I agree with Carl R. There are plenty of different variations of the AR-10, AR-15 that are very similar to the M4 and M16A2 that can many of the same accessories that these standard rifles are equipped with. Also, AR's have the choice of a switchout to the 5.56 in the Upper reciever. I think the military should switch the calibers only if the mission/objective requires it. It would be a waste of time and effort to exchange the standard rifles to a different one if a soldier does not need it.

Posted by: Jeremiah at September 20, 2008 04:56 PM

Many comments are made concerning ammo. 5.56 not big enough, 6.8, bigger, slower, 7.62, 7.62X39....my reply. Weapon and ammo work best when developed as a system. Ammo has not been forgotten. Expect, as our warfighers diserve, improvements in this area.

Posted by: bulletsrus at August 11, 2008 03:31 PM

It doesn't matter how advanced or superior this rifle is, for as long as there are no MARINES firing this weapon it is useless.

Posted by: PFC. Rodriguez at July 19, 2008 10:51 AM

"A point that seems to be missed here is that the caliber of the round is irrelvant."

The caliber of the round is NOT "irrelevant". It is one of 4 major factors that combine to determine "terminal balistics"... ie what happens when the round hits it's target.

1.caliber - larger = bigger "permanent" wound channel
2. velocity - larger "temporary" wound channel kind of like the wake behind a boat. Faster it goes the more tissue damage done... even by a smaller round.
3. Mass - more mass = more kinetic energy (linked to both the above) transferred to the target
4. Where you hit them. if you hit someone in the spinal cord with .22 you get a one shot stop. problem is... that is it. The problem with the current 5.56 is a. it does not expand (62gr NATO green tip is designed for penetration not to cause tissue damage) and b. it is being fired from a shorter barrel (14.5" M4 vs 20" M16) which = less muzzel velocity. the smaller and slower the round, the less damage and the more accurate you have to be to drop your target. Talk to any cop about shooting a suspect hyped up on drugs or any soldiers who has shot someone or been shot. The adrenalin rush of the fight has kept many from recognizing even severe wounds. You have to have a neuro/vascular hit or do a lot of damage.
You can't even hunt deer in the US with .223 (5.56mm). And this isn't hunting... In combat having to shoot the enemy 3-4 times before he is taken out of the fight is a bad thing. I can tell you the insurgents in Iraq can tell the difference when an M14 starts shooting at them. So you keep your .22, I'll take a 7.62, 6.8SPC, .270Rem, 6.5 grendel or at a minimum a 75gr 5.56mm

Posted by: Brad at May 27, 2008 12:21 PM

was just curios if they had a civilian model? if so how much do they cost? reply to email cus i dont get a chance too look at this website everyday. thank you
GO ARMY!!! HOOAH!!!

Posted by: bishop at April 29, 2008 01:41 PM

was just curios if they had a civilian model? if so how much do they cost? reply to email cus i dont get a chance too look at this website everyday. thank you
GO ARMY!!! HOOAH!!!

Posted by: bishop at April 29, 2008 01:40 PM

I feel that most of the people making the commens that the 5.56mm rd is as good as the 7.62mm rd, have never understood kinetic energy.

There is no misunderstanding that a larger round (bullet weight) generates more energy upon striking the target.

It is also common knowledge that snipers have made shots with the scoped M14 (7.62mm) from up and beyond 600 yards. There is not a shread of evidence to support the 5.56mm round beyond 300 to 350 meters, giving the accuracy needed to make a killing hit at those ranges.

I am retired military and I was an infantry type that started with the M1 Grand (30.06), moved to the M14 (7.62mm) then moved to the M16 (5.56mm) and I never trusted the weapon.

I definitely feel the US ARMY/MARINES need an assult weapon when kicking down doors, and the 5.56mm round fills that need. However they need a weapon to fire that round that is easily maintained in the field, is light enough to be carried under the most stressful conditions, and is short enough to be weilded under those conditions. And an additional benefit is the lighter round gives the troop the ability to carry a larger basic ammo load.

Then you need to address the capability of the troops pulling convoy escort, roadblocks, search and destroy missions outside the built up areas and thats when you must have the 30.06 or the 7.62mm round to furnish them the ability to take under fire targets that are 300 metes and beyond. This not only makes our troops more capable in their fighting skills but it equalizes the battle field against the emeny armed with the AK47, which is the perferred weapon of most of our emeny.

Please do not take the high road with haveing two (2) different calibers of weapons makes resupply too difficult. Thats a load of crap! Our supply system is certainly capable of stocking any number of caliber of rounds for an endless list of weapons.

Think of it this way, we could purchase enough HK416 (5.56mm) weapons to supply the needs of personnel assigned to built up areas and enough M14 type weapons to supply the needs of the other responsibilities of the rifle pushers outside the cities. And all it would cost is less than the price of two (2) cruise missles.

Less cut out the bullshit and get weapons in the hands of our infantry that not only work but will increase their ability to stay alive while killing our enemies.

THE AMERICAN INFANTRYMAN DESERVES THE BEST DAMN WEAPON THAT CAN BE MADE. AND THEY FURTHER DESERVE THE RIGHT WEAPON FOR THE MISSION ASSIGNED.

The sad part of this problem is that it looks like the best weapons systems are being offered by an out of country manfacturer.

Posted by: shooting wildman at April 24, 2008 02:21 PM

A point that seems to be missed here is that the caliber of the round is irrelvant. I can (and have) drop(ped) big game with .22 Rimfire. Game animals that are far larger than a human, and that are much more hyped on adrenalin, during the hunt. The key factor is shot placement, putting the round where it will do the most damage. It you are using any 7.62 round, but continually hit the bad guy in a non vital area (lower leg, hand, center of armored vest, etc.) you won't put them down. However a 5.56 to the head, un-armored chest or throat, and you will not need a larger round. I used the M-16, M16A1, M16A2. amd the M-21. For long range, the M-21 is unbeatable, but for shots that are in typical visual range with iron sights, <400m. The M-16 variety works fine. The only drawback is that the M16 series does require maintenance, as do all arms, I have a .357 Ruger Revolver, after about 70 rounds, it will stop functioning due to carbon buildup on the front of the cylinder that inhibits cylinder rotation, so even the simplest of arms have limits. Keep them clean and they will work. The AK is more forgiving of dust due to its loose tolerances, but for accuracy at range, the M16 has it beat. The ballistic coeffient of the 7.62 round, shows a radical drop off of bullet energy at range when fored with the reduced powder charge used in the 7.62x39, the 5.56mm has no such limitation. If rounds are placed on target properly, the target will go down, even with a smaller projectile.

Posted by: Jon Weiss at April 24, 2008 12:04 PM

Stopping Power:

Steve posted "but the 7.62x39mm round it fires isn't any more capable of putting an enemy down than the 5.56x45mm round of the M4" but I beg to differ on this.

Fact: A bigger slower moving round has more knockdown / stopping power than a smaller faster moving round. (IE the 9mm vs .45)

5.56x45mm 62 grains x 820 m/s = 1350 J
7.62x39mm 123 grains x 710 m/s = 2008 J

The 7.62x39mm has 1.5 times the stopping power of the 5.56x45mm. Not to mention the fact that the M4/M16 weapons system is very quirky and prone to jamming in combat conditions; like any gas operated weapon in a dusty or wet environment. Kinda like putting a jet engine on the ground (M1A1 / A@ Abrams tank) it is not gonna perform well in the dust unless you complete daily thorough maintenance on it.

Posted by: Sid at April 23, 2008 08:32 AM

When I was in the Marine Corps use the M16A1 M16A2 1984 to 1996 when I was in the National Guard 2003 to 2005, I used a A3 and M4 In Iraq 2004 I really think the weapons them self's are fine if kept clean, but the 5.56 is a crap round over the last 23 years I have seen (Close up) about 6 people shot with this round and each time it took an average of 4 to 5 rounds to bring them down. last one I seen was in Iraq he was shot 7 times and lived so we had to medically evacuate him the 5.56 is the problem not the M16 weapon system, with today's technology they need to find a way to make it a better kill round. or go back to the 7.62 there is a lot of great weapon system out there like the AR 10

Posted by: Carl R at April 23, 2008 07:27 AM

come meet my leetle fliend!!!!!

Posted by: fatjoey at April 21, 2008 06:08 AM

I've been seeing alot of comments like this . . . The AK has been doing an excellent job of killing people for over 60 years now . . . .

And yes, it has, but the 7.62x39mm round it fires isn't any more capable of putting an enemy down than the 5.56x45mm round of the M4, and significant LESS capable than the 7.62x51mm round that the M-14/M-60/M-240 use. The AK was designed to WOUND, not kill, so as to add additional logistic strains on western armies who in good conscious were unable to leave wounded soldiers on the field to die (not a concern in the Red Army). The primary attraction the AK has to Special Forces is that captured ammunition is readily available, and the enemy can't locate the SF soldier by the unique sound of his weapon. Those are the ONLY reasons some SF soldiers prefer the AK.

Those that want reach, stopping power, and reliability choose the M-14/M1A with a reasonable set of optics, as the better weapon in situations where both long and medium range combat are the norm (e.g. outside of cities), and the M4 where close contact situations are more the norm. If there's a weapon more reliable and more accurate at range than the M4, as well as being useful in close combat, then they're going to be inclined to pick that. Having used the M1A (civilian M-14) M-4, M-16A1 and A2, the forerunner to the SCAR, the lefty friendly F-2000, and many others, I'd say that we should have a range of weapons available for the soldier in combat arms to use depending on the operational situation and expected range of engagements.

Non combat arms soldiers, the bulk of those interviewed who think the current M-4 is just fine are right. For soldiers who only need a personal defense weapon and are unlikely to engage in regular infantry combat, the M-4 is just fine.

Posted by: Steve at April 20, 2008 12:18 PM

ANY short-stroke piston system is more reliable than the blowback m-16 and m-4. When JSOC gets thier paws on the SCAR, thats wat they will use. Its either that, or the Hk-416. There are still a place for the M-14 w/ optics in the DM role, but it's being used by snipers too. I never liked the M-16A2. I was issued a M-14 from the armorer, and as a Cav scout you can look into the scope and see as far as a guy with binoculars. Used it during recon in '91. a flat surface, with clear lines of fire. Bolts are accurate, have thier place, but a Mk-11, SR-25 is a better choice in an urban area.

Posted by: Rhyno327/lrsd at December 15, 2007 11:11 AM

I dont think theres any need for a new round like the 6.5 ore the 6.8 , when you got the 5.56 and the 7.62x39 and the 7.62x51 , choice enough between those three rounds .
The 5.56 was always my choice , two to three ore four rounds with the colt M4 center mass and I got trough everyday.
So dont talk about the 5.56 being a bad round you just need a couple of rounds on target and it will do the same damage as the 7.62 and since the 5.56 has almost no recoil it isnt hard putting multiply rounds on target.
a lot preferred the AK with its 7.62x39 faster to hop around the corner with and take one shot ore two shots at your target and dodge back , faster than hopping around the corner and giving a burst with the 5.56 and dodging back , I dont think theres much time difference , so its from person to person . I think we could even use those Yugoslavian MGV-176 Submachine guns in 22.LR with there 160round drum magazine in close quarter , no recoil and fast enough to put 10round on target in a numb of time , so small rounds are even ok in combat just depends on how you use them , wouldve loved the MGV-176 as backup weapon , i dont think we need the scar the m16 / m4 have proven them self for olmost 50years , and never had problems with my m4 but minor things , i think we need more a bullup weapon something like the Tavor small but with a good lenght of barrel

Posted by: ChungSi at November 26, 2007 09:11 PM

the reason regular Israeli army stopped using the Galil is that they needed a weapon for CQB. they got a deal for M-4's. the Galil is still used by artillery units and armored formations, but the Galil has been made smaller, and in .223. its the micro-Galil. wat about the Magal? i think the weapons are so much to make, they are a better export product. the Tavor is the future, and its a hell of a weapon.

Posted by: Rhyno327 at September 16, 2007 11:10 AM

Skip all that stuff fellas. If you want a really functional weapon try Robinson Armaments XCR Multi caliber rifle. I have dumped everything except my m14 and that will be going as soon as the 7.62 x 51 XCR series is available. I own 2 5.56 XCR rifles. I shot every conceivable type of ammo from m855 (REAL) to m193 and all of the cheap stuff. Except for the initial break in period I have not had a single jam or misfire.Just check it out, you may be very excited.

Posted by: Fred at September 5, 2007 12:26 AM

i carried an m14 for 6 months in iraq- for alot of us, we stay in humvees, not on foot patrol. so unless you do an EBR m14 with the Sage stock and shorty barrel, its just to big.....BUT now with the MRAP's we're getting, theres alot more room! so it depends on the mission- im an m14 fanboy, i own a few, but its too big to be a standard rifle for the army- hell the m16 alot of people are still stuck with is too big with all of or armor on in a humvee.

Posted by: jwidsvs at September 3, 2007 11:04 AM

i carried an m14 for 6 months in iraq- for alot of us, we stay in humvees, not on foot patrol. so unless you do an EBR m14 with the Sage stock and shorty barrel, its just to big.....BUT now with the MRAP's we're getting, theres alot more room! so it depends on the mission- im an m14 fanboy, i own a few, but its too big to be a standard rifle for the army- hell the m16 alot of people are still stuck with is too big with all of or armor on in a humvee.

Posted by: jwidsvs at September 3, 2007 09:59 AM

What all the US Armed Forces need is a weapon of sufficient caliber to kill or seriously wound at up to 600 yards. With all the bells and whistle's, including laser and/or IR that is light, reliable in mud, sand, snow & rain and that most importantly, WORKS!! I think the 5.56mm
has had its day and believe that 30 caliber/7.62 with a souped-up load should be within the grasp of the engineers. Striking power and reliability is what counts.

Posted by: Tim T. at August 31, 2007 11:24 PM

the GALIL comes in different variants now. there is an assault rifle called "Magal" that is chambered for both 7.62 and 5.56. the Galil SAR would be my choice hands down in the sand. the M-14 after that. there are so many in storage, why they don't rip the guts out and give it a lighter, more user friendly weapon i'll never know. the EBR is a the weapon iam talking about. need to put a couple rounds through a wall? the EBR is ur weapon. why does JSOC use 416's, M-14's and MP-5's? RELIABILITY. now they have the UMP. sub-sonic ammo, a supressor and that works. you can debate all this all day. iam going with wat the JSOC guys use.

Posted by: RHYNO327 at August 20, 2007 10:59 AM

I suspect he means MetalStorm, the Aussie stacked-barrel concept...but that still has muzzle flash. Railguns, perhaps?

Posted by: David Hambling at August 13, 2007 07:41 AM

Neil B:

I think he was talking aout the steel rain things an aussie company came up with which has rounds stacked down a tube, electricly fired.

Instead of changing mags, change barrels for a fresh stack?

Posted by: Rhys at August 13, 2007 01:07 AM

Keep in mind the reason for the 5.56mm round. This is from memory so forgive my errors in absolute fact. Casualty analysis were done of WWII, Korea and early Vietnam.

90% of casualties were caused by non-aimed shooting.
90% of those were shot within 300 meters.

So a round was sought that would give a soldier a lot of ammo and larger volume magazines {just look at the SAW at 200 rounds}(this is also where the three burst trigger pull came into being).

I was a sniper and as is known we still prefer the 7.62mm round for that job (remember, not all soldiers are snipers).

I was part of the team that developed a new sniper for our SWAT units. For this we even evaluated the "elephant" round for a quick instant kill (recoil was horrible). We kept to the 7.62mm.

Also keep in mind there are lots of better rounds but you have to have a standard NATO round for interchangeability. So we will be stuck with the two rifle and 9mm rounds for now.

Posted by: John Smith at August 10, 2007 08:13 PM

James Van Dyne, or anyone:
I can't find out what you must really mean by "Steel" weapons technology. I couldn't get satisfaction out of Google or anything else. I suppose you don't just mean steel bullets of some sort, so what does that mean? ty

Posted by: Neil B. at August 8, 2007 07:37 PM

Well, if 7.62 nato is the chose, then what about the galil in 7.62? Or the Valmat M78? I carried one, & would up buying one (M78)when I got out.
While not a accurate as a 14, it is relaiable as any AK. And if any of you all can tell me where to find magazines for it, I'd be extremelly gratefull
p.s.
anyone use the 6.5 grendel?

Posted by: Dave at August 8, 2007 08:44 AM

How about the Ruger AC-556 system if we have to stick with the 5.56? I have tweaked several Mini-14s to shoot as well as the M-16/Ar-15 rifles, and these are reliable guns. But really, why re-invent the wheel? The M-14 will do it all, and better than all the euro-trash and mouse guns out there.

Posted by: andy at August 8, 2007 12:45 AM

I spent just days short of 28 years in the Army and in all of that time I can only remember 3 stoppages. On 1 a spring broke in my lower receiver of my M16A1 back in 1976 and another time it was due to a bent Mag feeding lip. But you have to do your part and do PMCS according to conditions. If your Dad was in WWII, and still around, ask him how often he cleaned and oiled his weapon so he could attack the enemy or defend himself. On the other hand, 7.62mm based weapons would get my vote. Ask any SOF operator which they would carry if the had a choice M4/16 or AK varrient, you'll get AK 65%-75%!

Posted by: Joe_B n Ky at August 7, 2007 10:10 PM

I think that you guys are entertaining. I spent 20 years in the Army. I shot more rounds throught the mouse gun then you ever shot through anything. I shot at and hit targets at 600 plus yards with an M16A2. They are dependable. My M16A1 was always dependable. All of my M16s were. Extremely few times they ever jammed. Take it from some one who has spent 20 in the service.

Posted by: carl at August 7, 2007 05:07 PM

Perhaps just the fact that everybody beens arguing about the 5.56 is evidence it isn't up to snuff. Did people argue and complain so mightily about the Garand or M14?

Posted by: Rob Hanks at August 4, 2007 12:58 AM

At last, the mk 16 and the mk 17 being identical except for cal. will give the 7.62 nato a chance to prove it's vast superior performance over the 5.56 nato.

Posted by: richard devilliers at August 2, 2007 12:33 PM

At last, the mk 16 and the mk 17 being identical except for cal. will give the 7.62 nato a chance to prove it's vast superior performance over the 5.56 nato.

Posted by: richard devilliers at August 2, 2007 12:23 PM

Yes, chamge to a more reliable action and POWERFUL 6.8 ROUND If u do not change the round also u r just dragging problems out. Colt should design a new weapon that can match or better the competition, mx8, hk416 etc etc...

Posted by: ferg666 at August 2, 2007 09:58 AM

Why not just use the Galil AR5, it is also a copy of a Belgium rifle and has proven reliable and effective in dust and sand, using a 5.56mm round and having interchangeable barrels, it seems like the perfect weapon for this climate, at least it was for me. Yes the M-14 is also pretty cool.

That new SOCOM rifle is definetly a step in the right direction. Good luck and happy hunting.

Posted by: Mark Kaufman at August 2, 2007 06:17 AM

I morned the Day Mr Galil passed away.

Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2007 01:22 PM

Well, we' fighting folks who "think it;s fine" to die. that is a prob seldom faced before. AS for weapons,
Israel was faced with a sim. problem, WHAT could they find to fight againist the AK. the best anti AK was, alas, another AK. The Galil was borne, an accurate AK, ( as far as AK's go) Only reason they finially "dropped" the galil( they are a lotta them stil there) is 1 of 2 reasons.. they SAY the new M4A1 is a lighter easiesr weapon for the solider.
Then Uncle gives them M4's for this side of nothing. While Galil's cost $$ to make. Milled reciever, etc. and, under IDEAL condtions, the M4 IS more accurte.. key word, being "IDEAL"
Ask the Marines what they think of the Galil when recon tested it back in teh 80's 90's.. how they tried to break it. I was never in combat, yet, but in training, our 16A1's would jam if you gave them a dirty look. clean & lube for hours, & 5 rounds later, it's filithy again. as for american weapons, ANyone remeber ther STONER 63?

Posted by: Dave at August 1, 2007 01:16 PM

It must have been pretty cool to meet Mr. Galil! The SCAR is based on the AK just like the Galil rifle is - both of them use the AK's long-stroke gas piston system. I always wondered why Israel stopped using the Galil and went to M-16 designs.

Posted by: mang at August 1, 2007 05:28 AM

I worked extensively on the R4 (infantry) and R5 (special forces {shorter}) which is the Galil under license, I had not worked with the R6 which is even shorter. I had met mr Galil in the 80's. This design is as fault free as can get. Our environment tests were very severe and this weapon just goes and goes. 35 or 50 round magazine, two magazines were taped upside down to each other which would then give quick reloads.

So, I agree heads up to Galil.

Posted by: John Smith at July 31, 2007 09:09 PM

If they're gonna go with the 5.56 round, I'd suggest the Galil or the HK 53. If they're gonna go with the 7.62, the M14 has been doing the job for about 40+ years now, if not then I'd say the HK 33 or FAL series rifle, but only in semi, who can possibly control the 7.62 in full auto except for in the M60 or M240. 6.8 in AR platforms are good, but they'd have to deal with the current problem of the M4/M16 system.

The AK has been doing an excellent job of killing people for over 60 years now, why not go with it. Of course it would offend die hard conservatives and anti-communists by going with the weapon that is the symbol of socialist reform.

Posted by: Alfonso at July 27, 2007 11:47 PM

the m-16, m-4 series are here to stay for the regular Army. Colt has its hooks in some of the pols and ex-generals in the procurement dept. hk makes superior firearms, rifles, pistols, watever. i saw a show where a 7.62 rnd blew right through 8 inches of pine. the 5.56? not even close. in urban combat, a bigger round is needed. the m-16, m-4 are good rifles, it just isn't as effective as a rifle that can pierce thin walls of concrete when needed.

Posted by: RHYNO327 at July 22, 2007 11:19 AM

Everything most people know about the 6.8 SPC is hearsay, and I'll cop to that myself right now. But I have HEARD that the cartridge beats the hell out of M-16 uppers and lowers. This is a symptom of the "pressure problems" that Remington keeps trying to fix with the cartridge. Another thing I hear is that it doesn't have the range of the 5.56, or the 6.5 Grendel or any of the others. It's got a stubbly little un-aerodynamic bullet.

The problem with the "existing stock of frames" is that they self destruct pretty quickly as 5.56 M-4's under special forces use, and apparently even quicker as 6.8 M-4's. It's not that the SCAR is the "newest thing off the shelf," it's that it's proven to be leagues better than the M16.

The military selected the M-16 back in the day because it WAS the newest, most modern thing, and they have been paying for the flaws of the design ever since. I don't think the troops should have to wait for rayguns to get the best rifles - that's the mentality that got us the 5.56 in the first place.

Posted by: Mang at July 19, 2007 12:41 AM

Enough already. Time to move to "Steel" weapons technology, and get on with it! No flash, no exposure to the troops; higher fire rates.

If not; then just change the rifle twist for the round, or change the upper receiver and go with the 6.8 SPC, which has impact on target both close and long range; AND uses the existing Stock of frames; until the very new technology is finally moved too!

The fact of the matter IS: the M4; 5.56; is untrustworthy; and like the 9mm; one cannot trust that the hit was a hit that took the combatant out of the fray!

Enough of the FN; just because it's there. Will some one in procurement get some baLLS AND MOVE ON?

Posted by: James Van Dyne at July 16, 2007 02:48 PM

the SCAR-H [heavy] is being used now, and there are no plans to scrap it. the M-14 EBR is another 7.62 that has another life. the SCAR-L [light] is a 5.56 carbine, and the CQB version is lighter, built for up close and personal battles. they are here to stay. alot of JSOC's units have been using the H-K 416, a rifle that uses the piston system instead of the regular gas blowback system. 84 H-K uppers were ordered by a SF group on Okinawa, they always get the good stuff first. so, why would they do away with the SCAR-H? that makes no sense.

Posted by: RHYNO327 at July 16, 2007 09:26 AM

In reading about the ballistics and effects of the 6.5mm Japanese round: the lead didn't go all the way to the tip, making the bullet lighter on top and hence it tipped over more on impact. The results of the twirling smallish bullet were rather devastating. Similar idea for the AK-76 little .22 bullet, which was hollow (!) at the top (why don't more fighters use that gun anyway?) It seems that such rounds aren't considered in violation of Hague rules, so some suggest a 6mm (0.243") round of light-nose design, maybe from 243 Win. or 6mm Rem.

I also see this idea that .270" (actually .276 or .277) round is so effective in particular, everyone from hunter Jack O'Connor to an unremembered US ballistician who wrote that size was his preference in ballistics tests, before the adoption of the 7.62/.308 NATO instead. Maybe that's who Big Daddy read from?

In any case, a Viet Vet friend says in agreement with BD that too many VC could get up again after being hit by the relatively puny .22 from the M-16, not that I'd like being hit by it (and it seemed to wreck sniper JAM's victims pretty badly.) Maybe ultimately rather lethal, but stopping power delay of a moment could be fatal to the first shooter - ?

PS, I never shot at anyone or even trained to, just an aging ex-USAF brat whose dad blasted at bats and monkeys sometimes in Burma.

Posted by: Neil B. at July 15, 2007 04:01 PM

Magpul's Masada is a collection of M-16 parts in an injection-molded shell... Which may very well work excellently, but it's not going to be any better than the sum of its parts. It's a piston-operated M-16, M-16 trigger group, mags, everything - EXCEPT that the recoil spring is no longer in a fixed tube directly behind the bolt, so you can have a real folding stock, and not just a collapsible one.

I'd REALLY like to see some pictures of the 7.62x39 SCAR-H. I'll wager that they haven't even built one yet, though no doubt they can. I'm sort of assuming that it will be dropped from the SCAR program requirement eventually.

It really looks like the 6.8 SPC is DOA. I wonder if the 6.5 MPC has any legs left, or if any of them do, even for special forces?

Posted by: mang at July 14, 2007 12:40 AM

"Ballistic tests conducted by agencies WITHOUT a marked interest in its success have repeatedly shown that the 6.8 performs MARGINALLY better than 5.56 and offers no REAL advantage. Only one unit in the Army continues to persue the 6.8, everyone else is killing people with 5.56 daily."

Please show me were this info is I would like to read it.

All I know is the M-16's that I fired would not knock down the targets at the range. The range was at Ft. Knox armor school 1981. I know a bit about the problems of the original round and the new round and neither is as good as the 6.8mm or the 6.5mm you have the wrong info.

In fact the history is that a .270 round was and should have been accepted by NATO but we pushed the .308/7.62.....big mistake. Then we screwed NATO again and started using the 5.56mm.

The FN FAL was designed for the .270 round which is similar to the 6.8mm if I am not mistaken.

The 5.56 is a round that you need to tap the target a few times to make sure he's dead. One shot one kill should be the correct way. The 6.8 round is closer to the 7.62.

Did you ever fire either?

Posted by: Big Daddy at July 13, 2007 07:57 PM

Ooooohhh, preeeeetyyyy...

I'm sorry, what were we talking about?

Posted by: MegaTroopX at July 13, 2007 04:51 PM

I wish I knew a little more about it's operating system, legnth, weight, Magazines, etc etc. What makes this an upgrade over the M4 other than the barrels (Which I would assume doesn't get done in the field very often)? We made m-4s that will fire the 7.62, what makes this weapon but I can tell you that it works great in GRAW2...:)

Posted by: The Cenobyte at July 13, 2007 01:18 PM

"What's that grenade launcher firing? It looks a bit short to be loading an m203 round."

The new grenade launcher swings out and loads from the side instead of opening straight out and back.

Posted by: TB at July 13, 2007 12:05 PM

"Ballistic tests conducted by agencies WITHOUT a marked interest in its success have repeatedly shown that the 6.8 performs MARGINALLY better than 5.56 and offers no REAL advantage. Only one unit in the Army continues to persue the 6.8, everyone else is killing people with 5.56 daily."

This reminds me of the article on EFMJ rounds at:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003530.html

Do we need a heavier 6.5-6.8mm round? Or are
advanced (perhaps EFMJ) 5.56mm rounds enough?

Posted by: esmoore5 at July 13, 2007 10:58 AM

"What's that grenade launcher firing? It looks a bit short to be loading an m203 round."

SOCOM decided to go with a 1.57 caliber grenade launcher instead of the metric 40mm grenade. It's compatible however.

Posted by: Ty at July 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Ballistic tests conducted by agencies WITHOUT a marked interest in its success have repeatedly shown that the 6.8 performs MARGINALLY better than 5.56 and offers no REAL advantage. Only one unit in the Army continues to persue the 6.8, everyone else is killing people with 5.56 daily.

Today is July and LRIP is no where near here, and word is 3rd QTR FY 08 is the earliest. Its begining to look an aweful lot like the V-22

Posted by: ED at July 13, 2007 08:03 AM

What's that grenade launcher firing? It looks a bit short to be loading an m203 round.

Posted by: Dan at July 13, 2007 08:00 AM

If we went to a 6.8mm or 6.5mm round we would not need both versions. As usual it's 3 steps ahead and 2 steps behind for our military.

Not to mention that 2 companies in the USA make weapons as good and with more interchangeability, POF and LWRC.

The guys doing the dirty work will always get the short end of the barrel.

Posted by: Big Daddy at July 13, 2007 06:18 AM

The army has made many modifications to weapons systems used in close combat over the past decades, and even though some have worked well and some have not every new system should be given its fare chance. It will be interesting to see how these trials go, and see if this weapons system is up to standard, and worth what the government paid for it.

Posted by: SGT Will at July 13, 2007 05:47 AM

len,

Why? I'm curious, especially given the interchangable barrels...

Posted by: Christian Lowe at July 13, 2007 05:28 AM

I thought .30 cal was 'medium'?

Posted by: confused at July 12, 2007 07:42 PM

It is everything the XCR is, but I actually can go buy (another) XCR...not so with the SCAR or the Masada!

Posted by: matt at July 12, 2007 07:34 PM

Would rather carry the HK416 than the SCAR Lite. Especially in close quarters.

l

Posted by: len at July 12, 2007 06:35 PM

Not to belittle the SCAR, but Magpul's Masada will be interesting if it's everything Magpul has made it out to be. Too bad it missed the military procurement train.

Posted by: daskro at July 12, 2007 06:32 PM