Army looking for a Carbine.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by macman
Nothing says I'm a big boy like an M4. But, nothing says I's a real man like an M14.

I've always been partial towards the M14....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00637b896172.jpg[/atsimg]

Wouldn't trade mine for the world.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by macman
Nothing says I'm a big boy like an M4. But, nothing says I's a real man like an M14.

I've always been partial towards the M14....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00637b896172.jpg[/atsimg]

Wouldn't trade mine for the world.

why? just cuirous about that.

Originally posted by majortackle

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by macman
Nothing says I'm a big boy like an M4. But, nothing says I's a real man like an M14.

I've always been partial towards the M14....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/00637b896172.jpg[/atsimg]

Wouldn't trade mine for the world.

why? just cuirous about that.

It has never failed me. I like the ballistics of the 308/7.62 over the 223. Stopping power is there and so is range. I can hit, and terminate a target out to 1000 yards. A 223 round is less likely to do so.
I am not a spray and pray guy. So the full auto, or 3 round burst does me no good.

reply to post by macman


The M-14 is a fine rifle as was the M-1. Of course it hits hard because it is a rifle firing a full power cartridge. What it is not is a carbine which is what the Army is looking for. Think in terms of better terminal ballistics without the extra weight of a battle rifle and its ammunition. This is why I suggested the 6.5mm MPC, a necked up 5.56mm with a heavier bullet. This would allow continued use of all existing rifles and magazines except for barrels and with possible addition of bolt mass for proper cycling. The extra weight of the ammunition, assuming 125gr 6.5mm in place of 55gr 5.56mm is 1 pound per hundred rounds.

The less expensive the transition, the more likely our guys will get what they need, sooner.

The KAC PDW would be my first choice and then as DaddyBare said; the P90. One's PS90 is truly a solid, extremely reliable, accurate carbine... not to mention an absolute pleasure to shoot.

Yes, the M14 is one hell of a rifle (my 14 will always be one on the top rack) but I feel that the military is searching for something which the KAC PDW seems to fit almost perfectly.

Sadly, the 234,000 rounds that must be submitted with any weapon system not chambered for either 5.56mm or 7.62mm will greatly limit entries and will almost ensure the final firearm's caliber.

KAC (Knight's Armament Company) 6X35mm PDW:

I dont mind this version of a carbine, this is a modified version we are currently using in Australia,



It is an F88 Austre carbine

Originally posted by macman
...
Carbine is a classification for CQC and room clearing. Max range to about 200 yards.
3 round burst, as Full Auto is typically to hard to control.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
A. Carbine is a classification for a shortened weapon for a variety of reasons, not only CQC
B. Each and every Carbine is still supposed to be a meaningful open field weapon
C. In CQC, select fire is a highly desirable function because the control difficulties are much less significant

Anyway, the M-14 is an exceptionally poor choice to go back to. It was a flawed weapon to begin with and hasnt lost its main drawbacks as a fighting weapon; all "hard man" talk doesnt change the simple fact that the top ejection of this rifle creates too many difficulties to modernize it. The reason it is used by active duty personnel is simply that it already is an approved and in-stock weapon - and then only as a DMR, a role in which its drawbacks are not that pronounced.

Basically, the top ejection forces one to either have a weird mount of optics or requires them to be mounted far forward. One could say, these features didnt hamper the M21 and M25. Well, these are specialized weapons not intended for front line firefights.

Another big game stopper is that the top ejection requires the sight line to be rather low, making it very awkward to add a true-inline stock. Very bad for controllability even in fast semi-automatic firing, let alone automatic fire.

Even if you don´t agree with my statement, think about what could be the reasons why no other nation has adopted the M14 as general service rifle - and even the run in the US military was less than a decade. All the while the supreme FAL and, to a lesser extent, the G3, sold like warm donuts. Even the french Mas-49 sold better... and all that despite the political clout and general export success of the USA in the 50s and 60s. The M14 is, by far and large, the least successful standard issue rifle ever devised by one of the main combattants of WW2 until the british SA80 line. There are reasons for that.

Bottom line is, the M14 is a very good and very pretty rifle for recreational shooting - not for the battlefield.

Originally posted by Lonestar24

Originally posted by macman
...
Carbine is a classification for CQC and room clearing. Max range to about 200 yards.
3 round burst, as Full Auto is typically to hard to control.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
A. Carbine is a classification for a shortened weapon for a variety of reasons, not only CQC
B. Each and every Carbine is still supposed to be a meaningful open field weapon
C. In CQC, select fire is a highly desirable function because the control difficulties are much less significant

Anyway, the M-14 is an exceptionally poor choice to go back to. It was a flawed weapon to begin with and hasnt lost its main drawbacks as a fighting weapon; all "hard man" talk doesnt change the simple fact that the top ejection of this rifle creates too many difficulties to modernize it. The reason it is used by active duty personnel is simply that it already is an approved and in-stock weapon - and then only as a DMR, a role in which its drawbacks are not that pronounced.

Basically, the top ejection forces one to either have a weird mount of optics or requires them to be mounted far forward. One could say, these features didnt hamper the M21 and M25. Well, these are specialized weapons not intended for front line firefights.

Another big game stopper is that the top ejection requires the sight line to be rather low, making it very awkward to add a true-inline stock. Very bad for controllability even in fast semi-automatic firing, let alone automatic fire.

Even if you don´t agree with my statement, think about what could be the reasons why no other nation has adopted the M14 as general service rifle - and even the run in the US military was less than a decade. All the while the supreme FAL and, to a lesser extent, the G3, sold like warm donuts. Even the french Mas-49 sold better... and all that despite the political clout and general export success of the USA in the 50s and 60s. The M14 is, by far and large, the least successful standard issue rifle ever devised by one of the main combattants of WW2 until the british SA80 line. There are reasons for that.

Bottom line is, the M14 is a very good and very pretty rifle for recreational shooting - not for the battlefield.

edit on 17/8/2011 by Lonestar24 because: (no reason given)

Well, yes and no.
The carbine was first introduced for engagements under 200 yards.
The M4 carbine was great (Length wise) for jungle warfare and CQC. A short barrel for the .223 round was designed with a different twist rate then the standard M16. With this different twist, the round will stabilize quicker, but will loose max effective range past the 200-250 yard mark. Now, will it still hit and prove to be lethal past those distances? Sure. Kentucky wind-age and a good shoot.
That is the prime reason why there was a fever pitch for a bullpup around the 70's. Standard barrel length, max punch but a shortened overall length.

To clear a room with a standard M16 is a PAIN to say the least. I would rather sling it and just go in with my sidearm.
Room clearing with an M4 is better, but it takes practice.

And yes I do agree that there are much better choices for a military rifle, then the M16/M4.

That is my I love my M14/M1A.

reply to post by macman


if you want to hump 7.62 be my guest...and for that matter sonny you better start back to training on hunting Commies,,, a well trained highly motivated highly disciplined soldier check it out. Chinese Training Vid

I'd absolutely LOVE to see the magpul PDR chambered in 6.5 mpc or even 6.5 grendel. With it's bullpup configuration you wind up with a super short package with a relatively long barrel. In addition it's got a selectable mid ejection port so us lefties aren't taking brass in the face.




Only thing I'd change about the PDR is to add a bit of barrel length bumping it up to 16 inches over their original 12.5".

I think the army should go with an americanised version of 7.62x39mm ak-47.

Sure you sacrifice some distance, but since it is a higher caliber round you get more stopping power.

An 8x30 round, assuming one could be developed, seems perfectly ideal to me!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think the army should go with an americanised version of 7.62x39mm ak-47.

Sure you sacrifice some distance, but since it is a higher caliber round you get more stopping power.

An 8x30 round, assuming one could be developed, seems perfectly ideal to me!

Why go 7.62x39 when you could just go 7.62x51 and get to distance back?

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think the army should go with an americanised version of 7.62x39mm ak-47.

Sure you sacrifice some distance, but since it is a higher caliber round you get more stopping power.

An 8x30 round, assuming one could be developed, seems perfectly ideal to me!

Why go 7.62x39 when you could just go 7.62x51 and get to distance back?

Isn't the nato 7.62 a hotter round, i.e. more gun powder= more kick = less controlability?

I am not sure that is why I ask. 51mm versus 39mm is 12mm longer....

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I think the army should go with an americanised version of 7.62x39mm ak-47.

Sure you sacrifice some distance, but since it is a higher caliber round you get more stopping power.

An 8x30 round, assuming one could be developed, seems perfectly ideal to me!

Why go 7.62x39 when you could just go 7.62x51 and get to distance back?

Isn't the nato 7.62 a hotter round, i.e. more gun powder= more kick = less controlability?

I am not sure that is why I ask. 51mm versus 39mm is 12mm longer....

Having shot both, I can say there is a little more of a kick, but in all reality, full auto even with the .223 round is uncontrollable by most.
Semi auto with the 7.62x51 (.308) is fine for me.

Originally posted by macman

Having shot both, I can say there is a little more of a kick, but in all reality, full auto even with the .223 round is uncontrollable by most.
Semi auto with the 7.62x51 (.308) is fine for me.

Most rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO are heavier than most 5.56 rifles. That weight helps with perceived recoil.

I love my 7.62 rifles. If ammo were cheaper I'd shoot nothing but. I can use them for 3-gun, rifle comps out on the 1,000 yard range and even hunting.

The 5.56's are pretty much 3-gun only. Sure, I can use a nice 20" A2 for service rifle comps but why bother when I could use an M14?

Seems to me a rifle in 7.62 NATO is more versatile, more useful, more practical and more powerful than any 5.56 rifle. Yeah, it's heavier to carry and the ammo is heavier as well but it all gets a lot lighter when your shooting.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Yeah, it's heavier to carry and the ammo is heavier as well but it all gets a lot lighter when your shooting.

With that, I say start working out, if it is too heavy

I love my M14!!!!!

Personally I want something with either selectable left/right ejector ports and or forward or downward ejecting weapon. I will never understand why most Americans hate bullpups so pathologically. But such is life.

Originally posted by roguetechie
Personally I want something with either selectable left/right ejector ports and or forward or downward ejecting weapon. I will never understand why most Americans hate bullpups so pathologically. But such is life.

Most dislike the bull-pup for 2 reasons.

First, placing the chamber right next to your check is very unnerving. The likely hood of something happening bad enough to warrant this is slim, but it can and has happened.
Second, the bull-pup trigger linkage is usually not as crisp as the regular platforms. Usually has more creep then what people want.

I do like the Keltec RFB, with the ejection of cases downward, but that is not as important as accuracy.
Never really saw an issue with side port ejection.

Combine the sks with the M-16 carbine chamber with a .50 cal rounds. This would be an interesting hybrid weapon.

Shaolin they actually make those already.

The .50 beowulf can be chambered in AR 15's .... But personally if I was to go with an off the shelf big bore thumper rifle it would be a .458 socom AR... Only because I can't get myself anything in 9 x 39 russian. There's even one guy who's got a .458 socom AR running a piston system.