Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/7/2005 8:07:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 8:08:08 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:15:51 AM EDT
Nice lines...

Is there a civie version?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:20:07 AM EDT
Fired the 5.56 SIG. To me there isn't a better rifle. I would love to have a 550.

Hey SIG, build it and they will come.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:21:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2005 9:48:01 AM EDT by TheRedHorseman]
ignore me I know nothing
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:22:23 AM EDT
something bigger that that cute 5.56 round
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:23:30 AM EDT

Is there a civie version?


Yup...they cost around 10 grand. Ive heard they have some for around 4 grand but ive never seen them.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:25:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 8:29:18 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:26:49 AM EDT
The difference between a M16 and a SiG55x is the difference between a Mercades M-Class and a Jeep.

If you actually HAVE to go off road and USE it you are better off with the Jeep.

Anyway there is no reason to replace the M16 with ANYTHING for another 10 years at a minimum.

And when the time comes no traditional assault weapon will be able to do the job.

what is needed is a weapon that shoots APDS to defeat body armor, but with a large enough penetrator to have something approaching decent wounding.

A rifle designed around a 10x40mm or so straight cased cartridge shooting a 6-6.5mm or so tungstin slug in a plastic sabot.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:27:02 AM EDT
I really think a gas-pistoned AR in 6.8 remington would be a good combat rifle.

Cheaper that the other systems, less retraining, and tons of 5.56 components for civvies. . . .
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:28:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Keep in mind a rifle need be reliable, rugged, accurate and dependable. Also many people will want a US made design but that is almost a non consideration as most foreign manufactures are setting up US based facilities like HK, Beretta, etc.


There is also the cost factor. Anybody can satisfy the above requirements given enough money.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:34:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
The difference between a M16 and a SiG55x is the difference between a Mercades M-Class and a Jeep.

If you actually HAVE to go off road and USE it you are better off with the Jeep.

Anyway there is no reason to replace the M16 with ANYTHING for another 10 years at a minimum.

And when the time comes no traditional assault weapon will be able to do the job.

what is needed is a weapon that shoots APDS to defeat body armor, but with a large enough penetrator to have something approaching decent wounding.

A rifle designed around a 10x40mm or so straight cased cartridge shooting a 6-6.5mm or so tungstin slug in a plastic sabot.



+1, if M16 = Jeep and SIIG55X = M-class.

Right now, you can argue if anything is actually better than the 16. Or not. There simply isn't a good justification for replacing it.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:36:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 8:37:46 AM EDT by JHP]
I am good with the sig...but to be honest I do like the look feel of Barretts 6.8mm




I'd love to see Barrett get the deal --couldn't happen to a nicer company. He'd need some serious help from his State Senators and Congressmen...

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:36:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:37:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Krazny13:
I really think a gas-pistoned AR in 6.8 remington would be a good combat rifle.

Cheaper that the other systems, less retraining, and tons of 5.56 components for civvies. . . .



It would be- if someone had come out with it in 1955... now it would be too little change, too late for too much money.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:38:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
The difference between a M16 and a SiG55x is the difference between a Mercades M-Class and a Jeep.

If you actually HAVE to go off road and USE it you are better off with the Jeep.





LMFAO. The SIG is the Jeep here dude. It is so much more reliable than a M16/M4 it isn't funny.




Considering how few major armies have used it and how little of that use has been outside of Central Europe... its very easy to build a gun that works flawlessly in central europe. The MG34 was like that...
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:38:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 8:39:42 AM EDT by Epsilon]
No. More like AR15 = Jeep and SIG550 = Hummer.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:38:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
I'd say the FN2000.

its fancy enough to catch the eye of the top brass with all its whiz bang gadgets. its modular, and even has a telescopic sight with a laser rangefinder that will adjust the reticle for both the rifle and the optional 40mm grenade launcher. the bullpup design gives a long barrel in a short package maximizing the fragmentation potential of the M855 bullet and still allowing for good use in urban environments. forward ejection would solve any problems with transitioning from left to right handed shooters or just for shooting around a corner on your weak side. it already uses M16 magazines, and uses standard 40mm ammunition so there would be no shortage of ammunition or magazines for this weapon system.

but hey, I just like bullpups




That summarizes my opinion.


To me, the Sig 55x is NICE, but it's not clear that it is that much of a step forward from the M16 to warrant replacement. In my opinion, a well-designed bullpup would be a significant step forward - but I guess the actual combat effectiveness and reliability of the P2000 design is as yet undetermined.

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:39:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
I for example think the OICW is simply too heavy and the XM8s carbine barrels are too short to be practical (12.5").



I think Troy indicated that the XM8 barrel compounds this fault by producing a significantly lower velocity for a given length. If true, if we go to the XM8 in 5.56 as is, we will be hearing lots of failure to stop stories, and lots of requests to go to something more effective.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:39:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Epsilon:
No more like AR15 = Jeep and SIG550 = Hummer.



Over built, over enginneered, and overweight huh?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:39:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Krazny13:
I really think a gas-pistoned AR in 6.8 remington would be a good combat rifle.

Cheaper that the other systems, less retraining, and tons of 5.56 components for civvies. . . .



I agree wholeheartedly regarding the caliber change.

I've seen other posts regarding a gas piston action. What are the pros and cons of that vs the M16's current system?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:41:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Epsilon:
No. More like AR15 = Jeep and SIG550 = Hummer.



The SIG is too big for the trails?
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:44:27 AM EDT
The ideal replacement would be a phased plasma pulse-laser in the forty watt range...



Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:44:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 8:45:31 AM EDT by Epsilon]

The SIG is too big for the trails?


No. Hummers dont need trails....they make their own.


Id take a Hummer(H1) over a Jeep anyday..and you know you would too.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:46:34 AM EDT
What should the military adopt? Why of course, the rifle they've used since the mid 1960's! I see nothing on the market so revolutionary and better to warrant a change. The M-16 and M4 are very capable of doing what we need a basic weapon to do. I think the M16 family of weapons still has at least another 10 years to serve.

But if we were to replace them, then of everything I've seen, the SIG 550 Series rifles would be my top choice for replacement.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:46:45 AM EDT
The Bushmaster M17...


Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:47:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By stony275:

Originally Posted By Krazny13:
I really think a gas-pistoned AR in 6.8 remington would be a good combat rifle.

Cheaper that the other systems, less retraining, and tons of 5.56 components for civvies. . . .



I agree wholeheartedly regarding the caliber change.



I don't.

I'd go to 77 gr bullets. And maybe 16" barrels.

Don't get m,e wrong, I like the 6.8 mm idea. I think 5.56 remains a better choice for general issue. Keep 6.8 for SpecOps, that kind of thing.


I've seen other posts regarding a gas piston action. What are the pros and cons of that vs the M16's current system?


The gas piston system will be heavier and less accurate. It will also send less fouling into the action, making the rifle easier to clean after lots of shooting, particularly with dirty ammo. But it won't add much to reliability--failures seem to revolve around the magazines. Improving the magazines is probably a better idea.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:47:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Killbot:
The Bushmaster M17...


www.army.lt/guns/gallery/B38.jpg





Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:48:55 AM EDT
This is off the subject but I like the new mag. wells on the M17s. The old ones were fugly!
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:49:58 AM EDT
Maybe this has been mentioned before, but are wartime rifle needs different than peacetime rifle needs?

My point is that in wartime, are rifles more of an expendable, reliable for 20K rounds and then junk 'em proposition than a peacetime rifle that will be issued, reissued, rebuilt, etc?

For a country at war, wouldn't it be better to have something that is rugged, light and dirt cheap to produce?

Sometimes, I wonder if the Steyr AUG didn't achieve what would be 2005 state of the art capability back in the 80s. Modular, SBR to LMG capability. Things that the AR15 didn't achieve until the Diemaco LMG in the 90s. Course, I don't have any info on how the AUG has done in combat, and I realize that the Australians had a number of gripes about the AUG

Nothing terribly unique by today's standards, but still pretty up there.

How much would a SiG 550 cost in volume to procure? How much extra killability will it give to soldiers?

It seems to me that given some of the griping about penetration, that a different bullet construction, caliber or some kind of ballistic improvement is needed more than a new system.

I have also wondered if a dedicated and easily portable grenade launcher with a 2-300m range would be useful. Would a 5.56 rifle squad be improved by a trained grenadier with an improved M-79 with an optical sight and maybe some sort of programmeable TOF fuse?



Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:50:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:51:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Epsilon:

The SIG is too big for the trails?


No. Hummers dont need trails....they make their own.



Maybe, in flat open spaces. They have trouble in the mountains and hills where I typically drive.

Some time back, H1 owners were trying to get the Rubicon widened, so their vehicles would fit.



Id take a Hummer(H1) over a Jeep anyday..and you know you would too.



If someone were giving H1s away, I'd take one. Then I'd sell it. And buy something I like.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:54:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:54:55 AM EDT
An Americanized version of the AK-47 in .257X39. More precise and better finished parts, black phoscoat finish, 14" or 20" quick change barrels, polymer furniture. The caliber is just the 7.62X39 necked down to .257 caliber.

Putting a bunch of electronic and high tech bullshit on a battle rifle is asking for trouble. The basic AK design is sound and it's been proven to work. The caliber is my idea. Smaller and faster, but large enough to still have more energy at the end of its effective range.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:55:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 8:59:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:
Nice lines...

Is there a civie version?



Yes a civilian semi only was imported in very limited numbers from about 1987 until the 1989 import ban and sold for around $750 NIB. These days a NIB goes for as much as $9,000 and one in decent condition commands as much as $7,000. Ridiculous 10x collector market prices for a semi only rifle courtesy of George Bush Sr.

There is 'talk' of SIG producing the 55x series domestically in civilian semi auto but it reamins talk at this point. A SIG rep at the 2003 Shot Show said they were gonna do it "if" the AW Ban sunsets but no word yet since September.

A 'agency only' 551 semi only rifle is available and it goes for about $4,000.

If any department procurement officers are out there I can get you 551s NIB all day long for $4,400 + s/h. They may 'then' be transferred to individual officers who can own them as personal rifles.


Police Guns sells them for $1500. I've never heard $4K for agency people. Not to rag on your price, but it seems a little high.
As for a civilian version coming out, don't hold your breath. SigArms has wanted to do this for years. It's the big wigs at Swiss Arms who don't think America needs a 550 series rifle. Swiss Arms knows there is a large market for these rifles to American civilians, so I think they have there own reason for not giving Sig USA the rights. I love the 550 series, but it wouldn't be a good replacement in my opinion. It's heavier, it has less availability to be modular, only one model has a solid optics platform, it would propably be ALOT more pricey. I would rather have a 552 than the M4 though. If they got a big enough contract to our government, I would imagine Sig could get the rights to produce them stateside. But like I said, don't hold your breath.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:02:17 AM EDT
Although I think there are better rifles than the AR, I doubt any of them provide such a significant improvement that they would justify changing over to a new system. Once effective body armor becomes more common among our enemies, we are going to have to make a radical change to our small arms. A new rifle at this point would have a shorter lifespan than the M14.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:03:43 AM EDT

OMG, the SIG is basically an AK


Yup hes right. The SIG is basically a very very high quality AK.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:04:13 AM EDT
I think they are going in the right direction with the SCAR selection.

Designs like the FN and XCR I think are a step in the right direction.

Choosing a heavier rifle is a step backward IMO, and using too much plastic is also a bad idea.

I still think the FN-SCAR is too heavy if it weighs 7.7lbs (I believe the SCAR requirement was under 7.25lbs).

These SCAR designs could be further lightened by using polymer (or carbon fiber) lowers and handguard lower halves.

A totally polymer upper is a big mistake.

I also don't think it would be very hard to improve,modify and lighten the M16/M4. This would seem to be the most cost effective approach and the basic design of the M16/M4 works very well.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:05:59 AM EDT
M16/M4 is fine. Just screw the Geneva convention (since most enemies are NOT signatories anyway, and seem to blow up babies for fun) and start using toxic bullets. Throw in some fast dissipating nerve gas grenades for good measure.

Just a flesh wound? Just hit in the hand? Oh, wait, now you feel a little woozy. Oops, you're dead. Welcome to "bullet technology meets advanced chemistry 101".
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:06:00 AM EDT
How about we keep things the way they are until we can offer a significant improvement??? That will save us tax payers a lot of money and save everyone else a lot of trouble.

Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:13:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:
I think they are going in the right direction with the SCAR selection.

Designs like the FN and XCR I think are a step in the right direction.

Choosing a heavier rifle is a step backward IMO, and using too much plastic is also a bad idea.

I still think the FN-SCAR is too heavy if it weighs 7.7lbs (I believe the SCAR requirement was under 7.25lbs).

These SCAR designs could be further lightened by using polymer (or carbon fiber) lowers and handguard lower halves.

A totally polymer upper is a big mistake.

I also don't think it would be very hard to improve,modify and lighten the M16/M4. This would seem to be the most cost effective approach and the basic design of the M16/M4 works very well.


I think the FN SCAR rifles with carbon composite receivers would be perfect. Easy barrel length/caliber changes, easily adjustable to fit any personell's needs, made in the states, made by a company we have and can trust for Military contracts too. If my tax dollars were going anywhere, that would be the direction I'd like my money to go.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:31:45 AM EDT
AFA the rifle issue is concerned, simply contracting out to an American firm for pistoned uppers to mate to existing M-16 lowers is by far the best remedy available right now. It might even allow for the introduction of the 6.8mm round as well, but that is another argument for another thread.

If we do this, everybody, and I mean *everybody* wins. Americans build it, Americans buy it, troops don't need to re-train on a new system, existing mags (also another argument for another thread) will still work, and the rifle will be a bit more reliable and/or rugged.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:53:18 AM EDT
M4-style weapon chambered in 6.5 Grendel, integrally suppressed.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:57:36 AM EDT
As a taxpayer, I say keep the M-16 & the M-4.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:59:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
As a taxpayer, I say keep the M-16 & the M-4.



+1 If it ain't broke then don't fix it.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:16:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 10:22:05 AM EDT by ErinMT]

Originally Posted By Greywolf2112:
M4-style weapon chambered in 6.5 Grendel, integrally suppressed.



I like this idea. 6.5 has flatter trajectory making accuracy more soldier proof. And if our guys just got the H&K M4 and M16 uppers, if the damn thing would just come out, they would still have the same ergonomics but a reliable, accurate, and more powerful weapon.

I still think our Military needs to get some more long range weapons to our troops. The tales coming out of Afganistan are kinda mixed when it comes to fire fights at 400m and out. SR-25s and the such. We bought a good number of M107s but honestly how many people do you know that would want to lug that thing around Afganistan? I got tired of holding an M82 after about a minute. Tyring to imagine 50 rounds and then 50 pounds of gear just made me tired.

What semi auto weapon in larger caliber would you guys and gals like to see sent over? How about some Springfield Armory M21s and M25s?



Anyone have the MSRP for the XM8 compaired to the H&K M4 uppers? Be interesting to see how much would be saved by just upgrading our current weapons.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:17:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 10:20:48 AM EDT by vito113]

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:
Nice lines...

Is there a civie version?



If you live in Switzerland… yes! ANYONE in Switzerland can buy one without paperwork, they cost around $2,300 from all gunstores. And if your aged between 18 and 55 the Govment GIVES you a full auto version to keep at home… and you HAVE to shoot it regulary…

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:21:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By PointlessSilly:
Nice lines...

Is there a civie version?



If you live in Switzerland… yes! ANYONE in Switzerland can buy one without paperwork, they cost around $2,300 from all gunstores. And if your aged between 18 and 55 the Govment GIVES you a full auto version to keep at home… and you HAVE to shoot it regulary…

ANdy


Crime must be through the roof there.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:22:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 10:25:48 AM EDT by magnum_99]
How exactly is the AR platform obsolete? As a system, it offers more options than ANY other.

The only deficiency I can see is the relative lack of stopping power on soft targets when compared to something like .308--but this is VERY ammo specific and most of the issue can be resolved with the heavier weight bullets in 5.56 (77 gr.).

Until something totally revolutionary comes along, like a rail/energy gun, then there simply is no need to make any wholesale change.

With the military's increasing emphasis on special ops forces doing more of the dirty work, mission specific platforms can overcome any deficiency in the AR system.

For main line infranty troops, there simply is NOTHING else that compares to the AR/M16/M4 weapon system in terms of ease of maintainance and use, ergonomics, modularity, upgradeability, and reliability.

The AMAZING number of options and accessories for the AR platform alone makes it THE most mature and developed small arms weapon system available.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:23:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 10:36:55 AM EDT by ilike9s]
I get to shoot one Sunday, so I'll let you know then. But if we adopted it, I think they should make it in .308 as well.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:25:44 AM EDT
"Jimmy, you need to go and qualify with your G36C today."

"Ah mom, do I have too?"

"Yes son, it's your dutty to be prepared to defend your country and family."

"Ok, but can I use my handloads and not the issue stuff?"

"If you must honey, I want you to be as accurate as possible."

"Thanks mom, I'll bring somehting home for dinner."
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top