US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Charging handle on the ACR today is a non reciprocating folding unit located normally on the left hand side near under the upper rail just foreword of the front of the upper receaver. Its just about the same spot as where SCAR (FNAC) and HK G3 variants had theirs. The handle folds to allow a streamline profile when not needed and when needed still gives plenty of grab to help prevent hitting ones knuckles on optics and other accessories that might be mounted. Its also able to be flipped to the right hand side.
@ brat
I kinda blew my top sorry man. So allow me to set this out go a more civil manner.
1. That new AR of yours is a civilian AR clone not a M4A1 their may be a few parts that ban be interchanged but the two have critical factors that keep them different. The phoning of the bolt, construction of the lower, buffer, trigger, barrel. Lots of seemingly little things keep your new Operator series from being a true M4 now some of this you could change but to do so you would have to apply for a level three licence, pay and get a short barrel stamp and have the whole gun rebuilt.
2. The point of the competition is to determine if their is a appreciable improvement over the Government built M4A1 enhanced. Which was built based on feedback from troops. K and yourself may not see a reason to run this but if we keep on having to rebuild the M4 because of lessons learned after every conflict perhaps it might be time to look elsewhere. Its like this the Army is going to buy a new weapon anyway. That new weapon is either the Army developed upgrade or one of these carbines. Now the Army wanted to kill the evaluation, before finishing. Its like trying to Win a race by cancelling the race and taking the trophy by default. Keeping the current M4 may seen a option but we want to give our guys the best and that M4 the M4A1 is a incomplete system, its locked go the Early 1990s but twenty years of development over ten being in war means change. Fully integral rail systems changes to barrel metal, new coatings new materials new techniques of building a weapon have come along. But they are not part of the original technical data package. 3. Rail guns and phasers that ban be used at the individual troop level are still off the horizon. Even if we could the power demands would demand a ghostbusters style power supply, and if you think the left is going to allow US troops to wear nuclear power plants on their backs we have a whole new debate coming. The key limit for the American infantryman, the one factor that holds him back is the NATO standard rounds. To move forward we need to pressure NATO to expand and update its small arms to do that you need data this competition at its start was open on what calibre the submissions were. Now its likely all the down selection are 5.56MM but the Army now has some data on rounds like 6.8MM and others and that could be used go the future to start pushing a break from the pack. Smart bullets are still impractical bellow fifty cal, smart scopes exist now but cost as much as a loaded brand new sports car and are not suited to selective fire arms. That leaves the weapon its self.
@ brat
I kinda blew my top sorry man. So allow me to set this out go a more civil manner.
1. That new AR of yours is a civilian AR clone not a M4A1 their may be a few parts that ban be interchanged but the two have critical factors that keep them different. The phoning of the bolt, construction of the lower, buffer, trigger, barrel. Lots of seemingly little things keep your new Operator series from being a true M4 now some of this you could change but to do so you would have to apply for a level three licence, pay and get a short barrel stamp and have the whole gun rebuilt.
2. The point of the competition is to determine if their is a appreciable improvement over the Government built M4A1 enhanced. Which was built based on feedback from troops. K and yourself may not see a reason to run this but if we keep on having to rebuild the M4 because of lessons learned after every conflict perhaps it might be time to look elsewhere. Its like this the Army is going to buy a new weapon anyway. That new weapon is either the Army developed upgrade or one of these carbines. Now the Army wanted to kill the evaluation, before finishing. Its like trying to Win a race by cancelling the race and taking the trophy by default. Keeping the current M4 may seen a option but we want to give our guys the best and that M4 the M4A1 is a incomplete system, its locked go the Early 1990s but twenty years of development over ten being in war means change. Fully integral rail systems changes to barrel metal, new coatings new materials new techniques of building a weapon have come along. But they are not part of the original technical data package. 3. Rail guns and phasers that ban be used at the individual troop level are still off the horizon. Even if we could the power demands would demand a ghostbusters style power supply, and if you think the left is going to allow US troops to wear nuclear power plants on their backs we have a whole new debate coming. The key limit for the American infantryman, the one factor that holds him back is the NATO standard rounds. To move forward we need to pressure NATO to expand and update its small arms to do that you need data this competition at its start was open on what calibre the submissions were. Now its likely all the down selection are 5.56MM but the Army now has some data on rounds like 6.8MM and others and that could be used go the future to start pushing a break from the pack. Smart bullets are still impractical bellow fifty cal, smart scopes exist now but cost as much as a loaded brand new sports car and are not suited to selective fire arms. That leaves the weapon its self.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
Whatever happened to the development of caseless ammo? for a while there I thought it had good potential and a good future!
It's a good piece of tech and simple, light and effective.
Pointblank
Senior Member
Overheating problems and predetonation problems under sustained fire and the fragility of the ammunition doomed caseless weapons.
Looks like I touched a nerve, my apologies to you my brother, my point was that if there were a better platform than the AR platform, I would be buying it myself, so while I recognize that you are much more cognizant of these "preppy" weapons than I, let me qualify my geezer cred,, I have had in my gun-safe the following weapons, some of which I was "babysitting" cleaning, function firing etc, Winchester 1873, 30" barrel Musket in 44-40, with a long magazine tube, Win 1894 Carbine in 30-30, (a very fine combat weapon), light, accurate, and able to be toped-off on the run, Win M-1 Carbine, Husqvarna Carbine in 30-06, (K-98 Mauser action), again light and accurate, points well, Chinese SKS, Yugo AK-47, Armalight AR-15T carbine with a fiberglass handguard, Springfield Armory M1A1 National Match with sidemount scope on bipod 7.62 Nato, also very accurate, Rock River Arms National Match A-2, heavy for a 5.56, but very accurate, and the latest and the best of all Rock River Arms Predator Pursuit 5.56, which although as you note is NOT a MILSPEC M-4, basically they are the same weapon, manufactured on the very same equipment to slightly different specs, now my Rock River is a 6+lbs weapon sans optics or ammo, it is lightweight, pointable, able to be topped off on the run, and easily understood by your average camper, I'm sure I could hand it to any savvy 15 year old and in ten minutes have them making A zone hits out to 100yds, assuming they had some shooting experience, it don't bite, if you put those cutsie pink stocks on it, my daughters would love it, I have 0 concerns about placing it in the hands of my two SILs one who has been to Irag twice and the other 1 to Iraq and once to Aghanistan, it is a very superior battle rifle in the hands of a reasonable skilled rifleman, the problem with the US military is that very few riflemen ever get to play with their battle weapon, I could not believe my SIL did not get ANY range time prior to his last deployment until the arrived in Kuwait, I had bought him two Colt 20 round mags before he left, but upon arrival in Kuwait he was issued the SAW, so I think all the pressure to change is politically motivated, yes most of the guys will tell you they would like more stopping power, but the 6.8 has not proven itself that superior, nor have any of the other weapons in the testing to date, why the Army said to knock it off. So I am old, and I am a rifleman, by the way most of these weapons were in-house as loaners, the 44-40 belonged to a Navy Dr. who was a Hoover Pilot, it was old, ant the bore was pitted, but it still shot lead bullets very well.. My point is that None of the named weapons offer an obvious advantage, and changing platforms in the middle of sequestration-=ain't gonna happen my friend!, but you are the man when it comes to combat infantry, I wasn't directing my comments toward you, only my own personal experience that the AR platform is very handy and accurate, as well as adaptable, it does work, and work very well. Brat
Oh, and I forgot about the Garand????
Equation
Lieutenant General
I like you answer Brat but I have to disagreed with you here regarding the 6.8mm rounds that the Army needed for it's next infantry assault rifle. Many times I read that troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan campaign don't have a problem of hitting the enemy targets, it's just that the 5.56mm rounds doesn't have enough of a punching power to keep the enemy down after the first hit. Remember since WWII the weapons has been upgraded and engineered tremendously but the cartridges has been downgraded to allow for lighter over all carrying weight for the infantry as far as rounds are concern. Today's riflemen do carry more rounds, but it takes more to knock down enemy targets.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Caseless is still in the testing stage and no one has any in real production. Closest is a company named PCP they make polymer cased ammo with a metal base. As for preppy weapons once upon a time the AR was looked at as a toy. All I am trying to say is give. it a chance. If its given a honest chance and M4 enhanced wins well all is good.
Well my observation is that the 6.8 appeared to be an answer to your "equation", but for whatever reason it did not come out on top, and the STONER rifle was designed for the Air Force, and the SR-25 is chambered for the 7.62 NATO round, as are the AR-10s in the civilian realm, my point is that they are almost as handy as the M-14, which Springfield Armory has replicated as the M1A1, it is HEAVY even chambered in 7.62, which was designed as a lighter version of the Springfield 30-06 Guvment, just as the Colt 1911 Guvment model was supplanted by the 9mm Beretta, which the troops also complain about.
Hit probability went up tremendously with the M-16--M-4 because it is light, handy, easy to get into battery and operate, some of those hits are marginal, but would likely be misses with heavier recoil, and more "flinching", yes we all do flinch, some much worse than others...
but my real concern is that we will adopt one of the Euro Centric Bull Pups, which are just "Nasty", and walk away from many of the battle rifles manifest strengths! brat
Last edited:
I confess I was surprised not to see the Garand in your armory round up. My late brother in law shot with one when in the Dutch army nearly half a century ago.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well brat let of ease your last worry first I posted pictures of all the down selected carbines they are all conventional, battle tested (HK416 by US SOCOM, Norway, Turkey and others, FN SCAR by US SOCOM, the Berretta ARX by italian forces. And last the Remington ACR has seen action with Polish SF) only the Colt M4 enhanced is not blooded.
now the heavier recoil, most of these weapons are a little heavier then M4 and that mass means that they absorb recoil more, so that is not as much a issue.
Even with the light 5.56 reports are that firing full auto is more controllable because that extra mass dampened the recoil. Now before we get go to the weight weigh off none of these tip the scales like a M14 (MK14 EBR 14.9lb ). A top of the line AR clone ranges from maybe 6.6 to as heavy as 8lb empty, the ARX is 6.6 lb the ACR IC is 7.9 the Army put a weight limit of 8lb on the competition. For comparison the SIG550 a weapon oft lauded as the best assault rifle on the planet (not just a assault rifle but a holy assault rifle as its standard issue to the Swiss Guard) tips the scale at 7lb and the AUG at 7.9lb.