User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:03:29 PM EDT
[#1]
IN!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:05:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IN!!!! Soooo in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:07:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Which gun is "Gun C"?
Has it been leaked yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:08:55 PM EDT
[#4]
It will never matter. The whole world is vested in the AR platform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:10:19 PM EDT
[#5]
The Times spoke with soldiers who had used the M4 in intense combat. They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts. Anyone know what they are talking about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:11:01 PM EDT
[#6]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:11:43 PM EDT
[#7]
I wonder if the makers think we suck and hate us?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:13:10 PM EDT
[#8]
How much did HK pay for this article?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:13:55 PM EDT
[#9]
It was the gun that Al Pacino used in Heat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:14:04 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? We all knew this day would come. The M16 will be replaced with the Bushmaster M17 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:14:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:14:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Outperform? Yeah sure.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:19:45 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much did HK pay for this article? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:21:23 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance. Length? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:24:37 PM EDT
[#15]
I would also like to know what "Gun C" was.
Also, in. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:29:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:34:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"?
If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:39:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:42:35 PM EDT
[#19]
In before the "what does the SCAR do better than an AR" thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:45:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone know what they are talking about? Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Times spoke with soldiers who had used the M4 in intense combat. They said the magazine is tinny and subject to jamming. The gun itself requires constant cleaning. One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts. Anyone know what they are talking about? magpul, Duhhhh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:54:36 PM EDT
[#21]
This is gun "C"
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:58:49 PM EDT
[#22]
Unless it's a m4a3 or something like that. I call
Maybe a 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:00:55 AM EDT
[#23]
I wonder which H&K won the test...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:02:09 AM EDT
[#24]
My vote goes to the ADCOR A-556 ELITE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:03:12 AM EDT
[#25]
I'm so sure gun 'C' is one you can find in Battlefield 4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:06:13 AM EDT
[#26]
gun "C" was obviously an AK.
eta: *$$*%^&*&&%%## slow hughesnet |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:17:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:32:12 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:32:44 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Length? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance. Length? Girth |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:39:59 AM EDT
[#30]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:59:12 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? Kel-tec plr16 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:03:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:04:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Welcome to the new US Army. "Bullpup" -style
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:06:14 AM EDT
[#34]
HAS to be a PSA 308 AR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:22:44 AM EDT
[#35]
If this is more XM8 propoganda it just isn't going to happen.
Ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:28:09 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles What? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:28:26 AM EDT
[#37]
They really should just stop wasting money on projects like this until there's something truly revolutionary nothing is going to depose the ar platform. It's earned its stripes and then some. Doesn't make sense to change anything at this point.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:37:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HAS to be a PSA 308 AR Could have been the 1911 from PSA |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:44:48 AM EDT
[#39]
Mini-14?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:33:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HAS to be a PSA 308 AR 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:38:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryWANT. SA80s are sexy beasts. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:38:40 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before the "what does the SCAR do better than an AR" thread Aside from cost a shitload more? I picked up a new fun yesterday, and the shop had a used SCAR 16 on the rack. $2450. My jaw dropped. Ouch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:40:44 AM EDT
[#43]
The Army is severely allergic to change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:41:22 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mini-14?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:43:36 AM EDT
[#45]
In on 1!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:43:56 AM EDT
[#46]
How about a list of the weapons in the test?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:47:36 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles What? Shhh. He's on a roll. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:48:07 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. M855A1 can be had if you have the cash to drop and know where to look. Been that way for a good while now. It's what the Army planned to (and has, give or take) change to for Ball ammo. It was in development forever and wasn't exactly a shock or dark horse. You expect them to test a new carbine with ammo being phased out? Sometimes, specs change for valid reasons. Did Colt get to bitch about the change to M855A1 in testing? They didn't get to redesign the M4 for it either. Thus the testing was just as unfair to the M4. And the Army is still making changes to the M4/M4A1 to get it to work right with M855A1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:48:36 AM EDT
[#49]
This PSA has been brought to by Berretta.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:49:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Tag till I ask a few questions.
|
|
|
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.
