

There is the H&K M27 that is already in use by the USMC.

The IWI Tavor. I believe that would make a great weapon for the Army. I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of the Tavor.
The Tavor has already being used by some police and sheriff departments here in the US. I heard rumors that some groups in the military has unofficial adopted the Tavor. But I would take that with a grain of salt.
I wouldn't hold my breath on the army using it. I think the army would have used bullpup rifles years ago if they was truly interested in them.

FN SCAR is already in use by the Army Rangers and other branches of USSOCOM.
I would be proud to own one.

H&K G36. I think the army was experimenting with this rifle some years ago. I remember seeing a video of a soldier dip this gun in water and sand a it fired without a single problem.

There is also the XM8. I remember they was testing that rifle. I don't really know what happened to it

The deal is just about every gun I named on this list cost about twice as much then the M16/M4.
__________________
TAHITI, it's a magical place.

Last edited by Ghost Magnum; 10-11-2018 at 07:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:07 PM
eb07 eb07 is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,661
Likes: 2,030
Liked 3,990 Times in 1,024 Posts
Default

They announced it so it will be another 10 years before it happens.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:13 PM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is online now
SWCA Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,866
Likes: 3,994
Liked 10,578 Times in 3,839 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eb07 View Post
They announced it so it will be another 10 years before it happens.
But in the meantime, it’ll provide ten years of material, from knowledgeable to speculative to simply made up, for magazine writers, gun bloggers, and gun forums. A gift from heaven
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:15 PM
vonn's Avatar
vonn vonn is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: houston,texas
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 92,156
Liked 19,618 Times in 4,677 Posts
Default

The cost of any weapon considered will certainly be a factor in the selection process and may well be the deciding factor. Just quickly thinking about what would be my ideal rifle -it needs to be light with a reasonable basic load of ammunition(weight is a grunts worst enemy) ,it must be almost maintenance free in any enviroment,use a flat shooting cartridge and have a effective range of 600 yards with good battlefield accuracy. Semi and full automatic at a controllable rate of fire that can be maintained with out destroying itself. Having been a milsurp guy I think the present AR platform meets most of these needs but .224 Valkyrie ammo might be an improvement with very little changes required. Going to think on this some more.
__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:22 PM
6518John's Avatar
6518John 6518John is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: May 2014
Location: ARTown and Country
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 42,028
Liked 8,280 Times in 2,077 Posts
Default No school like the old school!

It’s been downhill since this was replaced—“the greatest battle implement ever devised".
Attached Thumbnails
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army-efb5a3c0-7481-4305-a3f2-db34cbfedb72-jpeg  
__________________
.44 Special is indeed!

Last edited by 6518John; 10-12-2018 at 05:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:01 PM
Farmer17 Farmer17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Edmond, OK
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 83
Liked 1,846 Times in 819 Posts
Default

I always felt the .556 was too small and thought a modern designed rifle in size between the M-14 and a Mini-14 chambered for .243 Win or .250 Savage would be ideal.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:03 PM
hkcavalier's Avatar
hkcavalier hkcavalier is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 395
Liked 2,116 Times in 682 Posts
Default

I'm a huge fan of the Swedish 6.5CBJ project.

http://www.cbjtech.com/ammunition/6-5x25-cbj/

I think a small PDW + larger carbine family would be phenomenal for most needs. Plus a high quality DMR organic to platoons.

The 6.5CBJ with the subcaliber penetrator is already better than the 5.56 out to normal infantry combat ranges.
__________________
Psalm 27:2
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:26 PM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 9,310
Likes: 8,033
Liked 9,526 Times in 3,895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vonn View Post
The cost of any weapon considered will certainly be a factor in the selection process and may well be the deciding factor. Just quickly thinking about what would be my ideal rifle -it needs to be light with a reasonable basic load of ammunition(weight is a grunts worst enemy) ,it must be almost maintenance free in any enviroment,use a flat shooting cartridge and have a effective range of 600 yards with good battlefield accuracy. Semi and full automatic at a controllable rate of fire that can be maintained with out destroying itself. Having been a milsurp guy I think the present AR platform meets most of these needs but .224 Valkyrie ammo might be an improvement with very little changes required. Going to think on this some more.
I think .224 Valkyrie needs barrel length, which makes it a non-starter for most purposes.

The LSAT performed well in tests, proving that case telescoped ammo can work. I would like to see similar technology in 6.5 or 6.8 caliber.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #9  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:48 PM
BigBill's Avatar
BigBill BigBill is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: north america
Posts: 11,182
Likes: 1,434
Liked 9,880 Times in 4,122 Posts
Default

I think the Swedish 6.5mm caliber is yet to be fully developed. Then we have the flattest shooter of them all the 7 mm Mauser round.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #10  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:00 PM
white cloud white cloud is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way Down South
Posts: 594
Likes: 717
Liked 629 Times in 277 Posts
Default

I just hope the Defense Department doesn't waste 10 years and untold amounts of money and come up with nothing like they did last time.

The AR platform is highly refined and reliable but it seems that the 5.56 is not up to solving some battlefield problems. My father was career 82nd Airborne. He had fought with M2 carbines, M1s, M14 and finally the M16. I got to talk to him and some of his buddies who served with him in Vietnam. To a man, they were glad to be rid of the M14 and loved the M16.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:05 PM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is online now
SWCA Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,866
Likes: 3,994
Liked 10,578 Times in 3,839 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farmer17 View Post
I always felt the .556 was too small and ....
I think a .556 would be plenty big

The .223/5.56mm on the other hand ...

(Sorry, couldn't resist, I'm sure it was just a typo.)
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #12  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:33 PM
serger's Avatar
serger serger is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 385
Likes: 202
Liked 468 Times in 171 Posts
Default

How about an AR10 in .243. Load it with
95 gr bullets @ 3k fps.
__________________
never get out of the boat
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #13  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:57 PM
smoothshooter smoothshooter is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 356
Likes: 12
Liked 250 Times in 132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vonn View Post
The cost of any weapon considered will certainly be a factor in the selection process and may well be the deciding factor. Just quickly thinking about what would be my ideal rifle -it needs to be light with a reasonable basic load of ammunition(weight is a grunts worst enemy) ,it must be almost maintenance free in any enviroment,use a flat shooting cartridge and have a effective range of 600 yards with good battlefield accuracy. Semi and full automatic at a controllable rate of fire that can be maintained with out destroying itself. Having been a milsurp guy I think the present AR platform meets most of these needs but .224 Valkyrie ammo might be an improvement with very little changes required. Going to think on this some more.
My vote goes for whatever the latest and best version of the Ak-47 is.

Good caliber, superior penetration of obstacles and human tissue, accurate enough for the skill level of the average troop today under combat conditions, unlimited potential for using captured stocks of ammo, and last but not least- all the R & D work is already done.
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Like Post:
  #14  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:01 PM
white cloud white cloud is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way Down South
Posts: 594
Likes: 717
Liked 629 Times in 277 Posts
Default

I think an AR10 that was put on a diet and chambered in something with .243 ballistics would be an awesome fighting rifle. I personally wonder why you would equip an army with the 5.56 when it is considered marginal for hunting 125 pound herbivores by most hunters I know.

I will bring up my father's sergeant thinking about rifles. He told me that as paratrooper he wanted a short and light rifle. He had bent the barrels on a number of M14 when jumping. He was always aware that when he was dropped off a helicopter with his team, it might be a while before they got resupplied. The 5.56 really checked a box for him in this regard because he could carry a lot more rounds. I asked him and his buddies about the 5.56's lack of power. They looked at me like I was crazy as they were convinced it was plenty lethal. Of course they were engaging targets in a jungle.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:03 PM
white cloud white cloud is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way Down South
Posts: 594
Likes: 717
Liked 629 Times in 277 Posts
Default

Can you imagine a general telling our current president that they wanted to purchase AK-47s?
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #16  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:06 PM
Engine49guy's Avatar
Engine49guy Engine49guy is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 6,665
Likes: 1,429
Liked 6,342 Times in 2,165 Posts
Default

IMO the M-14 was probably the high water mark in US Infantry rifle design when wars were fought at greater distances in larger battlefields.

No doubt the M16 was much better suited for Jungle warfare in Vietnam once they got the bugs ironed out.
Since its early M16 inception and M16A1 improvements the design has had enough time in service to address its shortcomings (BTW the old M14 was brought back out of mothballs with an added scope for use in Iraq and Afghanistan where the 5.56 lacked range, penetration and power ).

There is a big difference from the early M16's 55-grain 5.56 mm M193 cartridge mated to a 1 in 12 twist barrel to the current M16A4 with 62 gr. lead core NATO SS109/M855 with steel penetrator spitzer bullet mated to the faster 1 in 9 twist barrel.
(BTW Read an article a few months back there is a new improved cartridge coming out that outperforms the SS109)

While I still prefer the 20" barrel full fixed stock M16A2 the smaller M4 carbine seems to have eclipsed it and no surprise as the trend for many of our NATO allies has been toward shorter Bullpup designs which perhaps have an advantage in modern battle and urban warfare.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #17  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:21 PM
white cloud white cloud is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way Down South
Posts: 594
Likes: 717
Liked 629 Times in 277 Posts
Default

I agree about the 20" barrel. I have never been combat but a 14.5" barrel makes no sense to me especially with the 5.56 which needs all the velocity it can get.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #18  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:35 PM
AJ AJ is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Central East Coast of Flo
Posts: 933
Likes: 185
Liked 948 Times in 419 Posts
Default

I would like to see either the AR or Mini-14 platforms in .243. But remember that when talking 5.56/.223 as far as be lethal, animals are harder to bring down than people.
__________________
USMC 69-93
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #19  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:10 AM
vonn's Avatar
vonn vonn is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: houston,texas
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 92,156
Liked 19,618 Times in 4,677 Posts
Default

I think that 5.56 kills game but not quick enough to prevent hunters from being unable to find what they shot. The 224 Valkyrie in shorter 18 to 20 inch barrels won't be super long range but would be be a signicant increase in bullet weight which should increase effectiveness on the target. Lots of people seem to be working with short 224 barrels judging by videos out there.
__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #20  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:52 PM
hkcavalier's Avatar
hkcavalier hkcavalier is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 395
Liked 2,116 Times in 682 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by white cloud View Post
I agree about the 20" barrel. I have never been combat but a 14.5" barrel makes no sense to me especially with the 5.56 which needs all the velocity it can get.
For 5.56mm it makes the most sense. But we're not going back to 20" rifles (remember when that was considered a 'carbine'?), so the goal is to find a new chambering that's most effective out of a 12-14" barrel and meets all the penetration and lethality requirements.

Right now, as I posted about, the 6.5CBJ does that. Another somewhat sci-fi possibility would be a large caliber round that was essentially a micro-grenade.
__________________
Psalm 27:2
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #21  
Old 10-12-2018, 04:55 PM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas
Posts: 22,970
Likes: 2
Liked 13,852 Times in 7,662 Posts
Default

Other than for special operations purposes (as SpecOps troops can often get whatever weapons they want) it will be a very long time indeed that the 5.56mm M16/M4 platform will be replaced within Big Army. You can bet on it. Believe me, been there, done that.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #22  
Old 10-12-2018, 05:26 PM
hkcavalier's Avatar
hkcavalier hkcavalier is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 395
Liked 2,116 Times in 682 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt View Post
Other than for special operations purposes (as SpecOps troops can often get whatever weapons they want) it will be a very long time indeed that the 5.56mm M16/M4 platform will be replaced within Big Army. You can bet on it. Believe me, been there, done that.
Yeah, I fear the next "big war" will involve something like, say, drones that deliver self-guided flying "bug" munitions to each enemy soldier's head and detonate a few grams of RDX. After that, it won't matter if we carry Brown Besses or plasma rifles in the 40 watt range.
__________________
Psalm 27:2
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #23  
Old 10-12-2018, 05:38 PM
amazingflapjack amazingflapjack is offline
Suspended
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: May 2010
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 5,110
Likes: 19,198
Liked 4,662 Times in 2,032 Posts
Default

I like what Vonn shared, and anyone who has had to go into the field with a direct impingement M-16 variant. In my little detachment we were able to carry pretty much what we wanted, so there were some other choices. The M-16 was not highly thought of, to say the least. From my own experience, I would hope that there would be, in addition to a standardized battle rife, a pistol caliber (compatible with side arm ammo) carbine weapon, that was compact and possibly in the blow back operating system for certain troop segments, not necessarily with selective rates of fire. I would hope that what ever battle rifle is selected, that it would not be a .223 caliber, and that it would not be a direct impingement operating system. The 7.62X39 round is a tough one to beat in a light infantry contest, especially as someone above suggested-in a much lighter platform, but politics may have a strong influence on that, and any decision. I'll say it again: ask the Vets and the troops.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #24  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:43 PM
Ivan the Butcher Ivan the Butcher is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Harlem, Ohio
Posts: 5,975
Likes: 5,386
Liked 6,750 Times in 2,769 Posts
Default

Sometime before 9/11/01, my son's company was slated to test a bull-pup design with a snap on grenade launcher. He walked into the squad room on Monday morning and there were 20 prototypes laying on a table. "What's up First Sargent?", "You get to test this abortion!" My son picked up and carried it back to the 1st Sargent. It weighed 29 pounds (empty!) (a M-60 weighs 26 pounds) My son said "We have to get out of this!!" They were due to rotate to Haiti in a few months, so they went to see the CO. The 1st Sgt. walks in and asks the Captain if he'd seen this pile of XXXX, and threw the weapon on the desk with an enormous thump! They then conspired to get B Co, 315 AIR to "evaluate" the platform.

A service weapon munt not require a HUMVEE to tote it around!

Ivan
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #25  
Old 10-12-2018, 07:56 PM
Flattop5 Flattop5 is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 258
Likes: 16
Liked 318 Times in 121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army

Here's a novel idea: let America stop fighting wars all over the world every 10 years for no good reason, and the Army wouldn't need another rifle. Yeah, that's a radical idea, I know...

But if they really need a new one, they can contract for good-quality AK47s in caliber .223/5.56. Very rugged, nearly jam-proof, and they can use all the current 5.56 ammo.




--------------
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #26  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:17 PM
Telecaster Telecaster is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 551
Likes: 131
Liked 756 Times in 289 Posts
Default

I went along with internet lore on M14 vs M16, .308 vs 5.56, etc. till I saw this video from SmallArmsSolutions, Why I despise the M14. I thought Pfft, this clickbait otta be good for a laugh. But the guy seems to know what hes talking about and convinced me.

YouTube

As for the armys next rifle, Im sure itll be something made obsolete by the next generation of warfare before its ever fielded.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #27  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:31 PM
Ghost Magnum's Avatar
Ghost Magnum Ghost Magnum is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 522
Likes: 1,082
Liked 564 Times in 211 Posts
Default

Going through all the post on this thread shows the biggest problem when it comes to weapons. Everyone has different preference, different personalities, soldier with different body sizes and types.
Soldiers serving in different environments.
I'm a bullpup guy through and through. That's what I would rather use.
I know a marine that would rather use his own AK and carry a 44 Magnum. He was not a fan of what the military gave him to use.
__________________
TAHITI, it's a magical place.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 10-14-2018, 11:57 AM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is online now
SWCA Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,866
Likes: 3,994
Liked 10,578 Times in 3,839 Posts
Default

In related actual news, the German army is looking for a replacement for the HK G 36, which is set to be phased out beginning in 2020.

It was announced today that ALL initial submissions failed preliminary testing.

For legal reasons, the Ministry of Defense apparently cant publish participants and details at this point of the process.

But scuttlebutt seems to agree that besides HK with the HK 433, Steyr and SIG were initially bidders; no word on others. SIG reportedly dropped out amid complaints that the process was rigged toward HK.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #29  
Old 10-14-2018, 11:26 PM
bushmaster1313's Avatar
bushmaster1313 bushmaster1313 is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 4,847
Likes: 457
Liked 9,817 Times in 2,076 Posts
Default

It is published that the Tavor with a 16.5" barrel is a bit shorter than an M4 with a 10.5" barrel and a collapsed stock.

The short overall length of the Tavor is an advantage when riding in an armoured personnel carrier and in clearing a room.
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #30  
Old 10-14-2018, 11:53 PM
smoothshooter smoothshooter is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 356
Likes: 12
Liked 250 Times in 132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by white cloud View Post
Can you imagine a general telling our current president that they wanted to purchase AK-47s?
If they were American made he might go for it.
Especially if the price was right.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #31  
Old 10-15-2018, 12:13 AM
3S16 3S16 is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 449
Likes: 685
Liked 1,080 Times in 215 Posts
Default

M-14. Finest battle rifle ever made.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #32  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:07 AM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 9,310
Likes: 8,033
Liked 9,526 Times in 3,895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3S16 View Post
M-14. Finest battle rifle ever made.
Yep...for a type of battle we don't fight any more.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #33  
Old 10-15-2018, 01:11 AM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 9,310
Likes: 8,033
Liked 9,526 Times in 3,895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absalom View Post
In related actual news, the German army is looking for a replacement for the HK G 36, which is set to be phased out beginning in 2020.

It was announced today that ALL initial submissions failed preliminary testing.

For legal reasons, the Ministry of Defense apparently cant publish participants and details at this point of the process.

But scuttlebutt seems to agree that besides HK with the HK 433, Steyr and SIG were initially bidders; no word on others. SIG reportedly dropped out amid complaints that the process was rigged toward HK.
Makes you wonder how demanding the Bundeswehr specification must be and how the manufacturers have screwed up not meeting it.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #34  
Old 10-15-2018, 03:36 AM
JayFramer's Avatar
JayFramer JayFramer is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 3,394
Liked 4,178 Times in 1,490 Posts
Default

Probably something like an AR/M15 in Creedmore.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #35  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:10 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 678
Likes: 66
Liked 587 Times in 343 Posts
Default

I do not see the U.S. military changing calibers. We just went through this whole debate with replacing the Beretta M9. The Army considered other calibers, but 9x19mm is a NATO standard and that is what the U.S. military will continue to use. Even MEU SOC and MARSOC units that had gone back to the M1911-A1 platform are now going back to the 9x19mm. So with 5.56x45mm being a NATO standard caliber, I find it highly unlikely that the U.S. is going to go a non-NATO caliber. If the Army wants more knockdown power, then they would likely have a rifle chambered in 7.62x51mm.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #36  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:38 AM
steelslaver's Avatar
steelslaver steelslaver is online now
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 5,131
Likes: 2,207
Liked 9,774 Times in 3,150 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSteve View Post
Yep...for a type of battle we don't fight any more.
Idea. Quit fighting the types of battles we have been fighting. The results have not been positive, though the rifle being used is not necessarily the problem. The round count per KIA has rose to the point of the totally absurd. Being able to carry and fire more ammo is not a solution when the projectiles have no impact value. The current rate is around 250,000 rounds per KIA. That is about a ton of bullets per KIA. Factor in the rate of about 1.5 per KIA by snipers and you HAVE to scratch your head and wonder.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #37  
Old 10-15-2018, 07:48 AM
CajunBass's Avatar
CajunBass CajunBass is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Chesterfield, Va.
Posts: 4,521
Likes: 3,842
Liked 7,214 Times in 1,970 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steelslaver View Post
The current rate is around 250,000 rounds per KIA. That is about a ton of bullets per KIA.
Nothing new there. I've read that it took a man's weight in bullets to kill him. During the Civil War.

Considering the difference between single shot muzzle loaders, and full auto weapons, I'd say that's about even.
__________________
John 3:16 .
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #38  
Old 10-16-2018, 08:04 PM
Engine49guy's Avatar
Engine49guy Engine49guy is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 6,665
Likes: 1,429
Liked 6,342 Times in 2,165 Posts
Default

In WWII the German rifle squad supported the machine gun where the US Army doctrine was the machine gun supported the rifle squad.

Today everyone in the US squad basically has a 5.56 machine gun .

Interestingly the military decided to pull M14's from mothballs then scoped and accurized them for squad use in Iraq and Afghanistan to support situations where the M16 was not up to the task...





kinda reminiscent of the Russians use of the Dragunov to support a squad of AK47's.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #39  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:37 PM
Drm50 Drm50 is online now
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Monroe cnty. Ohio
Posts: 3,208
Likes: 2,292
Liked 4,635 Times in 1,650 Posts
Default

I've never been to Middle East, but spent time at White Sands.
The effect of wind on M16 vs M14 was easy to see. It's not that
M16 is not accurate, it is but doesn't have penetration power of
7.62 NATO. I think the next rifle will be developed around caseless cartridges. When they get the bugs out of caseless you
will be able to stick with 30cal and still carry reasonable combat
load of ammo.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #40  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:54 PM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 9,310
Likes: 8,033
Liked 9,526 Times in 3,895 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine49guy View Post
Interestingly the military decided to pull M14's from mothballs then scoped and accurized them for squad use in Iraq and Afghanistan to support situations where the M4 was not up to the task...
I fixed it for you.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #41  
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM
bigwheelzip's Avatar
bigwheelzip bigwheelzip is online now
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Upstate SC
Posts: 7,254
Likes: 8,856
Liked 17,196 Times in 4,292 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSteve View Post
Makes you wonder how demanding the Bundeswehr specification must be and how the manufacturers have screwed up not meeting it.
Yeah, I wondered the same thing, considering they are so unhappy with the accuracy problems with the current G36 rifle.

This is what I found about the new rifle specs:



I'd like to see some field reports of the new Tavor 7.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #42  
Old Yesterday, 10:44 AM
RGVshooter RGVshooter is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 1,008
Liked 1,316 Times in 583 Posts
Default

I strongly feel that the next generation of battle rifles for the US army will be a modified version of the AR platform. Probably a short stroke gas piston such as the Barrett REC7. They'll keep the chambering the same at 5.56 NATO I'm sure.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #43  
Old Yesterday, 02:54 PM
BLACKHAWKNJ BLACKHAWKNJ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,240
Likes: 175
Liked 1,441 Times in 711 Posts
Default

IMHO it's more a matter of fashion and wanting something new and different than effective. Cf. how military uniforms change every 20 years or so. No different than with us, "what caliber is best for..." Using technology to make up for failings in training and leadership.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #44  
Old Yesterday, 06:13 PM
pharmer's Avatar
pharmer pharmer is online now
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Santo las nubes, Florida
Posts: 5,374
Likes: 2,117
Liked 5,556 Times in 2,096 Posts
Default

I'm no expert but I have thought the .300 blackout was a step in the right direction. Some loadings move a 125 gr bullet pretty fast. I bet a 6.5 in a X45 case could get a 100-120 gr bullet moving up to mid 2K fps range without making the cartridge too long to function in current equipment. Joe
__________________
Deplorably Optimistic
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #45  
Old Yesterday, 09:07 PM
Ματθιας's Avatar
Ματθιας Ματθιας is online now
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Nuke City
Posts: 774
Likes: 104
Liked 1,231 Times in 406 Posts
Default

Call me cynical but, Politics/money will dictate what the next weapon will be and the contact will be written in favor of whatever company has the best lobbyists.
__________________
Thread Killer.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #46  
Old Yesterday, 09:29 PM
derek45auto's Avatar
derek45auto derek45auto is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 361
Likes: 69
Liked 522 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Keep the M4 carbine, and spend my tax dollars on properly maintaining them

....and training
__________________
NRA Life
USPSA/IPSC
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #47  
Old Today, 07:57 AM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 766
Liked 3,633 Times in 1,128 Posts
Default

After WWII, the allies concluded that nearly all engagements took place at ranges under 300 meters.

The allies also noted the effectiveness of the German 7.92x33mm Kurz, designated the Pistolenpatrone M43 by the Germans, and the StG 44 that was chambered for the round. It was identified as a pistol cartridge as Hitler would not allow production of a new battle rifle, but was fine with development of a new sub machine gun. After the StG 44 proved its worth and was accepted the cartridge was reclassified as a "short rifle" round - the Kurzpatrone 43

It was in fact an intermediate power rifle cartridge and the StG was arguably the first true assault rife, designed for controllable selective fire with an intermediate power cartridge. The StG 44 was not as accurate a the 7.92x57mm Mauser rifles, but it was still effective at ranges out to 300 meter - which meshed very nicely with the realities of infantry engagements.

The concept was immediately copied by the Soviets as the 7.62x39 and used first in the SKS and after the war in the AK-47 and is still used with great success at ranges out to about 300 meters.

The FN FAL was designed just after WWII and was originally chambered in .280 British. The .280 British bore had a land diameter of .276 and a groove diameter of .284 and used what we'd all agree to day was a 7mm/.284 diameter bullet.

In addition to the excellent exterior ballistics associated with most 7mm bullets, the caliber was also selected as Britain had done extensive research prior to WWI on the optimum bullet diameter associated with the noted effect of bullets tumbling in flesh after impact. They found that that a .276 bullet was the optimum diameter, and this in fact referred to the land diameter, or as we'd call it now a .284 caliber bullet.

So in effect, the Brits designed the .280 British to use a projectile that was both ballistically efficient and made the most of the loophole in the Hauge accords that banned expanding bullets but didn't proscribe FMJ bullets that tumbled and/or fragmented. The .280 British cartridge was also designed to deliver an intermediate level of power that made it both effective out to around 400 meters, yet still very controllable in the FAL in full auto fire. The bullet weighed 140 grains and was launched at a velocity of 2,550 fps. This was slightly better than the Soviet M53's 123 gr bullet at 2,420 fps, but still very controllable in the FAL / L1A1.

Then we got involved in the whole process. Our American generals were impressed with the performance of the .30-06 in the M1 Garand and largely ignored all the research that suggested it was in fact overkill. They recognized the need for a selective fire weapon, but wanted it in the equivalent of the venerable .30-06 as they were still hung up on the concept of a full power battel rifle cartridge.

Part of the reasoning here was also that a .30-06 derivative could be made more affordably on existing .30-06 tooling and the shorter round that would become the .308 Win / 7.62x51 was designed to be shorter than the .30-06 and better suited to a selective fire service rifle, while offering very similar performance and the ability to be made on existing tooling with only a few changes.

The British compromised by modifying the .280 British to use the same case head dimension as the .30-06 and called it the .280/30. The US still refused to accept anything less than the 7.672x51, with the result that we forced it on to NATO countries as the NATO standard round, and then within less than a decade started developing a new round because the M14 was all but uncontrollable in full auto fire.

The US then over shot the mark and downsized to the .223 Rem / 5.56mm NATO. Initially it wasn't a horrible choice as the M193's 55 gr FMJ at 3,280 fps had good penetration (a steel helmet at 500 yards) and tumbled and fragmented on impact with human targets at ranges out to 150 meters and tumbled at ranges of about 200 meters. However, when the US adopted the heavier 62 gr SS109 round in the M16A2 with the M855 cartridge reduced the velocity and the fragmentation and tumbling ranges to around 100 and 150 meters respectively. Then the US adopted the shorter M4 carbine, which further reduced the velocity and the associated fragmentation range to about 50 meters and the tumbling range to about 100 meters. Consequently, over the years the 5.56x45 has become a very poor cartridge in terms of terminal performance on the modern battle field.

Now...we're fixing to screw it all up once again.

We've experimented with the 6.8 SPS, with a 115 gr, .277 caliber FMJ bullet at 2,575 fps and with the 6.5 Grendel which will launch a 130 grain, .264" bullet at 2,510 fps. Both of these are solid intermediate rounds with performance in between the Soviet M43 and the .280 British.

However, both these rounds will also feed through existing M16 and M4 weapons and magazines with only a barrel change required to update an M16 or M4 to use either of these new rounds, and as many of us know, it takes 15 minutes or less to swap out a barrel on an M16/M4/AR-15 with common hand tools.

In short, in a matter of months we could be fielding either of these rounds in existing service rifles and carbines and put a much more effective weapon in the hands of our troops with minimal training or cost needed to make the transition.

And, we'd be right back where we should have been 70 years ago, just after WWII, with an efficient and effective intermediate round. In fact, if we had adopted the .280 British in the first place in 1948, we'd all be marveling at how well the round had served us for the last 70 years and how effective it still was.

However, we probably won't adopt the .6.8 SPC or the 6.5 Grendel, nor keep the familiar M16A2 and M4 as neither approach will involve much profit for military contractors who would much prefer the US military to develop a new cartridge and new weapons system to replace the current 5.56x45 cartridge and the M16 and M4 series rifles and carbines.

The big losers will be our current troops who'll have to continue to carry an ineffective weapon for at least the next decade and the tax payers who will have to foot the bill while the US military and its contractors try to re-invent the wheel - and who once again for the third time in 70 years will probably screw it up.

Last edited by BB57; Today at 08:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #48  
Old Today, 10:14 AM
white cloud white cloud is offline
Member
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Way Down South
Posts: 594
Likes: 717
Liked 629 Times in 277 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telecaster View Post
I went along with internet lore on M14 vs M16, .308 vs 5.56, etc. till I saw this video from SmallArmsSolutions, Why I despise the M14. I thought Pfft, this clickbait otta be good for a laugh. But the guy seems to know what hes talking about and convinced me.

YouTube

As for the armys next rifle, Im sure itll be something made obsolete by the next generation of warfare before its ever fielded.
I am not sure if my father knew much about the FAL, but this guy's comments about the M14 pretty much mirror my father's thinking except the bent barrel issue.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #49  
Old Today, 12:57 PM
hkcavalier's Avatar
hkcavalier hkcavalier is offline
US Veteran
Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army Thoughts on possible rifles for the Army  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 395
Liked 2,116 Times in 682 Posts
Default

I'm just a junior officer, but I can state pretty emphatically that all the small arms action involves increasing hit probability, not the lethality of an individual projectile.

The future is a durable HUD tied/zeroed to the ballistics of the weapon in hand. I posted above about some neat possibilities that I personally would like to see, but it's not what the DoD is looking into. Individual soldier/Marine HUD has been on the wish list since the 1980s.
__________________
Psalm 27:2
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Continental Army/ U.S.Army, is another year older today. the ringo kid The Lounge 12 06-18-2017 11:50 PM
U.S. Army 1917.....your thoughts since........ moralem S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 29 02-21-2016 04:22 PM
US Army Seal for Army Military Status legelegel FORUM OFFICE 0 01-25-2015 05:32 PM
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO OWNERS OF S&W M&P15-22 RIFLES AND M&P15 CENTERFIRE RIFLES Evile Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles 0 03-18-2010 08:29 PM
Thoughts On The M&P Rifles torrejon224 Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 12 12-21-2008 05:29 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.42 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2018
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)