Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/8/2006 5:33:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 5:34:01 PM EDT by SWO_daddy]
Hilarious thread about DMR
There is some serious ownage of some of the goobers by some senior (O-5) Army personnel.

Also, pay attention to the last sentence in the penultimate post on page 2.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 5:55:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Hilarious thread about DMR
There is some serious ownage of some of the goobers by some senior (O-5) Army personnel.

Also, pay attention to the last sentence in the penultimate post on page 2.



Very interesting.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:41:38 PM EDT
bump
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:56:29 PM EDT
This is almost as bad as ar15.com when it comes to blind fanaticism.

that was one good line from it...
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:05:25 PM EDT
Its not coming up for me....
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:06:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
Its not coming up for me....


Cut and paste on your browser: http://www.odcmp.org/new_forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13452&whichpage=1
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:40:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Hilarious thread about DMR
There is some serious ownage of some of the goobers by some senior (O-5) Army personnel.

Also, pay attention to the last sentence in the penultimate post on page 2.



Found this on the bottom of page 1, of the above mention forum that was pretty funny:

"I do post at AR15.com every now and again. But battlerifles........what a bunch of kool aid drinkers."

Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:50:09 PM EDT
Interesting reading material. I especially like what they added about the SASS program.

Hey, maybe someone can answer a question for me. From what I was told, the SASS program is going up for re-bid? Does this mean the program is dead? Would they put it up for re-bid because they changed the weapons specifications? What's the latest intel??

wp
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:23:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wackypeacock:
Interesting reading material. I especially like what they added about the SASS program.

Hey, maybe someone can answer a question for me. From what I was told, the SASS program is going up for re-bid? Does this mean the program is dead? Would they put it up for re-bid because they changed the weapons specifications?



That's the word around the campfire...



What's the latest intel??

wp



I didn't have enough money to buy Colt
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 8:35:32 PM EDT
Ok, the article came up this time, and I'm happy to see that there are ignorant people on other gunboards.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 2:29:30 AM EDT
From what I can tell, most of the people in the CMP forum are just interested in collecting and plinking with Garands, and many treat black rifles just like Elmer Fudd.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 2:45:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 2:55:35 AM EDT
Can anyone elaborate on the comments made by Lt Col David Liwanag , CO of the Army Marksmanship Unit, regarding a "dispute" in the SASS trials?


Is there a problem with it's acceptance? (The KAC was chosen, right?)
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:55:35 AM EDT
I've read a post by LtCol Liwanag pasted over at Battlerifles awhile back where he poo-poo's the idea of the M-14's "comeback". However, the facts fly in the face of his criticism: the M-14 IS experencing a limited rennaisance. At least in the Army, most major combat units have one per squad filling the SDM role. And with non-infantry units increasingly being deployed as grunts also (artillery, cav scouts, etc.) that "one per squad" adds up to more than you would think. Is the M-14 the answer for all times? No, but despite what LtCol Liwanag may prefer it is being re-issued in relatively large numbers (more so than at any time since it was replaced by the M-16).
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:58:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
I've read a post by LtCol Liwanag pasted over at Battlerifles awhile back where he poo-poo's the idea of the M-14's "comeback". However, the facts fly in the face of his criticism: the M-14 IS experencing a limited rennaisance. At least in the Army, most major combat units have one per squad filling the SDM role. And with non-infantry units increasingly being deployed as grunts also (artillery, cav scouts, etc.) that "one per squad" adds up to more than you would think. Is the M-14 the answer for all times? No, but despite what LtCol Liwanag may prefer it is being re-issued in relatively large numbers (more so than at any time since it was replaced by the M-16).



I don't think anyone is denying that M14s are being put into action.

What is being denied is the opinion of some that the M14 is somehow becoming THE Army SDM rifle.

As the Col said, it is being fielded as an expedient measure. it will not be the long term solution as it is hardly supportable from a training and logistics aspect. It could be done, but it is far cheaper, easier, faster, and just as effective to field M16 based SDM-Rs.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 3:58:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunzilla:
This is almost as bad as ar15.com when it comes to blind fanaticism.

that was one good line from it...



+1
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 4:04:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:
Can anyone elaborate on the comments made by Lt Col David Liwanag , CO of the Army Marksmanship Unit, regarding a "dispute" in the SASS trials?


Is there a problem with it's acceptance? (The KAC was chosen, right?)



Originally, there was a dispute, mostly started by Remington, stating the final judgement was made unfairly. As mentioned, I hear the SASS is going up for re-bid and the and the winner (KAC) was pulled from there winning status. I wonder what the really story is? Was is because of Remington's dispute or is it be because of the Spelllissy/Burke issue?

WP
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 4:15:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
I've read a post by LtCol Liwanag pasted over at Battlerifles awhile back where he poo-poo's the idea of the M-14's "comeback". However, the facts fly in the face of his criticism: the M-14 IS experencing a limited rennaisance. At least in the Army, most major combat units have one per squad filling the SDM role. And with non-infantry units increasingly being deployed as grunts also (artillery, cav scouts, etc.) that "one per squad" adds up to more than you would think. Is the M-14 the answer for all times? No, but despite what LtCol Liwanag may prefer it is being re-issued in relatively large numbers (more so than at any time since it was replaced by the M-16).



I don't think anyone is denying that M14s are being put into action.

What is being denied is the opinion of some that the M14 is somehow becoming THE Army SDM rifle.

As the Col said, it is being fielded as an expedient measure. it will not be the long term solution as it is hardly supportable from a training and logistics aspect. It could be done, but it is far cheaper, easier, faster, and just as effective to field M16 based SDM-Rs.




I agree. It is interesting to note, however, that Uncle Sugar has contracted last year for several key M-14 components to be manufactured again. According to Different over in the Armory section, these include op rods, trigger mech stuff, flash hiders, front sights, magazines, and other small parts. He even listed the companies who got the contract.

What I extrapolate from the above is that while EVENTUALLY the SASS will be pursued, the M-14 seems to be a "semi-permanent" answer. With all @ 100,000 of them we still had in storage as of a few years ago it makes sense money-wise to use what is at hand. What will eventually be spent on a new SASS is FAR more than retro-fitting the M-14 and securing a few small contracts for replacement parts. That should buy the DoD a few more years while it decides on the actual SASS program. Hell, why do you think that the SASS is being re-bid? There is no rush.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 7:33:07 AM EDT
What I am really interested in is the Colonel's comment about Remington.mil coming up with an MOA 77 gr round that clocks 2900 fps out of a 20" barrel.

Now THAT is hot. About the only way I can see reloaders getting there is with a very high energy powder like Vihta Vuori N540. It is doable, but approach with caution.

Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:02:33 AM EDT
In summary,

Army PTB and shills: the AR DMR and 5.56 platform are of god and will never be replaced. Get over it.

Guys in field: We would rather have the .308 or at least have the option because the obvious advantages over the 5.56 at range.

Me: yawn
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 8:11:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
What I am really interested in is the Colonel's comment about Remington.mil coming up with an MOA 77 gr round that clocks 2900 fps out of a 20" barrel.

Now THAT is hot. About the only way I can see reloaders getting there is with a very high energy powder like Vihta Vuori N540. It is doable, but approach with caution.




+1 that stuff sounds fun, hpefully its true and we will see something at SHOT.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 4:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rob_H:
In summary,

Army PTB and shills: the AR DMR and 5.56 platform are of god and will never be replaced. Get over it.

Guys in field: We would rather have the .308 or at least have the option because the obvious advantages over the 5.56 at range.

Me: yawn



I don't know, there are alot of guys going to the fight with a 5.56, even if they have a choice. You might be oversimplifying the matter. There are trade offs either way you go.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 5:45:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
What I am really interested in is the Colonel's comment about Remington.mil coming up with an MOA 77 gr round that clocks 2900 fps out of a 20" barrel.

Now THAT is hot. About the only way I can see reloaders getting there is with a very high energy powder like Vihta Vuori N540. It is doable, but approach with caution.




I wonder what my "hot" service rifle 77gr loads would chrono. 2750 fps? yikes!

I do seem to remember remmington.mil talking about an intermediate round with some amazing velocity that didn't quite work out though.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:11:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 6:11:34 PM EDT by SWO_daddy]
warren, I know for a fact that my Hornady 75 OTM and AMAX loads are trucking at 2750 fps and I have no bad juju showing up in the brass.

I could go faster, but beyond 2750 or so, it gets dicey unless one uses VV N540. I can only get Hodgdon, Alliant, and Accurate Arms locally, so I'm stuck at about 2700 for the 75s and probably 2650 max for the 80s.

I refuse to pay the bullshit hazmat fee on powder and primers.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:48:22 PM EDT
This is exactly what I have believed in, utilizing a round that does not need velocity for results. The Russian's accomplished this with the 5.45, a superior bullet in terms of wound channels created at sub velocity's that the 5.56 would choke. Basically the Russian designed a round that is independent of velocity for most of it's wounding capability so why don't we use that design?


"All the 5.56 needs is a cannelued 75 to 77 grain bullet with a core design like the Russian 5.45X39 bullet. In the meantime, replacing M855 with Mk 262 Mod 1 for general issue to riflemen would be a great start."
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 6:58:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Creeper:
This is exactly what I have believed in, utilizing a round that does not need velocity for results. The Russian's accomplished this with the 5.45, a superior bullet in terms of wound channels created at sub velocity's that the 5.56 would choke. Basically the Russian designed a round that is independent of velocity for most of it's wounding capability so why don't we use that design?


"All the 5.56 needs is a cannelued 75 to 77 grain bullet with a core design like the Russian 5.45X39 bullet. In the meantime, replacing M855 with Mk 262 Mod 1 for general issue to riflemen would be a great start."



But the Russian round doesn't fragment. Even below the fragmentation threshhold, 5.56mm should still yaw, just like the Russian 5.45mm.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 7:15:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Deep-Blue:

Originally Posted By Creeper:
This is exactly what I have believed in, utilizing a round that does not need velocity for results. The Russian's accomplished this with the 5.45, a superior bullet in terms of wound channels created at sub velocity's that the 5.56 would choke. Basically the Russian designed a round that is independent of velocity for most of it's wounding capability so why don't we use that design?


"All the 5.56 needs is a cannelued 75 to 77 grain bullet with a core design like the Russian 5.45X39 bullet. In the meantime, replacing M855 with Mk 262 Mod 1 for general issue to riflemen would be a great start."



But the Russian round doesn't fragment. Even below the fragmentation threshhold, 5.56mm should still yaw, just like the Russian 5.45mm.



+1 the russian round isn't that impressive
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:36:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wackypeacock:
Interesting reading material. I especially like what they added about the SASS program.

Hey, maybe someone can answer a question for me. From what I was told, the SASS program is going up for re-bid? Does this mean the program is dead? Would they put it up for re-bid because they changed the weapons specifications? What's the latest intel??

wp


Big SASS thread in the RULB forum.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:00:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 11:05:39 AM EDT by rob78]
there is some serious ownage in that thread.

some some hard-core dumbasses as well

"Why don't they just issue an M16 varient but chambered in 7.62. It would give them more range and more knock down power." -covered in depth in three or four posts yet still written?

"I would ask then why people prefer larger caliber weapons for hunting isn't that what a sniper does hunt People?"- who mentioned snipers?
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:32:01 AM EDT
Now I know that Arfcom has not cornered the market on ignorant, functionally illiterate, iconoclastic fucktards.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 11:50:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lon_Moer:

Originally Posted By Wackypeacock:
Interesting reading material. I especially like what they added about the SASS program.

Hey, maybe someone can answer a question for me. From what I was told, the SASS program is going up for re-bid? Does this mean the program is dead? Would they put it up for re-bid because they changed the weapons specifications? What's the latest intel??

wp


Big SASS thread in the RULB forum.



Thank, I already read through that thread. It seems that only a couple of us know about the SASS re-bid, but I wonder why the Army dropped Knight's?

WP
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:50:19 PM EDT
The most interesting replies were made by the Army officer, especially reguarding M14 accuracy.
The example selected for testing from Anniston was probably THE BEST one in the system and it was capable of only 7 MOA. Thats barely "Garbage Dumpster" accuracy....Since the average MOA should be around 4 with M80 ball, its apparent storage and lack of experience/parts has taken a toll on these weapons. The M14, while a decent battle rifle, makes for a poor sniper system. It takes extensive modification to make it sufficiently accurate, and when modified to this point its practically unsustainable to anyone outside Crane, Indiana. This is something Rodman, Rock Island and later, the FBI all found out. This is what caused the Navy to look beyond the M25 to the SR25 and MSG90. Both the SR25 and MSG90 are much better platforms as they don't forsake reliability for accuracy, which is why both still are used today. Granted the MSG90 isn't

exactly prevalent, but it does exist and American soldiers are using it in the War on Terror. Its time that everyone gets on board and adopts the Mk11 as the "official DMR" of the military. Sniper AR10's are nothing new, this is something that was incredibly mis-managed. 300 stock DPMS LR .308's with BUIS and Leupold Mk4's would be a much better "stop gap" than reviving relics. I couldn't fathom going to combat with 1 magazine and no spare parts. Not every troop is as gun savy as we are, nor do all have the resources to buy extra magazines and rails for a weapon thats not even thiers. Its time that the DoD and contractors work together for the good of both. This war is about our right to exist as the only Superpower and god forbid, if it goes badly these contractors aren't going to have anywhere to peddle thier wears....Get on board and help out. Im so tired of reading about how everytime a winner is announced, the loser sues. All this does is tangle the program up in court and prevent our troops from having the right stuff. While the contractors may loose money, our troops are loosing much, much more. Just something to think about
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:04:42 PM EDT
Well, Remington has been very busy updating the M24 to the M24A2.



In all honesty, this seems a quicker and cheaper way to increase a sniper's firepower w/o buying a whole new rifle system.

I just wonder what has changed about a sniper's (not DM) role that now requires a semi auto rifle. A bolt action plenty fast for what a sniper needs, unless someone can tell me why not. Besides, when it comes to precision fire, a SA is not faster, at least not when we're talking 308 level of recoil.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 5:14:27 PM EDT
More ownage of the 30 caliber goobers. Brian K Sain showed up in the CMP thread.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:42:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Well, Remington has been very busy updating the M24 to the M24A2.

www.remingtonmilitary.com/images/smallarms/m24a2_lg.jpg

In all honesty, this seems a quicker and cheaper way to increase a sniper's firepower w/o buying a whole new rifle system.

I just wonder what has changed about a sniper's (not DM) role that now requires a semi auto rifle. A bolt action plenty fast for what a sniper needs, unless someone can tell me why not. Besides, when it comes to precision fire, a SA is not faster, at least not when we're talking 308 level of recoil.


Ohhhh, I like that. Might have to get one.
Link Posted: 1/18/2006 4:31:10 PM EDT
.
Top Top