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.

 

Okay people, which rifle should it be for America's next generation for all U.S. branches like Army

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   

The XM8


The FN SCAR-L / Mk.16 rifle


The HK 417, the photo shows the 416, but the Heckler and Koch hopes to use the 417 as for America's new rifle, the 417 looks similar to the 416 in the pic you see. The 416 is mostly just to upgrade and improve the existing M-4 carbine and M-16s. The M417 can fire the 7.62 rounds as well as 5.56.


The Barrett M468 that fires the 6.8.

Oops wrong place. Suppose to be in weapons forum. Correct this mistake please. Again apologies for this mistake.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by deltaboy]




posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I dont really care as long as it uses the 6.8 SPC. Great round much better then the 5.56 IMO, time to get rid of that over powered .22 round

BTW anyone with a AR-15 can buy a Barrett M468 upper conversion kit and fire the 6.8 round. Price $1,590

link





[edit on 28-11-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I think the only 2 out of the 3 weapons depicted above are in direct competition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the XM8 being made for conventional forces, while the FN SCAR and HK 417/416 are fighting for the spot as the weapon of choice for Special Forces?

I mean, it only seams logical. The versatility of the FN SCAR and the HK 417/416 are quite similar, and would do great to replace the M4 SOPMOD that alot of SF use today. The XM8 on the other hand seems to be maid for conventional troops only, seeing as how it is being widely tested among them.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atomic Platypus
I think the only 2 out of the 3 weapons depicted above are in direct competition. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the XM8 being made for conventional forces, while the FN SCAR and HK 417/416 are fighting for the spot as the weapon of choice for Special Forces?


yeah both of the rifles are in direct competition. But the XM8 is on hold after complaints about no competition among the defense companies. But those rifles should be great for America's new generation of modular rifles.


I mean, it only seams logical. The versatility of the FN SCAR and the HK 417/416 are quite similar, and would do great to replace the M4 SOPMOD that alot of SF use today. The XM8 on the other hand seems to be maid for conventional troops only, seeing as how it is being widely tested among them.


Wouldnt it be logical that a good rifle for special forces could also be good for the conventional forces as well? You should notice that many of the U.S. soldiers of the Army are carrying the same weaponry as the Army Special Forces and other elite units. Like the M-4 carbine.

[edit on 28-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I’d say the XM-8 with a 6.8 mm round, if they cant convert the XM-8 to fire the 6.8 mm I would say the M468.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Excuse me, but,

Which one of the above 3 is

1) Easier to manufacture and cheaper

2) Easier to mantain and robust

3) Easier to field in larger quantities in a short amount of time.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Humster
Which one of the above 3 is
1) Easier to manufacture and cheaper
2) Easier to mantain and robust
3) Easier to field in larger quantities in a short amount of time.


Great questions. I'm not sure what future battlefields are going to be like, but it's my impression that the three block war is still in vogue, a concept the Marine Corps has been developing for about two decades. I haven't heard of the 6.8mm before today, but the 5.56 has been doing what has been asked of it for about four decades.

More than anything else, the man in the field needs a weapon that is durable, reliable and easy to maintain.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Good point about the manufacturing costs. I assume the XM8 wouldnt be that expensive to mass produce, since it is very similar to the G36. So i think that would suit well for conventional forces, even though testing on it has stopped, as mentioned above and in a previous topic. But then again, that is an assumption. i could be wrong.

And it would be nice to have the types of weapons available to SF available to conventional forces. The problem with that is the cost. If it costs more to equip our guys with the FN SCAR than the XM8, then you know the higher ups are going to stick with the XM8. They dont like to spend money to give our troops better quality products or protection. We all know what happened with the whole body armor, armor plating situation.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
A couple of things, I don;t understand.

Switching from 5.56mm to 6.8mm. Ya, sure, 6.8mm is better the 5.56mm, but the problem is:

1) How long does it take to produce enough 6.8mm ammo

2) Are your enemies or allies using the same 6.8mm ammo

I say, the HK417 is the best choice, since it can fire both popular rounds like 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

Make the switch to 6.8mm when more allies and enemies use them.

(Now saying 6.8mm sux, but if the Rem468 can fire both 6.8mm and 5.56mm, it would be the perfect choice)



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
the m468 is made by Barrett the round is the REM6.8mm

6.8mm iirc a huge order by the dod was made some 63 million rounds i think or something like that earlier this year ahead of this putting the xm8 on hold.

6.8mm is a lot better big upgrade without have to deal fir a rifle round like the 7.62 its really about finding that happy medium between the two.

I would say give the army the m468 as its already in 6.8mm and it would be able to field fastest plus its made in the US from a company with a great history of fine weapons.

I like the Hk417 as well since it can fire 7.62 wonder what it would take to convert it to 6.8mm instead of 5.56.

When I was in the army I hated the weak 5.56 and its chunky 50's makeup covered m16 but i likes the lower recieve which both of those use.

the xm8 needs to go back to the drawing board or let them built a facet firing weapon, the 5.56 era is coming to a close its had its time its time to move on the 6.8mm is the way for now thats why the m468 would be the fastest and most cost effective means of fielding the weapons its a which convertion if they wanted to go that route as first then replacing the lower recieves with new ones.

but there are two other rifles that are missing the ones that use 7..62 by 39 and the round that the ak74 fires they should be added to the list iirc they are stoner designs too, there was a thread about them earlier in the year, at least they should be mentioned.

this veteran hated his m16s I had several over the course of my time serving under it


man I would love to be on the horrid detail of having to go to the range and test out those weapons!

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Char2c35t]


m9

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy






My prediction...and I dont know jack...is that the FN design will be selected for the contract because it's light and inexpensive to make in mass quantities, but the service men in SEAL and Specfor Delta who actually have the means and a choice would likely choose the H&K design in 7.62 variant simply because it offers a very battle tested H&K gas return system, and offers an almost unlimited amount of customized features. Ultimately it's going to be up to the individual operatives to decide which is best for them. As for the contract...hooray for FN, and hooray for the death of the M4!!!

My personal choice in the matter is a 7.62 variant of the HK-416/417 with a reciever that can accept any style clip I want.

But again, i'm not really an authority here.

m9



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’d say the XM-8 with a 6.8 mm round,


I think that would be the best combo. Light weight, reliable, and more knock-down power.


m9

posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’d say the XM-8 with a 6.8 mm round,


I think that would be the best combo. Light weight, reliable, and more knock-down power.


There are those who seem to think the 6.5 grendel is more favorable for mass use... But no doubt the 6.8 has been successfully tested and is very popular. I guess it just boils down to how much recoil you can stand in the field.

m9



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
LINK

Metalstorm.
Rebarrelled to 6.8mm

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Jezza]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   

U.S. Troops Want a Better Bullet

by James Dunnigan
December 30, 2005


The U.S. Marine Corps, responding to reports from their troops, are investigating whether they should replace the current 62 grain bullet, used in the 5.56mm round fired by the M-16 and M-4 rifle, with a heavier bullet. Since last Summer, the marines have been making the heavier, 77 grain bullet (normally only issued to Force Recon and commando troops) available to commanders, to use in place of the rounds with the 62 grain bullet. However, only six percent of the 10.6 million 5,56mm rounds of ammo the marines have in Iraq and Afghanistan, are the heavier 77 grain version. The debate over the effectiveness of the NATO standard 62 grain bullet (and all 5.56mm) ammo has been going on for decades, and has only intensified since 2002 (when it was used a lot in Afghanistan). The marines and the army are working together on the problem, and will present their findings early next year.



Many in the U.S. Army are in favor of using a larger caliber bullet (7.62mm, as used in sniper rifles like the M-14), or a 6.8mm round. The problem with the 5.56mm round was that it was not designed to take down man sized targets (or animal equivalents like white tailed deer, or black bears), and is less effective in blasting through walls and vehicles during urban fighting. When first introduced, it was intended for use by draftees, who were often in need of automatic fire capability (because so few were marksmen). This meant troops had to be able to carry more ammo, thus the utility of the 5.56mm round. The 5.56mm bullet could wound, or kill with a head or torso shot. But a determined enemy was often not stopped by 5.56mm fire. Today, all the infantry are volunteers, much better trained to hit targets with single shots, and increasingly demanding a bigger bullet for doing that.


Link


See this is exactly what we anti-5.56mm guys are talking about. The old thinking (some old Generals still think this) a wounded enemy is better than a dead enemy. Because they would need to be carried off by 1 or 2 others enemies, and that means less people shooting at you. But now we've got enemies who don't care about each other, and enemies with body armor.



[edit on 30-12-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
I personal choice is the FN SCAR but I suspect that a much modified version of the M-16/M-4 will be used along the lines of the HK 417.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   
What the US needs for the future (10-20 yrs) is.....

A rifle that is ultra reliable, along the lines of an AK47 because that is what most terrorists/opponents use and it is no use having a rifle that is less reliable than that. (Currently the AK outperforms the M16 in quite a few areas. It has the reliabity and it has the power. Yes it is not as accurate but in a city who cares?)

A rifle that can punch through an on comming truck taking out the engine block and the suicide bomber who has wired the whole thing to go.

A rifle that has the range to engage the enemy over distances but is short enough so that it is not a liability during CQB.


A rifle that can mount all of the accessories available to the US armed forces today i.e. grenade launchers, scopes, lights, shotguns.

So far the XM8 seems to be the best due to its modular design and if they stick it in 6.8mm then it would appear that we have our winner. Its has the reliability, the adaptability and if they change its calliber the lethality.

As an interesting sidepoint: changing caliber might actually kill the XM8 Rifles are built around the rounds they are firing and not the other way round. When a new rifle is designed they start by designing the round then they build from there. Oh and another thing, as understand it we Brits were saying this back in the late 1940's....

world.guns.ru...



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
It's amazing how that old horsekaka about the 5.56mm round being designed only to wound combatants still purports itself to be some kind of historical fact.

None of the weapons shown look to be any kind of significant advance over the current M16A4/M4 family of weapons.

I have a feeling that although the SCAR and XM-8 may have some small sales successes, the US military is waiting for a major firearms advance before replacing the current inventory en masse.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
I dont really care as long as it uses the 6.8 SPC. Great round much better then the 5.56 IMO, time to get rid of that over powered .22 round

BTW anyone with a AR-15 can buy a Barrett M468 upper conversion kit and fire the 6.8 round. Price $1,590

link




6.5mm Grendel is a much better round the 6.8mm

It has better short range performence then the 5.56mm and better long range then the 7.62mm






[edit on 30-12-2005 by Kozzy]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Does any1 know if the scar would be able to be fitted with 6.8mm. Either case the scar would be the best choice among these rifles.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join