Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Chatting and General Stuff > General Discussion

General Discussion Must wear red or OD green socks to participate. I can't see your socks, please be honest.


Reply

The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:28 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sedalia, MO
Posts: 1,253
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

I'm on board with that. The 25mm I've seen is pretty impressive, no doubt about that. It should be, as the rounds I saw were then running about $800 a shot! Preproduction stuff and all that, so yeah, the prices would drop dramatically if they went into actual production. Still, they're not like a $3 piece of 50 BMG brass with a dollar or so's worth of powder and a $2 bullet, either. Cost effectivness study I saw showed what the rounds could accomplish with just a few rounds, compared with the several cases of ammo which a conventional M2 would be need to accomplish the same thing. Military economics, it's a wonderful thing.

Still, I recall some studies (and I'm sure several folks here are familiar with them) during the VietNam years that showed that it took something like 50,000 rounds of 5.56mm and 7.62mm to inflict a single NVA casualty. Somehow, I don't think the round's accuracy or energy levels were the real problem there, if you get my drift. Unfortunately, we're still dealing with some of that same mind set.
__________________
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:46 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SOCIALIST CONTROLLED TERRITORY OF NEW YORK
Posts: 4,394
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Thomas View Post
I'm on board with that. The 25mm I've seen is pretty impressive, no doubt about that. It should be, as the rounds I saw were then running about $800 a shot! Preproduction stuff and all that, so yeah, the prices would drop dramatically if they went into actual production. Still, they're not like a $3 piece of 50 BMG brass with a dollar or so's worth of powder and a $2 bullet, either. Cost effectivness study I saw showed what the rounds could accomplish with just a few rounds, compared with the several cases of ammo which a conventional M2 would be need to accomplish the same thing. Military economics, it's a wonderful thing.

Still, I recall some studies (and I'm sure several folks here are familiar with them) during the VietNam years that showed that it took something like 50,000 rounds of 5.56mm and 7.62mm to inflict a single NVA casualty. Somehow, I don't think the round's accuracy or energy levels were the real problem there, if you get my drift. Unfortunately, we're still dealing with some of that same mind set.
100% agrement here, its the traning that needs upgrading! I have heard those numbers before simply stagering. I was also not aware that M2 ball cost that much. Last case I handled was dated WW2. What does a match round cost?

800$ a shot my jaw droped! You must have a great job hope you got to shoot it.
__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
If you want to shoot Bergers start here!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...accuracy-1.php

Last edited by ICANHITHIMMAN; 02-07-2011 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:53 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sedalia, MO
Posts: 1,253
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

I'd have to look it up, as we don't really sell that many here in the US (my area), mostly military contracts and such. I deal primarily with the civilian market, and some of the specialty military contract stuff like the PSR project. I dabble around the edges of that stuff, and am aware of them, but don't deal with them for the most part. But yeah, a standard ball round for a .50 BMG round is sevberal bucks a pop. Step up to specialties like the RUAG HE round or one of the high end AP rounds and that price will jump several times over. Whackin' bad guys ain't cheap! We've had some requests for .50 BMG Match type rounds, but again, nothing moving in that area just yet.
__________________
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-07-2011, 06:09 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SOCIALIST CONTROLLED TERRITORY OF NEW YORK
Posts: 4,394
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

I felt guilty for about 1 second knowing how much of that stuff I have put down range and factoring the cost in my head. I think I droped the hammer on more money than they ever paid me in 9 years. I never even considerd the AP or ROFUS rounds good god.

not fimilar with PSR
__________________
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf"
If you want to shoot Bergers start here!
http://www.longrangehunting.com/arti...accuracy-1.php
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-07-2011, 09:30 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Montana Plains
Posts: 289
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

I trained on the M14 in the Navy. I owned an M1 Garand.

That's why I now have an FN FAL. Both M14 and M1 are second rate compared to it. Most of NATO used the FN FAL while we stuck to the M14 for what must be political reasons. My A.R.M.S. scope mount slides in and out of the upper receiver without any securing screws, holds zero, and returns to zero after dismounting and remounting. You can swap mount and scope in seconds and have zero concerns about a scope mount screw coming loose....because there aren't any (scope rings could have a screw loose, but it has never happened since 1994). My rifle shoots 1 MOA in pure stock configuration, except for the thumbhole Bell & Carlson stock Springfield Armory equipped them with. The flash suppressor was also left off to comply with import restrictions back in the early 90's. Sold as the SAR 4800 back then. For about $1000.

But back to the original intent of the thread. There is no use concerning yourself about changing the current issue rifles until the defense department decides to correct an earlier and far more basic problem with the ammo. A big mistake was made when small bore rifles adopted a breech locking system similar to large bore artillery pieces. Head spacing is a critical issue with the current system, and the bolt must be locked into the receiver before a round can be safely fired.

The Oerlikon autocannon solved both problems by used a rebated bolt that fit INTO the cartridge base, not over the cartridge base. The round could be shoved far into the chamber, with the bolt following it, far beyond the rear boundary of the chamber. There was no bolt lockup, because it was a simple blowback system. By the time the straightsided cartridge case extended beyond the rear of the chamber, the bullet was long gone and case pressure was far below maximum safe levels. There is zero headspacing problem, as the bolt shoves the cartridge to the front of the bore before firing. Look up the Oerlikon autocannon and see a good idea that was mostly wasted.

The proposed M/2030 round gives a choice of a small caliber, high speed sabot bullet and a large caliber, medium speed bullet out of the same barrel. Ammo can be suited to the task at hand, without changing barrels on a rifle or having to carry two different rifles. Give the M/2030 round a rebated case head and use a suitable bolt in a simple blowback system, and you have a new class of more reliable, more cost effective, easier to maintain, and more effective battle rifle. Don't expect it to happen very soon. The military is dogmatic and there are stockpiles of 5.56 and 7.62 NATO ammo needing to be used up, and lots of infrastructure to manufacture those rounds that is not worn out yet. Optical sights are not standard issue on all U.S. battle rifles, and that is a situation that is DECADES behind the times. Also, lack of suppressors to preserve hearing which can be critical in combat, not to mention future personal problems, is also many decades behind the times.

Defense Department is full of idiots (or more probably just self serving individuals who consider their position ahead of other considerations and you consider them idiots because of it), and what the common soldier has compared to what he could have in the way of a better rifle is only one proof of that.

The REAL solution to the problem is to grab the sons of the Puppetmasters and throw THEM into uniforms and let THEM get killed for the sake of Empire Amerika. All of a sudden, state-of-the-art weaponry would start showing up, as their sons would probably count for something to them. Your sons do NOT count for much of anything to them. Never have. Read some history books.

But also consider that a battle rifle means diddly squat compared to a Minuteman 3 or Trident nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile......or a stealth bomber or fighter. In event of a nuclear war, the main use of a battle rifle would be in its own country of origin controlling the civilian population.

How good of a battle rifle do you want controlling YOU if such an event occurs??? If such an event does not occur, history will keep repeating itself where soldiers die for the sake of those who use them for their own ends. Some things are more important to consider than how good is the basic weaponry of the conscripts.

If you want a good rifle, buy your own, and quit expecting somebody to give you one. For most of history, officers in charge of conscripts did just that. As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun.

Last edited by FAL Shot; 02-07-2011 at 09:37 PM. Reason: add info
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-08-2011, 10:04 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sedalia, MO
Posts: 1,253
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

As I said, the economics of all this is a bit interesting when you see how they actually formulate some of these decisions. Speaking with some of the guys from Lake City some time back, they mentioned how the cost of the weapon system is (really) insignificant, compared to the cost of the ammo it's expected to fire in its lifetime. Look at an M16/M4. A couple hundred bucks (or thereabouts) from the government contractor in a bulk purchase, but the military expects the barrel to last 10,000 rounds or more before a major overhaul. I've seen some that have undoubtedly gone a lot further than that, but yeah, that's a bucketload of 5.56mm rounds. Even at the volume price they can turn them out at the Army's LC ammo plant, 10K rounds of this dwarfs the purchase price of the gun itself. Holds true throughout most of our weapons systems, too. As far as feeling guilty, hey, that's what they paid us to do, right? Start throwing in M72 LAWs, SMAWs, TOWs or anything else that goes "boom" and it adds up. Then again, compared to the cost of two 110 stroy buildings, 4 commercial jets and 3,000 Americans, hey, just tell me what my part of the tab is and I'll write the check. Good on ya'!

PSR is the current Precision Sniper Rifle contract that's up for bid. This is primarily driven by SOCOM, but they've been looking at all-branch issue (the big army) for this rifle as well. The contract makes no specification of caliber, just performance requirements for accuracy at range, energy on target, that sort of thing. Our own 338 is the odds-on favorite so far, and looking pretty good.
__________________
Kevin Thomas
Lapua USA
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-08-2011, 12:03 PM
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 307
Re: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16

The SOCOM guys at Crane doing the procurement pull from all four services and they have plenty of experience they can and can't share with you (or me without a need to know). I think this is probably the best arena to make things change. However, from the big Army standpoint the problem is not simply how well a rifle performs, how reliable it is or how much punch it has. They have to look it from a System's Engineer point of view...every aspect of the problem needs to be weighed and balanced respectivey. The final decision may come down to the top dog. In the old days, things were driven from the top down. There's more chance now for change than ever was in the past.

Quite a few, if not most, of the Officer and civilian corps doing requirements and procurement for these and other big ticket items--especially for Soldier Systems--have had their dick in the dirt at one time or another...additionally, many at O-5 and above have kids that will serve or are serving...remember, we've been at war actively for quite a few years going back to Lebanon and First Gulf war. Many of us have friends who are still serving or kids now serving.

Somebody has to run the show...be in charge. At least those wearing uniforms (at that level of puppetmasters) in the Pentagon have a stake in this [their friends, and family currently serving] to do the best they can.

I can't vouch for the current civilian administration...

FAL is a decent weapon. So is the M4 and M16...none of them are perfect for every battlefield or tactic. I certainly don't see an "ideal" battle rifle on the horizon yet either...cased telescoped ammunition or plastic jacket ammo is pretty cool...some of the polymers are extremely robust and stable--they don't tarnish like brass or rust like steel...but there are still significant issues. I think in the long run they even want it biodegradeable. Why not even make it edible? Till your garden with the stuff or make some Lake City Stew!

"It's all plastics these Days!"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAL Shot View Post
Defense Department is full of idiots (or more probably just self serving individuals who consider their position ahead of other considerations and you consider them idiots because of it), and what the common soldier has compared to what he could have in the way of a better rifle is only one proof of that.

The REAL solution to the problem is to grab the sons of the Puppetmasters and throw THEM into uniforms and let THEM get killed for the sake of Empire Amerika. All of a sudden, state-of-the-art weaponry would start showing up, as their sons would probably count for something to them. Your sons do NOT count for much of anything to them. Never have. Read some history books.
__________________
Matt Roth
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: The Army is looking for a rifle to replace the m16
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Barrel won't shoot, replace? other options? cdherman Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 18 07-13-2010 08:22 AM
Help me decide what to do--rifle was stolen now to replace. joshua99ta Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics 4 11-05-2009 10:50 PM
How hard is it to replace a stock on a Savage? KQguy Gunsmithing 8 09-20-2008 12:32 AM
which new firing pin to replace the j lock one bigrich954rr General Discussion 2 10-04-2006 06:36 PM
how to replace a stock? I SHOOT STUFF Long Range Hunting & Shooting 3 12-18-2005 06:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC