User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:05:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Semi auto , at least 30 cal , durable / dirt tolerant and decent sights . Much as I love the AR platform . What's cover for it is only concealment to a battle rifle . Nice, I like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:20:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's cover for it is only concealment to a battle rifle . Have you seen this much in battle? Because when you put together defenses you anticipate fire from GPMGs, HMGs and close in high explosives so what is cover from one small arms is cover from another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:25:17 PM EDT
[#3]
It appears the U.S.N. and wiki are not overly concerned with
the few that are hung up on it being a made up term either. United States Navy Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle ~ EBR Not only is it a Battle Rifle, it's a freaking Battle Rifle that's been Enhanced! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 10:52:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It appears the U.S.N. and wiki are not overly concerned with the few that are hung up on it being a made up term either. United States Navy Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle ~ EBR Not only is it a Battle Rifle, it's a freaking Battle Rifle that's been Enhanced! Put aside that is Navy who are not the proponent for rifles, the EBR is a specific title and since the Mod O is select fire and the Mod 1 has the auto locked even the EBR shows that its a somewhat arbitrary term. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2015 11:00:14 PM EDT
[#5]
The NAVY has MK14 Mods 0, 1, & 2, and their being semi-auto only for the most part is thought to be yet another enhancement.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 12:42:45 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NAVY has MK14 Mods 0, 1, & 2, and their being semi-auto only for the most part is thought to be yet another enhancement. And yet the EBR was built from Rifles, M14 and not Battle Rifle, M14. Look it up in the TM if you like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 7:15:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet the EBR was built from Rifles, M14 and not Battle Rifle, M14. Look it up in the TM if you like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The NAVY has MK14 Mods 0, 1, & 2, and their being semi-auto only for the most part is thought to be yet another enhancement. And yet the EBR was built from Rifles, M14 and not Battle Rifle, M14. Look it up in the TM if you like. And yet they named them Enhanced Battle Rifles. There's no disputing that fact. They are Battle Rifles that have been Enhanced. Battle Rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 10:33:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet they named them Enhanced Battle Rifles. There's no disputing that fact. They are Battle Rifles that have been Enhanced. Battle Rifles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The NAVY has MK14 Mods 0, 1, & 2, and their being semi-auto only for the most part is thought to be yet another enhancement. And yet the EBR was built from Rifles, M14 and not Battle Rifle, M14. Look it up in the TM if you like. And yet they named them Enhanced Battle Rifles. There's no disputing that fact. They are Battle Rifles that have been Enhanced. Battle Rifles. Not according to you know, the US military |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 11:43:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If there's no difference in how they are deployed, then why would there be a need for a different term? BECAUSE WORDS MEAN THINGS specific precise use of terms cut confusion as seen in this thread. Only Internet warriors care. In reality it doesn't matter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Battle rifle, assault rifle etc are retarded distinctions. The only definitions that matter are self-loading rifles and carbines. I DISAGREE COMPLETELY words mean things. Both assault rifle and battle rifle are recognized terms that specify a specific item, type, or feature different from a randomly selected firearm. the fact you selected rifles and carbines as what matters is absurd carbine is perhaps the worst most misused term in the firearm world. It is supposedly a short rifle, but but I have seen PDW, SBR, assault rifles, battle rifles, and sniper rifles all refereed to as carbines. to put it another way if the K98 and the m1a1 para are both carbines then the term is too non specific to be useful. infact the K43 is actually the sniper version of the g43. they are the same size & weight. so the term is useless. Is the SCAR H a battle rifle or carbine  it can easily be both but the scar L can only be a carbine or assault rifle. so battle rifle is a useful term.If there's no difference in how they are deployed, then why would there be a need for a different term? BECAUSE WORDS MEAN THINGS specific precise use of terms cut confusion as seen in this thread. Only Internet warriors care. In reality it doesn't matter. there is absolutely a difference in how they are or were deployed m-14's for example in 2003 filled a DMR ROLE while m-16/m4s were issued to door kickers, and m4s with 203 were issued to team leaders. the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOMteams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 1:05:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is absolutely a difference in how they are or were deployed m-14's for example in 2003 filled a DMR ROLE while m-16/m4s were issued to door kickers, and m4s with 203 were issued to team leaders. the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOMteams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Battle rifle, assault rifle etc are retarded distinctions. The only definitions that matter are self-loading rifles and carbines. I DISAGREE COMPLETELY words mean things. Both assault rifle and battle rifle are recognized terms that specify a specific item, type, or feature different from a randomly selected firearm. the fact you selected rifles and carbines as what matters is absurd carbine is perhaps the worst most misused term in the firearm world. It is supposedly a short rifle, but but I have seen PDW, SBR, assault rifles, battle rifles, and sniper rifles all refereed to as carbines. to put it another way if the K98 and the m1a1 para are both carbines then the term is too non specific to be useful. infact the K43 is actually the sniper version of the g43. they are the same size & weight. so the term is useless. Is the SCAR H a battle rifle or carbine it can easily be both but the scar L can only be a carbine or assault rifle. so battle rifle is a useful term.If there's no difference in how they are deployed, then why would there be a need for a different term? BECAUSE WORDS MEAN THINGS specific precise use of terms cut confusion as seen in this thread. Only Internet warriors care. In reality it doesn't matter. there is absolutely a difference in how they are or were deployed m-14's for example in 2003 filled a DMR ROLE while m-16/m4s were issued to door kickers, and m4s with 203 were issued to team leaders. the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOMteams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 5:22:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there is absolutely a difference in how they are or were deployed m-14's for example in 2003 filled a DMR ROLE while m-16/m4s were issued to door kickers, and m4s with 203 were issued to team leaders. the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOMteams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Battle rifle, assault rifle etc are retarded distinctions. The only definitions that matter are self-loading rifles and carbines. I DISAGREE COMPLETELY words mean things. Both assault rifle and battle rifle are recognized terms that specify a specific item, type, or feature different from a randomly selected firearm. the fact you selected rifles and carbines as what matters is absurd carbine is perhaps the worst most misused term in the firearm world. It is supposedly a short rifle, but but I have seen PDW, SBR, assault rifles, battle rifles, and sniper rifles all refereed to as carbines. to put it another way if the K98 and the m1a1 para are both carbines then the term is too non specific to be useful. infact the K43 is actually the sniper version of the g43. they are the same size & weight. so the term is useless. Is the SCAR H a battle rifle or carbine it can easily be both but the scar L can only be a carbine or assault rifle. so battle rifle is a useful term.If there's no difference in how they are deployed, then why would there be a need for a different term? BECAUSE WORDS MEAN THINGS specific precise use of terms cut confusion as seen in this thread. Only Internet warriors care. In reality it doesn't matter. there is absolutely a difference in how they are or were deployed m-14's for example in 2003 filled a DMR ROLE while m-16/m4s were issued to door kickers, and m4s with 203 were issued to team leaders. the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOMteams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. The M14s were deployed as a low cost solution because Mk12s and AMU built SDMs were deemed too expensive for big army while, SOCOM and the Marines did issue them to fill the gap in semi-precision fire from 300-600 meters. Now the M110 SASS is replacing those systems. Which backs to original point, the doctrine usage for the EBR is supplement the service rifle from 3-600 meter range and the EBR role is filled depend on your organization with either a 5.56 or a 7.62 weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 5:25:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle.
They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 5:31:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. The requirement for a semi-precision weapon is 2 MOA capability, which fills the requirement gap for semi-percussion fires from 300-600 meters. The Marine Corps although it still uses its M40 series, believes the SASS can be used 99 percent of the times snipers engage their target and may go with a larger caliber for its bolt guns and leave the SASS for normal usage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 7:15:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOM teams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 7:36:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOM teams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN Now you're trolling. There is no real difference between a .30 cal rifle with a 20 round mag, and a 5.56 cal rifle with a 30 round mag in the hands of a modern soldier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 7:38:04 PM EDT
[#16]
Page 1 does not really come to a consciences on it and the preponderance of statements were wood and steel
I think Maxim Popenker summed it up best In a tactical sense, automatic rifle is an automatic squad support weapon, manned by a single soldier. Historically, in US Army this role was fulfilled by various types of guns – M1918 BAR (THE automatic rifle), M14 (“battle” rifle), M16A1 (“assault” rifle), M249 (LMG) and M27 IAR (“assault” rifle). The “assault” rifle in a tactical sense is an individual weapon of an infantryman. “Battle” rifle in a tactical sense? Really in a technical sense, all those weapons except M249 are “automatic rifles” by definition. Assault and battle rifle terms are further attempt to create sub-classification by physical properties of weapons (its cartridge and “power”). Technically, assault rifle is an equivalent of automatic carbine (light and compact), and battle rifle is an equivalent of “standard” automatic rifle. Therefore I see the “battle rifle” term absolutely excessive and unnecessary, and “assault rifle” (in its technical sense) somewhat misleading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 9:07:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now you're trolling. There is no real difference between a .30 cal rifle with a 20 round mag, and a 5.56 cal rifle with a 30 round mag in the hands of a modern soldier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOM teams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN Now you're trolling. There is no real difference between a .30 cal rifle with a 20 round mag, and a 5.56 cal rifle with a 30 round mag in the hands of a modern soldier. there absolutely is if you are standing guard at a vehicle checkpoint a soldier with 20 round of 7.62 will be far more effective than a soldier with an m-16 capability matters and in this PC world a term can effect the end use as ROE can be written so that battle rifles can't be used without so'n so's sign off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 9:13:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there absolutely is if you are standing guard at a vehicle checkpoint a soldier with 20 round of 7.62 will be far more effective than a soldier with an m-16 capability matters and in this PC world a term can effect the end use as ROE can be written so that battle rifles can't be used without so'n so's sign off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOM teams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN Now you're trolling. There is no real difference between a .30 cal rifle with a 20 round mag, and a 5.56 cal rifle with a 30 round mag in the hands of a modern soldier. there absolutely is if you are standing guard at a vehicle checkpoint a soldier with 20 round of 7.62 will be far more effective than a soldier with an m-16 capability matters and in this PC world a term can effect the end use as ROE can be written so that battle rifles can't be used without so'n so's sign off. That is about silly, there has been more than once when a 762 machine guns did not stop a SBVIED and conversely there were numerous occasions when 5.56 killed the driver and the Vic stopped and your contention about ROE ignores the CJS SROE specification about self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2015 9:14:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there absolutely is if you are standing guard at a vehicle checkpoint a soldier with 20 round of 7.62 will be far more effective than a soldier with an m-16 capability matters and in this PC world a term can effect the end use as ROE can be written so that battle rifles can't be used without so'n so's sign off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the SCAR heavy was being issued to SOCOM teams to stream line logistics allowing the whole team to be in 7.62. The fact that scar H are often issued with eclans show the role is different over m4s issued with aimpoints. What about M4s with ELCANs? DMR versions of the M16/4? The important distinctions aren't whether the rifle fires a slightly larger round, it's about the role it's used in. So if I am an 88M truck driver and have an M4 or M110 SASS is it now a PDW - that's the role it's being used in. according to your statement.
I say again WORDS MEAN THINGS .. if battle rifle is largely agreed on as a semi 30 cal/full size rifle (which page 1 of this thread proves) then role doesn't mean jack. a PDW is a PDW. an assualt rifle is an assault rifle a LMG is an LMG a GPMG is a GPMG iF I PUT twelve M249S ON A B-25 j THEY DON'T BECOME .50CAL HMG even If it's used the same way. CAPABILITY IS WHAT MATTERS NOT THE ROLE BEING USED IN Now you're trolling. There is no real difference between a .30 cal rifle with a 20 round mag, and a 5.56 cal rifle with a 30 round mag in the hands of a modern soldier. there absolutely is if you are standing guard at a vehicle checkpoint a soldier with 20 round of 7.62 will be far more effective than a soldier with an m-16 capability matters and in this PC world a term can effect the end use as ROE can be written so that battle rifles can't be used without so'n so's sign off. lol que? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2015 8:28:08 PM EDT
[#20]
FDE color scheme....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 10:38:24 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FDE color scheme.... That's the secret squirrel answer |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2015 9:53:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the secret squirrel answer Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FDE color scheme.... That's the secret squirrel answer No no no, that's a secret chipmunk answer. The secret squirrel answer is a rifle that has three different FDE color schemes.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2015 9:58:05 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No no no, that's a secret chipmunk answer. The secret squirrel answer is a rifle that has three different FDE color schemes.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FDE color scheme.... That's the secret squirrel answer No no no, that's a secret chipmunk answer. The secret squirrel answer is a rifle that has three different FDE color schemes.
Lol! 50 shades of FDE |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2015 10:06:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice, I like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Semi auto , at least 30 cal , durable / dirt tolerant and decent sights . Much as I love the AR platform . What's cover for it is only concealment to a battle rifle . Nice, I like it. That post from chrome1 is retarded at best... 
You two do realize that there are AR platforms in .308, right? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 4:48:34 PM EDT
[#25]
What qualities make for a good battle rifle? The person who is shooting. You can have the most perfect rifle ever made, but will be worthless if the person shooting it doesn't know what they are doing! Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2015 7:55:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA The Army already did? M110Cs 
To the original question, without a doubt the best battle rifle on the market is the SCAR 17S. It is crazy light and a good platform. Battle rifles typically are .308 rifles that try to handle like an assault rifle but obviously pack more punch. Typically use a 1x optic, a low powered optic, or no optic at all. Days of the battle rifle are dying out in terms of practicality and latest and greatest. Guns like KAC's current SR-25s or Larue's line bridge a new category of dual purpose rifles - that is a rifle capable of handling close as the M4 yet as accurate as a bolt sniper rifle. Pretty amazing the usual .25-.5 MOA these guns are shooting consistently. Hopefully not too long before this starts becoming the norm for the other companies, and consumers not having to spend 4K on a gun this caliber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 3:34:07 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Army already did? M110Cs . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA The Army already did? M110Cs . The M110C has been around for about 4 years, but I don't believe that it's been adopted |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 3:54:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: American and Madcap what exactly do you mean by that statement? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The funny part, is all the things that make a good "battle rifle" have been determined to be terrible attributes in a rifle to take to battle. This. So, why not just a ar10? American and Madcap what exactly do you mean by that statement? After WW1 the US started researching what it would take to make a more effective service rifle. Fast forward to prior to WW2 they start spec'ing a new rifle and were going to use a new caliber that was not as powerful, and shorter. But then they found out they could upscale it, and chamber it in .30-06 to make use of the billion rounds of surplus ammo. Post WW2 more testing and research, still came to the conclusion .30-06 was a waste of space. Next stop, .308. "Oh look .300 Savage can almost get .30-06 power, lets use it now". Now we have M-14's and M-60's. Yet even MORE research has shown that Infantry needs light weight high volume ammo, because in combat it's statistics on hitting people with small arms and the statistics state most rounds miss, so whoeven can fling out the most rounds will get the most hits. This is all played out in project SALVO and such. Bam, eventually the M-16 is adopted and dominates the battlefield for the next almost 50 years now. Bottom line is, the military has known full power service rifle calibers have not been the most effective thing for Infantry since the end of WW1. The entire mythos of the "battle rifle" is predicated on nostalgia for something that was created by bureaucracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 5:09:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2015 5:37:36 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:31:36 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only people I've talked to who used EBR's overseas that liked them where guys who never used M110's or similar.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's.
Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:38:28 AM EDT
[#32]
Of note: I do like the idea of a CSASS, and I have proven that with the possible exception of
SEI's K-gun, the M14 can NOT meet the length & weight requirements set forth for the CSASS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 3:51:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's.
Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .
Speaking from personal experience I presume? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 8:10:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Speaking from personal experience I presume? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course the Army is looking to replace the M110 SASS with a more compact and reliable sniper rifle. They also want it to be more accurate than the SASS standard of 1.1-inch groups at 100 yards. Also, the SASS is not holding up well in the field. They are reportedly burning out at a pretty high rate. Reports of about half the compliment of M110s in any one unit are being cannibalized for parts to keep the other half going... Definitely not a Battle Rifle. BTW, the average accuracy for the entire run of TACOM M14EBR-RI was .89 MOA My personal experience has been the exact opposite. We had major issues with our EBR's. On top of that a chassis system which requires rezeroing after cleaning is dumb. The few M110's we had were favored over EBR's.
Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .
Speaking from personal experience I presume? As a matter of fact, no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 8:16:49 PM EDT
[#35]
I am. The EBR chassis may be fine for a range gun, LE use, or even heavy duty use by very well trained Soldiers. But when you give one to PFC Snuffy he'll lose the picatinny rail screws or strip them out after cleaning, break the stock latch assembly, etc.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:34:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am. The EBR chassis may be fine for a range gun, LE use, or even heavy duty use by very well trained Soldiers. But when you give one to PFC Snuffy he'll lose the picatinny rail screws or strip them out after cleaning, break the stock latch assembly, etc. Yep, some didn't get the word about not taking the weapon apart when cleaning. There is no need to remove any screws when cleaning. Those screws can be a PITA under normal conditions... and the thread miss-match in the early days sucked for everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 10:43:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Problem is when you get Iraq/Afghanistan dust storms or a week or two of normal weather the thing needs stripped down and cleaned real good. I disassembled magazines weekly to keep the followers moving freely. I may have been a bit OCD but I also never had a malfunction in combat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 9:30:30 AM EDT
[#38]
Good on you. It's clear that "PFC Snuffy" needed more training on the EBR system... the only M14 most had ever heard about was the Vietnam era rifle, and I doubt many had ever handled one much before it was issued to them. Those issued the M14EBR-RI did receive some advanced training, but I don't know when that started. Keep in mind that whole M14 modernization/EBR program didn't even begin to get organized & somewhat funded until sometime in 2010. Prior to that, everyone was pretty much on their own - not an optimal situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 11:14:05 AM EDT
[#39]
We got ours in early 09 and headed to Afghanistan with 8 of them in the company. Of those 8, 5 were deadlined within seven months. One was an IED strike. The rest were rifle and chassis issues. The RECCE PLT never had any issues with their 2 M110's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 11:28:37 AM EDT
[#40]
M16/M4 familiarity definitely helped those that were issued the M110.
Anyone that was not familiar with the M14, and was using the EBR before late 2010 probably had a bad experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 11:44:52 AM EDT
[#41]
We get it. You like the M-14. But if you're going to ignore the firsthand experience of others with them in a combat environment then it comes across as nothing more than fanboyism. I could tell you SEI Fisher cans suck too...but you would come up with a reason they're the best suppressor on the market. Don't know what else to tell you. The M110 did everything we needed it to do...better than the M14, and didn't require removing the optic and rezeroing to strip for cleaning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 11:51:49 AM EDT
[#42]
It really sucks that you have to create a straw man argument.
Your credibility just vanished. Poof. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:07:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good on you. It's clear that "PFC Snuffy" needed more training on the EBR system... the only M14 most had ever heard about was the Vietnam era rifle, and I doubt many had ever handled one much before it was issued to them. Those issued the M14EBR-RI did receive some advanced training, but I don't know when that started. Keep in mind that whole M14 modernization/EBR program didn't even begin to get organized & somewhat funded until sometime in 2010. Prior to that, everyone was pretty much on their own - not an optimal situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:23:22 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It really sucks that you have to create a straw man argument. Your credibility just vanished. Poof. No straw man. Just your fanboyism being revealed...unable to accept the first hand experiences of multiple people over what you've read on the interwebs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 11:31:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote History[b]Quoted:
The M110C has been around for about 4 years, but I don't believe that it's been adopted Funny, I recall playing with the platform while at Reed Knight's factory a decade ago, and in more recent trips to the factory as well.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 11:35:11 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This seems to exclude any attempt at making a modern battle rifle. I don't understand this mindset. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wood, Steel and .30 cal. This seems to exclude any attempt at making a modern battle rifle. I don't understand this mindset. But, you nailed it. It's just reactionary BS / nostalgia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 11:37:58 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because you disagree with their reasoning doesn't make you correct. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Truth & proof. The wiki information is truth, and it clearly states "It is not defined in, or frequently used in, military field manuals or government documents." US military & government omission aside, the term Battle Rifle was created largely out of a need to better differentiate the intermediate-power assault rifles (StG-44, AK-47 and M16) from the full-powered automatic rifles (FN FAL, M14 rifle and H&K G3) as both classes of firearms have similar appearances and share many of the same features. But there was no need to define a term other than people attempting to the smartest guy in the room by being pedantic over made terms. Just because you disagree with their reasoning doesn't make you correct. He's correct because he's correct, and the Wiki article posted even reinforces this level of correctness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 11:49:04 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote History[b]Quoted:
Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .
Funny, my experience as an individual issued one, as well as being cross decked as an SR25-M110 armorer (along with virtually every other wep in our inventory) differs considerably... What is your professional experience with the platform? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 1:11:08 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny, my experience as an individual issued one, as well as being cross decked as an SR25-M110 armorer (along with virtually every other wep in our inventory) differs considerably... What is your professional experience with the platform? http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedMK112.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/081-3.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedSR25Quals.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Few used the M110, because a comparative few are in service. That, and because the M110s are not that reliable .Funny, my experience as an individual issued one, as well as being cross decked as an SR25-M110 armorer (along with virtually every other wep in our inventory) differs considerably... What is your professional experience with the platform? http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedMK112.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/081-3.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedSR25Quals.jpg Oh shit, the real expert steps in! Speaking of which, Lost_River, what design changes in the SR-25 platform do you think should be implemented in order to enhance it's capabilities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 9:50:36 PM EDT
[#50]
Retrofitting older ones with a new, shorter barreled uppers, that are suppressor ready, plus ditching the normally issued Leupold, for lower powered variable Nightforce set up with mil/mil turrets/reticle would be a great start. Like a 2.5-10 Nightforce, for example.
Plus the lowers need collapsible stocks for ease of use with body armor. Basically turn them into the compact versions that Knight's makes. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
