Army looking for a Carbine.

reply to post by macman

The message is clear: The Army isn’t looking for the lowest bidder...

Hahaha! That is rich. Too funny. Gotta love this BS line.

Why doesn't the article mention the other rifles that they recently tested? Well, lets see if RobArms XCR, Magpul's Masada, and others will get a chance to shine.

reply to post by guppy

Why doesn't the article mention the other rifles that they recently tested? Well, lets see if RobArms XCR, Magpul's Masada, and others will get a chance to shine.

There testing carbines...
RobArms makes and XCR-L (nine inch barrel) that fits the carbine size
but the Masada is more of a main battle rifle... to big...

reply to post by DaddyBare


The 6.5mm MPC is a 5.56 necked up to 6.5mm. The advantage is that the only change necessary to existing rifles is the chamber/barrel and likely the mass of the bolt.

www.strategypage.com... and others...search on 6.5mm MPC

reply to post by DaddyBare


Too big? Yes. But that doesn't mean the companies can make a carbine version and go for a gov't contract worth BIG $$$.

reply to post by pteridine


In that regard... the New Colt SP901 fits the bill without the need to introduce a new cartridge...
A flattop design in 7.62x51 NATO (.308) upper receiver group can be easily swapped out for any Mil-Spec Colt upper receiver chambered in .223 Rem (5.56x45 NATO). the lower already accepts mags for either the 7.62 or the 5.56 so how cool is that???

Here's a link

reply to post by guppy


Bushmaster was invited to the table when the army announced testing for a Main Battle rifle M/4 replacement..
They did sign up for testing but never supplied the weapons????

never heard what the FNAFU was????

reply to post by DaddyBare


Nice rifle. I am 50/50 on the Colt. Great rifle but the price is steep.

The 308/7.62 round is my loved round. Great ballistics, great impact and energy. I know the theories behind it not being used as the main battle round, but I can't see why it is not demanded by the personnel on the ground.

reply to post by macman


The real reason is "Recoil Sensitivity"
Back in 1952 some army big shot figured that the 7.62 round, then standard issue in the M14 was too much for a lot thier recruts to handle properly... so the army commissioned a study... like they are now... and settled on the 5.56 not for it's ability to kill but due to it's light recoil that gave solders the ability to get back on target quickly after each shot...

from Wiki

In a series of mock-combat situations testing in the early 1960s with the AR-15, M14 and AK-47, the Army found that the AR-15's small size and light weight allowed it to be brought to bear much more quickly. Their final conclusion was that an 8-man team equipped with the AR-15 would have the same firepower as a current 11-man team armed with the M14. U.S. troops were able to carry more than twice as much 5.56×45mm ammunition as 7.62×51mm for the same weight, which would allow them a better advantage against a typical NVA unit armed with AK-47s.

During the 1970s, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62 mm NATO. Of the cartridges tendered, the 5.56 mm was successful, but not the 5.56 mm loading (3.56 g (55 gr), M193 Ball) as used by the U.S. at that time. The wounds produced by the M193 round were so devastating that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)[5] and many countries (Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Romania, Samoa, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.)[6] considered the 5.56×45mm cartridge to be inhumane.[7][8]

Anyway... that's how it came to be... and the reason most folks dont know about the better 7.62... their not trained with one...

they would not like my design, 30-06 round free 1/3 r floating bolt, gas op, 20 round clip/ 100 round option , S/ semi/ Full Auto L/R 10 lb full loaded one in 1/12 twist 28" barl recoil of a m4 any thoughts? oh yea 3 round burst on semi (S) one shot, not your BAR M14 now is it? BMAW, 1700 yard range.

reply to post by bekod


Sounds good...but...

Here's the thing... about every five years the army announces one of these comps..
but there hasn't been any new weapons added for what... two decades now... not since the M4...
three years ago my beloved Marine Corps tried to switch from the M4 to an HK chambered in 7.62 the orders were places and I believe they were ready to ship when congress killed it... cost to much...

so for all the talk... who knows... maybe they get their toy, maybe not...

Nothing says I'm a big boy like an M4. But, nothing says I's a real man like an M14.

reply to post by macman


100 rounds = 8 lbs and 240 rounds thats a lot of added weight. I'm not complaining about weight I carried the 240b and was also an AG that carried a ton of rounds on top of my 5.56. But i was also 240. I can see how it would affect the smaller and not as strong guys.

Originally posted by elrey72011
reply to post by macman

 

100 rounds = 8 lbs and 240 rounds thats a lot of added weight. I'm not complaining about weight I carried the 240b and was also an AG that carried a ton of rounds on top of my 5.56. But i was also 240. I can see how it would affect the smaller and not as strong guys.

Ok, so give the little guys the M4.
I would gladly hump the m14 and ammo all day.

reply to post by macman


Ya know we do have a new version of the old M14...
the Mk 14 Mod 0... AKA ...EBR

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by macman

 

Ya know we do have a new version of the old M14...
the Mk 14 Mod 0... AKA ...EBR

Yep, and the variation of the M14 that Smith Enterprises is sending out.

Love me some M14

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by pteridine

 

In that regard... the New Colt SP901 fits the bill without the need to introduce a new cartridge...
A flattop design in 7.62x51 NATO (.308) upper receiver group can be easily swapped out for any Mil-Spec Colt upper receiver chambered in .223 Rem (5.56x45 NATO). the lower already accepts mags for either the 7.62 or the 5.56 so how cool is that???

The idea is to have something with better terminal ballistics without reducing ammo loadout and minimizing weight gain. The 6.5 MPC would do that.

Here you go!!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/521d22e774d9.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by DaddyBare
reply to post by macman

 

If I were doing the testing
there would be two I would want on my table come test firing
First the FN P90
youtu.be...

and the Kriss Super V
youtu.be...

both are small light and carry one hell of a punch

edit on 12-7-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)

great video, I have to say.

reply to post by majortackle


Technically the P90 and Kriss are submachine guns. But I do love those guns, especially the P90. Always wanted one. Too bad the price is steep (gun and ammo).

I was hoping the HK XM8 would win 6 years ago. HK XM8 seemed like a good weapons platform that can be configured according to the mission. Too bad it was cancelled. I think it would be a better option compared to FN SCAR and HK 416. Just seems to be a well thought out package.

HK XM8

Originally posted by macman
Nothing says I'm a big boy like an M4. But, nothing says I's a real man like an M14.

I've always been partial towards the M14....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00637b896172.jpg[/atsimg]