testtest

Return of the Battle Rifle

Talyn

Talyn

SAINT
Founding Member
The battle rifle is back. A new generation of Service rifle and Squad Automatic Weapon, with a common cartridge, select-fire and greater effective range, is coming with it.

Return of the Battle Rifle

1650563634888.png
 
According to most articles on the NGSW, it is going to be given to “front line” tier units. About 25% of the Army. 75% will still use the M4…. For now
 
Recusant said:
Something to add to Talyn's informative thread:

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

The XM5 and 6.8x51 Ammunition Will Be a Decisive Advantage. U.S. Allies Should Adopt It, Too - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ In yesterday’s press conference announcing SIG SAUER’s victory in the Next Generation Squad Weapon competition, Army officials said America’s likely future adversaries were a key factor in the final choice. The XM5 (a variant of the SIG MCX) and the XM250 machine...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Click to expand...
The author in that article stated the M5 has a 16" barrel but it doesn't, it has a 13" barrel.

Also, she stated that..."In other words, we’re not talking about fighting insurgents and goat herders.". Well, one of the main reasons the US Army went to a higher performance cartridge was that the 5.56 was out-ranged in Afghanistan, and in some cases in Iraq.
 
It’s funny…Big Green has been dancing around this caliber for damn near a century, and yet always goes back to .30.

I wonder if it will truly “take”, or, if in a short while, the military will find “problems” with it.
 
HansGruber said:
It’s funny…Big Green has been dancing around this caliber for damn near a century, and yet always goes back to .30.

I wonder if it will truly “take”, or, if in a short while, the military will find “problems” with it.
Click to expand...
The USA has been using the .30 cal for 130 yrs. in one way or another. It will still be around for awhile, (7.62x51) but is out-performed by the new 6.8x51.

If they can successfully convert the M240 to 6.8x51 then that will shorten that run, until the last 7.62 DMR rifles are retired/replaced.
 
Battle rifles were made to last, and the last American battle rifle was the M14.

AR type rifles are not made to last, but you can recycle them with your aluminum soda & beer cans
 
Wannabewoodsman said:
I never liked the 5.56 NATO when I was in. Thought it was too small
Click to expand...
It was my understanding from reading many scholars of military doctrine, that the 5.56 and 9mm in US servce use came about for 1 reason:

Training

Larger calibers take on average longer to learn and train to fully utilize their potential.

Why not everyone is trained to be “spec ops” or tank crewman. Its about time and training.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
It was my understanding from reading many scholars of military doctrine, that the 5.56 and 9mm in US servce use came about for 1 reason:

Training

Larger calibers take on average longer to learn and train to fully utilize their potential.

Why not everyone is trained to be “spec ops” or tank crewman. Its about time and training.
Click to expand...
Not just that, necessarily, but weight and costs as well. Costs in fatigue due to weight, finances, rounds per kill were skyrocketing due to poor marksmanship skills in the civilian life.. a lot of reasons.

My understanding, in part, that the 9mm was adopted is because the 1911 was too large for women to shoot well with
 
KillerFord1977 said:
It was my understanding from reading many scholars of military doctrine, that the 5.56 and 9mm in US servce use came about for 1 reason:

Training

Larger calibers take on average longer to learn and train to fully utilize their potential.

Why not everyone is trained to be “spec ops” or tank crewman. Its about time and training.
Click to expand...
I still never liked it the 5.56
 
I apologize if this seems like a silly question, but I really am curious. Does the term "Battle Rifle" have a widely-accepted definition? The media keeps throwing out generic, and often meaningless, terms like "Weapons of War". Is a Battle Rifle a rifle that was officially adopted by a military force for use in combat, or does the term apply to any rifle that was designed for use in combat, regardless of actual military adoption? I did see that Wikipedia has an entry for Battle Rifles, but I take Wikipedia entries with a grain of salt until I verify them through other sources.
 
wmg1299 said:
I apologize if this seems like a silly question, but I really am curious. Does the term "Battle Rifle" have a widely-accepted definition? The media keeps throwing out generic, and often meaningless, terms like "Weapons of War". Is a Battle Rifle a rifle that was officially adopted by a military force for use in combat, or does the term apply to any rifle that was designed for use in combat, regardless of actual military adoption? I did see that Wikipedia has an entry for Battle Rifles, but I take Wikipedia entries with a grain of salt until I verify them through other sources.
Click to expand...
Since the M14 is America's last Battle Rifle, you look to the Battle rifles that preceded it...

the M1 Garand is a Battle Rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top