AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/17/2005 3:57:12 PM EDT
|
Ok, the military is looking to replace the AR, and has been for most of my adult life. The beefs against the AR appear to be. 1. The direct impingement gas system. Dirty, puts extra heat into the receiver, and ammo sensitive. 2. Its too long for fighting in a urban environment. 3. The 5.56 round is too short ranged when fired out of barrels that are short enough to be used in aforementioned urban environment. 4. The 5.56 round sucks against cinder blocks, or any type of laminate construction. 5. The barrel isn't field replaceable. 6. It isnt as reliable as AK designs when filled with crud. Ok I am sure there are others but these are the ones tha thave been repeated in gun rags and on this site enough that I have them memorized. The problem I have with all these gee whiz replacement rifles, they don't seem to be dealing with more than a couple of these prblems. The replacements all seem to be non inpingment systems, so point one is handled well. They are all shorter than the M16, but they are doing that with truly short bbls. Which leads to point three becoming an even larger problem. ANd doesnt desl with point 4 at all they are all still 5.56. Point 5 is a major sticking point with me, true the bbl isnt field replaceable but the Upper certainly is. As for point 6 how are the systems that are being proposed handling the accuracy requirements and keeping the loose tolerances that the AR holds in order to be so reliable? just my thoughts on the subject. |
|
5.56 cartridge is fine and wont be replaced. A new ball ammo would be nice though. Other things are being changed like the fact AR is not ambi controled, the charging handle location sucks, and the stock cant fold. They also want colors other than black, less visability under NV observation, etc. |
The same old bullshit.
|
|
the military hates change and change of ammo is real hard to push. took a act of congress apresident and the most feared man ever to do it. from what i heard the 223 is useless in high country that cold like korea or afganastan. i that a .25 cal 120 gr would be a easy switch for training and use,provide 33% more useable range and do a better job at close range stoping power. one must know why we use the 223 to understand why it been used allmost 40 years now. it was a cold war weapon ,light and easy to carry and the other sheall tend to explode inside a human makeing battle feild surgury a nightmare. it was designed to would rather then kill cause a dead soldiger requirs nothing a wounded one reqiures 3 people or more. one must understand that going to a large round like the 7.62 x39 dont allways make sence. it weights more so less can be carryed ,the weapon will weight more so gear will have to be shed. if you ever carry a M-14 around you know what 5 20 rd clips weight and then 200 rds of ammo and a 10 lbs gun. you will see some pretty stuid add ons that sort of thing or mayby a 70 or 75 gr bullet upgrade. if past flaws show anything you see them do anything but go to a light 6mm round. i think the usefiull life off the ar 15 design been reached . the new wars are really showing it flaws and it not just the 223 but the whole package. a less complex 6mm that light in a bullpup design is long over do but the british are having real bad issues with there design . there a huge need for a new nato weapon and it dont need bells or whiles just plain old commen sence.hug.gif |
|
it was a cold war weapon ,light and easy to carry and the other sheall tend to explode inside a human makeing battle feild surgury a nightmare. it was designed to would rather then kill cause a dead soldiger requirs nothing a wounded one reqiures 3 people or more. Jusy the above proves you are a regurgitator with no knowledge to add to this discussion. The military did not design the ammo to only wound nor fragment. All you are doing is spreading misinformation you heard elsewhere. Stupid add ons? Like optics, lights and IR lasers? You mean necessary equipment. Bullpup? So we can have slow reloads and no collapsing or folding stocks... no thanks, bad idea. |
|
as i see alot of ar-14 m4 buff here so just say go to iraq or better yet try it at 5000 feet plus at 300 -400 M and we see how you like a 14 '' barrel and 62 gr bullet it allmost useless. we need a new system with a scope for range and that bullet to do that. as for the inside have you tried to strip a ar 15 in the woods here now try a desert cause over there i clean daily or else you be real sorry. as for the ak there pure trash mostly. they shoot at best a 5'' group at 100 have cheap casting and unless there a real russian machined there pretty iffy. however those loose fitting make it ideal for desert warfare with poorly trained people. they dont have the training the marines get nor the issues the army has so it a sort of trade off. we dont need silly looking platforms like what everyone tweaks there into cause in combat you want less not more and simple. we need a bullpup it taht simple and real ugly but effective. i had 20 years of shoting alot of guns and i say there i pick alot of other weapons first. mayby that special ops have been asking for more m 14 not m4 . the military has issues with the m249 ,m-60 the rocket lanchers and everything from tanks to gunships. we knew this 10 years ago by the way and i will admit the sectary of defence maybe wrong about alot of things but he has tried to make the fighting force more mordern and less cold war area super weapons that are pure useless anywhere except in gemany where they were design to fight. so if quick to embrace change anywhere dont expect it to be in the most commen weapon either. dont get me wrong i love the black rifle ,it great fun sure sexy and cool but outside a sandpit it not a sure thing and in war you want a sure thing. hippie.gif |
We don't need a system that is good for 500yds for the average grunt. There was an AAR posted here a couple months ago stating that the average Infantryman kill range was 37yds. The average sniper kill was about 75yds. We need rifles that are good at close ranges more than we need rifles that are good at extreme ranges. Bullpups are dumb. Good idea in theory, but the magazine position is something I will never accept and would be horrible for a fast reload. WIZZO |
AR Sponsor