It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

new rifle

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
your SAS special forces still prefer the m4 carbine or ar 15 either name for the weapon. the SAS tested the sa80 and didnt like it even if the weapon have been fixed. the scope makes the weapon the most accurate assault rifle but its still consider an unreliable weapon.




posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
your SAS special forces still prefer the m4 carbine or ar 15 either name for the weapon. the SAS tested the sa80 and didnt like it even if the weapon have been fixed. the scope makes the weapon the most accurate assault rifle but its still consider an unreliable weapon.

The SAS and most of the SF around the world use HK-MP5's or G-36's most operations with the SAS that have been documented use MP-5's and G-36's....
They use the M-16 as thier grenade platform because it performs well..
The SAS like the SA-80 because its accurate but thats not thier job...thier job requires stealth (MP5 job) and getting the best assault rifle in the world (G-36)

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
i still want the us to keep the m16 m4 m60 m63 theyre more intimidating and that counts alot
it looks like a toy... the terrorist will think were playing time crissis inm the mall



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
bleh away with the M16 if you want a real machine gun take the mg42V or mg45



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

i still want the us to keep the m16 m4 m60 m63 theyre more intimidating and that counts alot it looks like a toy... the terrorist will think were playing time crissis inm the mall


Good let them think we have toys and they can be laughing when they get one through the head. I don't think how the rifle looks has anything to do with intimidation, if it does the job then its good.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I'm not particularly a fan of the M16 series of rifles or the caliber though I own a Mini 14 and a bolt action rifle in 5.56 caliber. I have however been hearing stories coming out of Afganistan and Iraq . ..that properly maintained and with the new sighting systems ...ie the holo sights etc..that there have been alot of head shots made on the insurgents. At first there was alot of concern that executions were taking place..until it was realized that the sighting systems were to account or so the articles state. I found this very intresting.
My Mini 14 works very well though not as out of the box as accurate as the M16. My bolt action rifle in 5.56 is very accurate and with a heavy bull barrel...very accurate , economical to shoot and mild recoil as compared to my 30.06's.
The main thing that seems to be going for the M16 series of rifles...both militarily and commercially is the versitility ...a huge market in accessories. Thus making the whole system more versitle and practical. Orangetom



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
there are units in the military which have found the 5.56mm ammunition not performing as well as they would like and lacking stopping power in many instances. That the cartridge has muzzle velocity is not in doubt. Mostly the stopping power in urban enviornments is in question. Some specialty teams have developed a larger diameter cartridge in 6.8mm for this purpose and as I understand it is under testing as we speak. I do not know the results of this but I suspect that politics will play a huge role in this......as usual.
On the private commercial sector end...the .223 is very desirable as a varmit round in heavy barreled bolt actions and even in some accurized AR15 models. With handloading ,a larger bullet variety, and different rifling twist rates ...the cartridge is very suitable for most varmiting as the recoil is more tolerable than the larger .22 caliber cartridges like the .220 swift or the .22-250. Also with the .223 due to the lower velocities the barrel life is greatly extended..over the other cartrdges mentioned with "hypersonic "velocities. Economics and savings ..plays a large part in both military and commercial usage of this cartridge. I suspect that it will be around for some time . Orangetom



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Remember folks, the XM8 is designed for caliber conversion too. The caliber debate is almost a moot point with this weapon. Personally I think it would be a much better idea and cheaper idea to go with Barretts outstanding M468. All we would have to do is switch out the uppers on our existing ARs. We would retain weapon familiarity and the need to retrain would be kept at a minimum. Spec Ops troops are already using the M468 and raving about it. The devastating Remington 6.8mm round is as close to a perfect round as you can get.

That in mind it looks like we will go ahead with the XM8 anyways. Initial versions will be 5.56. Within five years of its fielding we will see a full on switchover to the 6.8 round. Its just to damn good to pass up. We have billions of 5.56 rounds on hand that need to be used or sold. Ultimately the XM8 will use about any round you can think of. Including the awesome 6.5 Grendel and .338 Lapua. Im still a bit iffy on a plastic gun that you cannot attach a bayonet to. The Barrett has a carbine version now. You can also attach a bayonet to it and knock out people with the buttstock. I hope the XM8 is as good as proponents say because as far as I know its failed many field tests but the brass are going for it anyways. www.barrett.com



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The only parts that are plastic are the ones that don't necessarily have to be metal, and the plastic is strong and durable.
It will be lighter for the solder and it will still perform the same. I hope they convert over to the 6.8 round n the solider can be sure his bullet will get he job done, XM-8 combined with XM-29 All the way



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

From what I have heard the M-16 is not as accurate as the SA-80....the SA-80 is good if you said the G-36 I would tend to agree


M-16 are less accurate on long ranges only because they use iron sights instead of optics.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

The SAS and most of the SF around the world use HK-MP5's or G-36's most operations with the SAS that have been documented use MP-5's and G-36's....
They use the M-16 as thier grenade platform because it performs well..
The SAS like the SA-80 because its accurate but thats not thier job...thier job requires stealth (MP5 job) and getting the best assault rifle in the world (G-36)


Can you name the source which said SAS use G-36? So far I know they use M-16 or 7.62mm G3 if higher caliber is necessary.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Most CT jobs require stealth and accuracy, which is why the SAS are not using AKMs instead of the usual Mp5s which emphasizes the qualities. On the other hand, most battle rifles are designed to be accurate and such that with one shot the guy who gets hit stays down. M-16s were designed with these in mind, while M-4s firing supersonic rounds were meant for urban fighting, and M-4s firing subsonic rounds were meant for special forces.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I do like the comment the link makes about the "unique" gas piston and impulse rod, this has been used by the FN and SKS series among others for over 50 yrs..when Stoner designed this he chose the Jungmann gas tube for acuracy...luffly little clog point that is.

[edit on 30-4-2005 by selarius]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Basically, I still believe that even simple bolt-action rifles which are accurate and have longer barrels will work better in a real war situation than any assault rifle. I feel that they should work on 2 different designs, one for a sniper rifle, another for urban combat, instead of making something that can be modified for either uses.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
As they found out in WW1. bolt actions arent always ideal, something most people wouldnt wont to be caught with in jungle, house to house, trench etc. fighting.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Like I said thats why they always move as a group, maybe say 2 guys with Psg-1s and 4 guys with M-4s will fare better than 10 guys with M-16s. I'm just saying probably



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Actually..just looking at your comment regarding 2 different bolt actions, this is the situation at the turn of the 20th century. One bolt action for the infantry, one for the cavalry. The Britsh did away with this and introduced the "Short" magazine Lee Enfield. This made things easier in regards to producing and supplying the arms, also ease of use as both services were comfortable with the one rifle.



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
PSG 1s are extremely expensive....and also extremely heavy, over 14 pounds I believe, very long as well..... most situations you wont even see your target over a few hundred yrds.

[edit on 30-4-2005 by selarius]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
bleh away with the M16 if you want a real machine gun take the mg42V or mg45


hell
you really want them to use THIS beast????


[edit on 30-4-2005 by Wodan]



posted on Apr, 30 2005 @ 06:41 AM
link   
MG42 has been around for ever, nicknamed the spandau by the allies...
has a ridiculous rate of fireof about 1100-1200 rpm...used to sound like tearing material...had a physological affect on the people it was being used on.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join