HOUSTON RICK
Member
It dont matter what the troops get, they are meant to be "expended" like bullets. What is important is the graft and payola that will keep generations of the decision makers families from working.
Spine chilling ...
- Thread starter Arthury
- Start date
sigp220.45
US Veteran
So a German gun built in the US is replacing a Belgian gun built in the US?
Not so spinechilling.
I trust the Marines to do a decent job picking something for themselves.
I've had an HK MP5 issued to me for 20 years - actually a succession of them since they stayed in the office when I transferred. It might as well have been the same gun - they were all boringly reliable. None ever jammed. Not once. We can barely get six guys with M4 clones through a course of fire without some kind of malfunction, but my little kraut subgun just keeps chugging along.
If this new gun is anywhere near as good the USMC will be well served.
Not so spinechilling.
I trust the Marines to do a decent job picking something for themselves.
I've had an HK MP5 issued to me for 20 years - actually a succession of them since they stayed in the office when I transferred. It might as well have been the same gun - they were all boringly reliable. None ever jammed. Not once. We can barely get six guys with M4 clones through a course of fire without some kind of malfunction, but my little kraut subgun just keeps chugging along.
If this new gun is anywhere near as good the USMC will be well served.
jag312
Member
This new thing is nothing more than the latest derivative of the M16. What ever happened to my beloved M60?
They wore out, like anything mechanical....
Kavinsky
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 33
HK? didnt they make that 416 that finally fixed the gas system on the long suffering M16 design?
if so I'm all for it, too many people have died from that rifles troublesome gas system not working like it should when they needed it. Although that still doesnt fix the stopping power and lack of range that .223 cartridge has, but that's why they came out with that .25 grendal cartridge a few years ago.
if so I'm all for it, too many people have died from that rifles troublesome gas system not working like it should when they needed it. Although that still doesnt fix the stopping power and lack of range that .223 cartridge has, but that's why they came out with that .25 grendal cartridge a few years ago.
Last edited:
OP
Arthury
Member
OP
Arthury
Member
I doubt HK is the one that came up with the piston design. Every major AR manufacturer out there in the US has a piston-driven design (Colt, LWRCI, Ruger, LMT, Bushmaster etc.)
The first piston-driven AR was designed and produced back in 1963 by ArmaLite (of California)
AR-18
Last edited:
OP
Arthury
Member
The Direct Impingement (DI) design is simple and it works ... from the mouth of a SpecOps soldier who was determined to find out what this myth is all about ...
Is DI really unreliable?
Is DI really unreliable?
Last edited:
anglaispierre
Member
Who cares who makes them provided the guns do what they are intended to do and it produces jobs for you guys.
Kavinsky
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 33
I didnt say no stopping power, I said lack of stopping power meaning its not as great as the old standard 30 - 06 or .308 and lacks the range of those calibers.
as noted by the fact that their lightening M14's, modernising them and sending them out to troops since the enemy has been sitting just beyond 600 yards which is just the limit of the 223 cartridges range as of late, which probably is exactly what would have happened if we had ever fought the russians back in the 60's with the damn thing.
after all the M16 rifle just plain wasnt designed for actual combat in mind, it was a guards rifle that just happened to be very light, handy and hold alot of ammo in a smaller space than the 30 - 06
and the gas pistol design has been around for forever and used on thee most reliable rifle designs since the begining of WW2, most notibly the garand and the AK 47, its just that with the M16 they removed the piston and made it direct injection causing the bolt cracking problem some troops have been having, not to mention how cheap the materals were and how weak the steel was on the early ones.
So I think the ideal inbetween would be an M16 with a gas pistol design like the 416, the AK and the garand in an intermediate cartridge between the .30 - 06/.308 and the .223, which just so happens to be the .25 cal grendal
and I think the same thing should apply to the 9mm and the .45, give them .40's with a better designed gun than the 92 fs that can take the higher pressure nato ammo.
and FYI the reason why I think the cartridge should be upped on both the rifle and the pistol is because they cant use hollowpoints with either of them because of the geneva convention so they just have to size them up to do the job, theres just no other way, its either that or use heavier loads with FMJ.
Last edited:
dcxplant
Member
OP
Arthury
Member
Thanks for chiming in ...
I agree with you that a 308 (or 30-06) round would, in general, have more stopping power than 5.56mm and the range of the 5.56mm is certainly less than the 30 caliber rounds.
Incidentally, the early reports from the Vietnam War indicated that while the enemies who were shot with a 308 round died at the spot he was shot, the ones shot with a 5.56mm died not too far from the point of impact. This is due to the fact that the early M193 (5.56mm) round fragmented easily upon entering soft tissue and actually inflicted more internal damage than the more current SS109 (62 grain).
As for the distance, a general-use assault rifle is seldom used for ranges more than 500 yds. In fact, most of the engagements are discharged in less than 100 yds; more likely less than 50 yds. I remember going thru urban fighting training, the Israelis (our instructors) warned us that urban fighting will require 3-5 times more ammo than other types of scenarios. As such, I think one will get bogged down pretty quickly with the same number of 308 rounds.
For long distance shooting (600 yds and beyond), I believe we have Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), M24, Barrette 50BMG, CheyTec50 and other more accurate rifles for the snipers.
Where and when was this stated? I'd be interested to read more about this.
Interesting ... I know of jamming issues in the early release due to change of ammunition composition which was quickly rectified back to the original ammo and the jamming went away. I have not heard of bolt cracking.
sourdough44
Member
I'm thinking it will be a fine weapon.
Kavinsky
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 672
- Reaction score
- 33
with the guards rifle thing it was something my father taught me as he was in the airforce for radar school during the 1950's till he was picked up RCA in 62' or 63' for radar work installing radars in places like alaska.
basically I think he found out about it either from there or from one of his buddies who stayed in the airforce.
ill ask him latter about this as I'm not sure where he got this information but I do think its true since in a way I think the M16 rifle does really resemble the gun he was assigned from back then and kept too, the M1 Carbine which was a guards weapon on the airforce base he was on and they were assigned that as well to protect the equipment if anyone broke in and tried to steal stuff off of the planes or sabotage them
with the 600 yards thing that's just what i've heard but I dont quite know either, but I think that the miltary was basically issuing snipers the .223 M16 rifle rather than the M14 .308 because thats what they just had on hand.
basically it might be best to list that under the military screw up column along with them issuing glock magazines instead of beretta mags to the soldiers.
IE not giving them what they really needed to do their job and these might be the kind of snipers trying to pick off people from afar like that guy with the barette .50 call on the side of the road from a mile away or whatever.
but for close up I wouldnt really doubt the efectiveness of a .223 too much its just I dont really trust the M16 design because of the stories I've heard about it like that girl whos M16/M4 rifle jammed on her in a truck when she really needed it to work, ending up in her publicized capture at the begining of the war a few years ago
and I'm an avid springfield 30 - 06 A3/M14/Garrand fan and I just plain dont care for the .223 cartridge although I do kind of like the look of the M4 and the Styer AUG with none of the **** on it that they do in iraq, I just wouldnt really trust the current M16/ M4's with my life if I could help it.
with the bolt cracking its supposedly something that just happens over time with worn versions of the gun that are in service and it might be something that only happens to neglected rifles but on the other hand your in the military, you should be able to trust your rifle and handgun to work under all conditions regardless if it was cleaned in the past hour or past month.
basically I think a military grade rifle or handgun should be up to par with the old miltary guns of yesteryear, damn near indestructible, and even if they're broken they'll still fire fine like My WW2 Walther P38 did with a cracked slide atleast for 50 - 100 rounds (FYI I didnt know it was cracked at the time otherwise I wouldnt have done that!)
and that thing is still in operation and working fine after I got another slide for it and had the recoil springs replaced, now thats a quality gun!
Last edited:
OP
Arthury
Member
Thanks for the info ... interesting reading.
My understanding is the M16 was initially purchased in a relatively small number by the Air Force, and issued to airmen guarding bases, and it was eventually introduced to Viet Nam. Other branches of the armed services became interested and adopted the rifle. One version was the CAR 15, a short barreled version (11 inches if I recall correctly). The direct impingement method of cycling the action on these short barrelled version was quite abrupt, and the harsh cycling caused some cracking in the locking lugs of the bolt. I understand this issue still existed until recently in the M4, but don't know of any first hand accounts. Other experts on this forum may have better information than I do, but this is my understanding from talking with vets and former specop guys....
617X10
Member
I'll admit, I'm just not an HK fan. Some love them, I guess it's the Jack Bauer factor. I think their weapons are overpriced (stamped slides, polymer frames, and o-rings for barrel bushings...they should be cheaper than glocks) and I've heard many accounts that their customer service is horrible. Their stance on the 2nd amendment may have something to do with that.
