New caliber for the Army.......maybe, just maybe
- Thread starter ArmyJerry
- Start date
So full of fail.
"no we don't need to replace the whole rifle, just the barrel, the bolt, the bolt carrier group and the lower"
So fucking glad they can keep the buffer, buffer spring and the stripped upper.
Besides the fact the dumb fucks can't get off the "7.62" thing.
"no we don't need to replace the whole rifle, just the barrel, the bolt, the bolt carrier group and the lower"
So fucking glad they can keep the buffer, buffer spring and the stripped upper.
Besides the fact the dumb fucks can't get off the "7.62" thing.
Read that and thought the same thing...wtf,and you're an "expert" testifying before congress?
could be the AR30 round. but that would be a huge mistake, most ;likely this guy is a general because they kept promoting him out of combat units before he could do local damage.
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/10/remington-introduces-new-30-remington-ar-cartridge/
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/10/remington-introduces-new-30-remington-ar-cartridge/
7mm in particular as it is much more efficient.
6.8 and 6.5 are also good candidates.
Jimmie Sloan, of .338 and .300 Norma fame designed a .224 on the 6.8 SPC case, shooting 80 grain bullets at pretty high velocities.
The great thing about those very long bullets is that they are not velocity dependent on soft tissue like the 62's
Old news. Direct decision from POTUS....
https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/going-goddamned-black-powder-trump-rails-armys-search-new-rifle/.
https://www.duffelblog.com/2017/05/going-goddamned-black-powder-trump-rails-armys-search-new-rifle/.
Im still waiting for one of these geniuses to suggest using a 45-70 again. The problem is these people want a one size fits all round that fits in an AR15... and they don't want to spend a lot doing it. I have a hard time seeing anything happen til after ww3 hits.
Well the 6.5 CM would be a great choice except for the barrel length needed for that round. I would stick to the .308 and utilize the Horady 178 Superformance round. It's hot and accurate and can be used on shorter barrels.
Is there better than what is current?
Has what is current killed lots of people?
Will something different kill more people?
Will it kill people equally as well in an urban, forested, or desert environment or are there trade offs?
These are the bean counter questions.
I think what needs to be asked is, "Are our people at greater risk because of what we have now?"
When does that risk come into play? Is it in a specific environment or all environments?
Will the new option increase burdens/danger to our troops in environments other than where the new weapon is ideal?
If you think about those questions what's current probably isn't a bad solution.
Has what is current killed lots of people?
Will something different kill more people?
Will it kill people equally as well in an urban, forested, or desert environment or are there trade offs?
These are the bean counter questions.
I think what needs to be asked is, "Are our people at greater risk because of what we have now?"
When does that risk come into play? Is it in a specific environment or all environments?
Will the new option increase burdens/danger to our troops in environments other than where the new weapon is ideal?
If you think about those questions what's current probably isn't a bad solution.
Similar threads
