HCAR.. Tacticool or Practical?

[ThighSlapper]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEb4PzSfx0#t=11

[naimad]

FPS Russia also did a review on it

[REDdawn6]

Looks pretty badass to me!

[ThighSlapper]

I think its way bad A**. Should be in our military's tool shed for sure!

[Click Boom]

Why replace all the scars/m1a's with them though? Does it really do something they can't? I agree it looks cool but the military already has a few 30cal rifles.

[ducky_0811]

I think its mostly a showcase piece to get their name out there. There is nothing tactical about a .30-06 carbine, and definitely nothing practical.
There's a reason why we stopped. Using .30-06 as a battle cartridge a long time ago. But... If i had THAT much dispossible income i would probably buy one just to have as a range toy.

[Quiet]

Keep in mind, you can buy two FNH SCAR-17S for the price of one OOW HCAR.

[TMB 1]

I think its mostly a showcase piece to get their name out there. There is nothing tactical about a .30-06 carbine, and definitely nothing practical.
There's a reason why we stopped. Using .30-06 as a battle cartridge a long time ago. But... If i had THAT much dispossible income i would probably buy one just to have as a range toy.

I think the reason we stopped using 30-06 a long time ago is because it wouldn't fit in some of the other NATO countries rifles. 308 was designed to easily work in 30-06 chambered rifles.

[Jimmybacon43]

Cool but not practical

[Junkie]

I don't see much reason to go with 30-06 rather than 308 in factory loadings. And that thing is still 12lb and $$$... I'd go for the SCAR.

[ducky_0811]

Im going to need an explenation of how a 7.62 NATO will fire out of a .30-06 chamber.... We switched for a lot of reasons. One them being that NATO countries were almost all switching to .308. The other big reason was exactly why the BAR was probably one of yhe worst light machine guns during WW2. ammo is heavy, reducing the load out a soldier could carry. The military loading of .30-06 wasnt doing anything the 7.62 ball rounds werent. So the decision was easy, nato compatibility, more ammo per soldier, no loss in performance. There are many other reasons as well but those are the ones that stick out to me

[hambam105]

Not practical my foot!

Try to explain the unworthiness of the 30.06 cartridge to tens of thousands of Germans in WW1, a couple thousand more Germans with few Empire of Japan's Navy crew members thrown in by the tens of thousands about how worthless a BAR chambered in 7.62X63mm is. Did forget Korea? Silly me.

Even Hollywood got it right. Steve McQueen will show you how it's done in the movie, Sand Pebbles'.

The U.S. dropped the 30.06, 7.62X63mm, and went to the .308, 7.62X51mm, to shorten the action so to shorten the OAL of the rifle. 1949 is calling and wants their drawings & ideas back.

[TMB 1]

Im going to need an explenation of how a 7.62 NATO will fire out of a .30-06 chamber.... We switched for a lot of reasons. One them being that NATO countries were almost all switching to .308. The other big reason was exactly why the BAR was probably one of yhe worst light machine guns during WW2. ammo is heavy, reducing the load out a soldier could carry. The military loading of .30-06 wasnt doing anything the 7.62 ball rounds werent. So the decision was easy, nato compatibility, more ammo per soldier, no loss in performance. There are many other reasons as well but those are the ones that stick out to me

NATO countries were switching to it because we invented it so they could. They made an adapter that fits in 30-06 chamber. If it were to fall out 7.62x51/308 was designed to still work if being over run. I believe they tried the 300 Savage first but it wouldn't work if spacer was to fall out.

[hambam105]

The U.S. went to 7.62X51mm first, and NATO followed. .

The BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, is not a machine gun. It was used then, just as it can be used today, as a rifle.

The verbiage in the 1968 Gun Control Act classifies the mechanism inside the rifle as a machine gun. Civilians call the BAR a machine gun. The men who fought with the BAR, did not then, and do not now, refer to the instrument as a machine gun.

The 30.06, or 7.62X53mm, was standard issue rifle ammunition from pre-1917 to the late 1950s. And 30 cal ammo was not too heavy to carry.

M1 Garand carrying Marines wore ammo pouches filled with plenty of .30 cal ammo just fine up rock cliffs to plant the flag atop of Mt. Suribachi.

[TMB 1]

The U.S. went to 7.62X51mm first, and NATO followed. .

The BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle, is not a machine gun. It was used then, just as it can be used today, as a rifle.

The verbiage in the 1968 Gun Control Act classifies the mechanism inside the rifle as a machine gun. Civilians call the BAR a machine gun. The men who fought with the BAR, did not then, and do not now, refer to the instrument as a machine gun.

The 30.06, or 7.62X53mm, was standard issue rifle ammunition from pre-1917 to the late 1950s. And 30 cal ammo was not too heavy to carry.

M1 Garand carrying Marines wore ammo pouches filled with plenty of .30 cal ammo just fine up rock cliffs to plant the flag atop of Mt. Suribachi.

Yep that's why it's called the BAR and not the BMG. I've read no one wanted to carry it but you never seen one lying around the battle field for very long

Had it not been for the 30-06 and General Douglas MacArthur we'd be using a 7mm and the 7.62x51 wouldn't exist.