Army wants a new rifle?

[Michael777]

Have you guys heard anything about this. I saw something on the internet talking about the army's desire to switch to a new rifle that has longer range.

I think it would probably make the most sense to keep the m4s, just switch to longer barrels and a round like 6.5.

What do you guys think? Is there any truth to this?

[Quiet]

IMO...

Every decade or so, the US Military says they want something new.

This is so they can see what's out there and see if the industry has anything innovative yet.

Truth is, until man portable projected energy weapons become reality, they really don't want anything new.

[Michael777]

I can see that. But if they're digging up m14's from the armory doesn't that signal maybe there truly is a need for something longer range?

[stitchnicklas]

this is why god created snipers with 300win and 308win

[stormvet]

I haven't heard of anything concrete lately, but with Trump in office it's good timing. But I think they have settled on just some upgrades to the M-4 and designated unit snipers with longer reach for places like Afghanistan.

[Cpl. Haas]

I think it would probably make the most sense to keep the m4s, just switch to longer barrels and a round like 6.5.

Not likely to happen... NATO standardization has always dictated caliber with some special exceptions. With troop buildups in Europe again, I wouldn't expect that to be dropped.

[LowThudd]

This?

HK Shows Off the US Army’s M110A1 CSASS Compact Sniper Rifle | SHOT 17

That is the only thing I could think of.

[Quiet]

This?



That is the only thing I could think of.

The M-110A1 (H&K G28) is the designated replacement for the M-110 (KAC SR25).

[Merc1138]

I can see that. But if they're digging up m14's from the armory doesn't that signal maybe there truly is a need for something longer range?

Yeah, but it's not like they're issuing those to everyone.

It seems the biggest problem in replacing the M4 and its variants, is logistics. Is there something better enough to justify the massive cost in swapping to a new platform for every rifle issued? Well, the answer to that seems to always be "no".

Same thing with sidearms too. There's been what, 3 trials since the beretta was adopted, and the army just only finally decided to go with something else? ANd that's after the 1911 was replaced with the beretta, it's not as if trials weren't conducted over and over while the 1911 was being issued for decades.

Same thing with the USSR and now Russia. They've tried all sorts of crap over the years since the ak-47,and all they've really got so far is a different cartridge and some furniture over the years. There's the AN-94 that basically went nowhere because it was a cluster**** with pulleys and wires(seriously, pulleys) and the AK-107 that has been in perpetual testing for decades.

[wpage]

Going from the Berretta to Sig in Pistol realms. Rifle world likes to keep up the M16/AR15 Platform has been out there now for some time. Like the man said they are always looking to improve on weaponry for the combat boot on the ground.

[AceGirlsHusband]

Schmidt & Bender optics. My wallet emptied itself on one of those not too long back...

[OlderThanDirt]

The problem with longer range is the weight associated with the ammo. Walk around the house for an hour carrying 1,000 rounds of 5.56 NATO, then repeat with 1,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO. Then consider the logistics of moving millions of rounds and you come to the conclusion that a larger caliber is fine for a small number of trained personnel and applications, while 5.56 NATO is fine for the masses and current tactics. Obviously there are exceptions and personal preferences for specific applications. Aside from the NATO standards issue, the cost of changing weapon platforms and caliber is not trivial and hard to justify in the absence of a significant tactical advantage.

[Untamed1972]

All things considered....the "firearm" as we know it today has likely reached its pinnacle of evolution as far as basic operations go. Changing materials, ergonomics, accessories, optics etc yes.....but basic operations and ballistics etc wont change much. So unless we move like say "laser guided bullets" or something like that....a new rifle doesn't really change things much.

And rifles are like the tools in my tool box. There is no "one tool does it all" in my tool box. No one rifle will do it all on the battlefield.

[robledo]

The Army will get a new rifle when enough senators buy enough shares of a certain firearms manufacturer, while assuring domestic production takes place in their state.

[floogy]

I think they're interested in an intermediate cartridge larger than 5.56. I think the Army shooting team uses .260 USA. Something in that size range like the 6.5 Grendel.

It would be very difficult for a squad of Marines/Soldiers to contend with a 7.62 machine gun at 600-800m when armed primarily with 5.56 and maybe a DMR and 240. Particularly in Afghanistan where engagement distances are typically longer than the urban centers of Iraq. Terry Taliban has had decades of experience fighting us and the Russians and most of them probably know the max effective range of a rifle squad right off the top of their head and will stay just outside of it when possible. Depending on what's going on, they might just have to wait on air or artillery support.

I think the 6.5 would be a good intermediate round that is designed to work with a rifle they already use. Anyone that's been in the US military in the past 40 years is familiar with it. Armorers would need very little additional training, practically the only difference other that ammo is the barrel, bolt and mags. Ammo is heavier, but what good is lighter ammo if it won't reach past about 500m and the bad guys are at 700.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk