“I’m very positive in my outlook that the Army is going to see a new carbine,”

Full auto, while handy in a extremely narrow range of scenarios, by and large is wasteful. Burst is more functional to the Infantryman. Every time Ive used my M4 its been well aimed shots in Semi mode. Burst is a decent alternative but I find Semi much more effective.
Click to expand...

Yep. FA has its place, but you don't need every soldier running around with the capability.


In 2006, my unit held an informal (and non-standard) qualification with burst and FA fire in full MOPP gear (new suits, at the time). Out of 25 shooters, only three qualified on burst ... and one made expert.
I'll give you one guess, as to who the expert was.... ;)

No one qualified on FA, and most shooters sprayed stray projectiles into the swamp more than they hit the berm behind their targets (let alone actually hitting the target).
 

It looks like a 223 barrel, but with linked shot shells for feeding....

Exciting, but ...UGLY.



-tINY

 
I've said it before in other threads but full auto and burst fire must be part of marksmanship training to be effective. Too many soldiers try it once, are disappointed, then spend the next 20 years saying it doesn't work. It takes training and NCOs who know how to shoot full auto properly to teach soldiers to be proficient. It has a place in combat, it needs a place in training.

OK, I'll stop beating the dead horse now.
 
Oh wow...

After posting my last, it hit me...fathers and even grandfathers that served slung around basically the same rifle that is issued to today's grunts. Wow. That's testament to its adaptability.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble,but my Grandfather was issued the M1903 Springfield in WW1,and my father was issued the M1 Garand in WW2.:D
 
Yep. FA has its place, but you don't need every soldier running around with the capability.
Click to expand...

Then you train your soldiers how and when to apply fully automatic fire, and you have quality NCOs who'll break a foot off in their backside if they refuse to learn.

Three round burst on the M16A2/A4 and M4 is a tacit admission by the US military that it cannot effectively train its personnel to use their weapons properly, and so has to take effective tools out of their hands. (Or more exactly it's a tacit admission that in the 1980s senior leadership in the USMC and US Army did not believe their organizations were capable of effectively training their personnel to use their weapons properly -- which is probably more disturbing when you consider the implications of the more nuanced statement.)
 
It looks like a 223 barrel, but with linked shot shells for feeding....
Click to expand...

I think it's one of the prototypes for caseless ammunition. Interesting idea, but in practice it has one major drawback- the brass case functions as a disposable heat sink, allowing the weapon to cool itself by ejecting the spent case. Caseless setups do not do that, so heat dissipation is a real issue.
 
They're also more complicated than traditional designs. The HK G11 is a good example.
Click to expand...


WOW. It's like somebody said "I really want a rifle, but I also really want a mechanical Swiss watch. Can we combine the two?" :D
 
Oh wow...

After posting my last, it hit me...fathers and even grandfathers that served slung around basically the same rifle that is issued to today's grunts. Wow. That's testament to its adaptability.

Sorry to burst your bubble,but my Grandfather was issued the M1903 Springfield in WW1,and my father was issued the M1 Garand in WW2.
Click to expand...

I could say the same about my grandfather ('03-1917 Enfield) and my father (M1 & M1 Carbine)

But fast forward:

I was issued a M16a1 in SE Asia, my kids (and wife) used M16s in this war, My grandson is using the the M16. Thats about 45 years of using the M16, Neither the '03 or M1s lasted that long, closest comes to the 1911a1.

Guess it depends on if you are talking about OUR Grandfathers or OUR Grandkids.
 
The rifle they NEED to purchase isn't even on the list...the H&K 416 & 417 are far superior to everything on that list to replace the M-16/M4,
you can drop 'em in the mud/water/sand and then pick 'em up and start firing like an AK47!!
Click to expand...

Nope. AR manufacturers will still be making the AR, due to it's superiority in the battelfield. Especially high-end manufacturers (Noveske, BCM, DD, Colt, LMT, Larue, VLTOR, etc)
 
referring to the gun in the picture I notice it appears to have an ejection port. It would be my suggestion that the weapon is using some type of telescoping plastic case. The plastic is ejected after firing along with the heat of the combustion.

Than again it may be something else like what has already been described.
 
The one feature of the M2 that I've wondered how it lasted so long was the adjustable head space and timing. I never really saw the benefit in that as it seemed an unnecessary complication. We sure did spend quite a bit of time training on setting the head space and timing on those things.
Click to expand...

Checking timing and headspace was, for us Navy guys, about a one minute operation, as I recall. Maybe a little less. We checked it every time we came on watch.

I always liked the M2 - but I never had to hump one around. If I did, I probably wouldn't feel the same. All I know is that I put a few thousand rounds down range over the course of five years and they never failed me.

Now, as far as rifles went, heck, all we had in the late '80s and early '90s were four M14s. They were great line-throwing guns. I think that one or two of them were select fire. Never did see a black gun in my ten years.
 
Guess it depends on if you are talking about OUR Grandfathers or OUR Grandkids.
Click to expand...

This is so true.:D

My father was given the opportunity to fire the M16A1,afterwords,he told me it felt like a cheap child's toy pop gun,compared to the Garand he was issued. However,he told me he did see the merit of it,less weight to lug around as well as more rounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top