User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:06:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Thoughts? If it helps them with their missions then I have no problems. Better this than more money to the FSA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:07:47 PM EDT
[#2]
TL; DR summary:
Marine Corps is buying monolithic uppers and adjustable stock kits from VLTOR en masse, having armorers slap them on existing M16A4s, adding optics and fielding them as marksman rifles. They stop short of actually fitting heavy barrels or even using new barrels, choosing instead to free float the barrels of the existing M16A4s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:07:47 PM EDT
[#3]
So now people can build A-4gerys
Edit: I suck at reading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:08:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Institutional inertia fucking fail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:08:29 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:08:54 PM EDT
[#6]
So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:09:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? yep, Military procurement strikes again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:09:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
But it's in FDE man!
So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:09:59 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:10:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Dunno if its the iPad or not, but I got nothing from your link about an "A5".....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:11:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms Is this a bad thing? Why? (I'm not arguing, but I note the little 'military' icon under your username and therefore I am genuinely interested in your opinion of this). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:11:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Dunno if its the iPad or not, but I got nothing from your link about an "A5"..... That's weird, I'll try it again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:12:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Military Times does not have the story up anymore...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:12:59 PM EDT
[#14]
So basically just an adjustable stock, a BUIS, and a free-floated bbl?
The adjustable stock part is nice I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:13:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Military Times does not have the story up anymore... Wtf? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:13:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Military Times does not have the story up anymore... Ouch, maybe the Marine Corps or VLTOR wasn't happy, they did say it was a leak. That was fast. Good thing I copied it onto here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:15:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thoughts? If it helps them with their missions then I have no problems. Better this than more money to the FSA. I bet I could spend $100,000,000 per Marine and it would help them with their mission. Doesn't make it a good idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:15:23 PM EDT
[#18]
this is a big step for the corp. I remember rolling in the sand feb 1991 in a m60 tank while the army were enjoying the m1a1. hell, catching a lift in the huey while the army enjoyed the blackhawk. give the Corp a break
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:15:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
So basically just an adjustable stock, a BUIS, and a free-floated bbl? The adjustable stock part is nice I guess. It was really about time on both counts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:16:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Military Times does not have the story up anymore... Ouch, maybe the Marine Corps or VLTOR wasn't happy, they did say it was a leak. That was fast. Good thing I copied it onto here. It's not like either of them would do anything to Gear Scout. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:16:37 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms Is this a bad thing? Why? (I'm not arguing, but I note the little 'military' icon under your username and therefore I am genuinely interested in your opinion of this). A rifle length system isn't conducive to operating out of a vehicle or entering buildings. It's not fun swinging a 20" barrel down a narrow mud hallway with body armor on. It combined with the IAR concept are two of the dumbest decisions that Marine Corps has made, and looks like they are sticking to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:17:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Military Times does not have the story up anymore... Ouch, maybe the Marine Corps or VLTOR wasn't happy, they did say it was a leak. That was fast. Good thing I copied it onto here. It's not like either of them would do anything to Gear Scout. They may have requested to have the story pulled. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:18:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms Is this a bad thing? Why? (I'm not arguing, but I note the little 'military' icon under your username and therefore I am genuinely interested in your opinion of this). A rifle length system isn't conducive to operating out of a vehicle or entering buildings. It's not fun swinging a 20" barrel down a narrow mud hallway with body armor on. It combined with the IAR concept are two of the dumbest decisions that Marine Corps has made, and looks like they are sticking to it. They intend to field it more as a marksman rifle, so one hopes they don't give one to everybody, but only to those who need them as opposed to sticking one in the hands of every guy, even when most of them have no need of a long rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:21:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight. A $900 free float monolithic rail and then they put a sling on the front sightQuoted: But it's in FDE man!So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200?  . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:23:03 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
TL; DR summary: Marine Corps is buying monolithic uppers and adjustable stock kits from VLTOR en masse, having armorers slap them on existing M16A4s, adding optics and fielding them as marksman rifles. They stop short of actually fitting heavy barrels or even using new barrels, choosing instead to free float the barrels of the existing M16A4s. Fyi, that's still TL;DR Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:23:25 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight.
Quoted:
But it's in FDE man!
So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? Hypothetically, does LaRue even have the capability to manufacture that many uppers? Also, I wonder if the decision to carry over everything from the existing A4 save the buffer, upper, and stock is partly due to the fact that nobody can get BCGs right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:24:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
TL; DR summary: Marine Corps is buying monolithic uppers and adjustable stock kits from VLTOR en masse, having armorers slap them on existing M16A4s, adding optics and fielding them as marksman rifles. They stop short of actually fitting heavy barrels or even using new barrels, choosing instead to free float the barrels of the existing M16A4s. Fyi, that's still TL;DR Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile If that is TL;DR then so is this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:25:38 PM EDT
[#28]
So they went with the VIS instead of LMT's MRP?
And they are going to keep the old barrels? I'm sure they will gain accuracy from free floating and the rigidity of the VIS but a new barrel just seems called for. (but what the hell do I know?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:26:05 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight.
Quoted:
But it's in FDE man!
So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? Hypothetically, does LaRue even have the capability to manufacture that many uppers? Also, I wonder if the decision to carry over everything from the existing A4 save the buffer, upper, and stock is partly due to the fact that nobody can get BCGs right now. Uh, the Military has a fuck ton of BCGs. They are re-using them cause the military needs to save money. Hence why at the end of my last deployment we qualified before we left because our budget was being cut when we returned to the states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:26:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: The military could build their own factory if BCGs were a problem. The VIS isn't even the problem. The problem is using an $800+ railed upper in the most bumblefucked manner possible. If the goal is to spend $1200 and increase accuracy with an optic by 35% this is about the dumbest way to do either. Hypothetically, does LaRue even have the capability to manufacture that many uppers? Also, I wonder if the decision to carry over everything from the existing A4 save the buffer, upper, and stock is partly due to the fact that nobody can get BCGs right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:29:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Keeping the fixed rear sight was dumb. RISII would have been a better rail system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:30:00 PM EDT
[#32]
I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:30:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight.Quoted: But it's in FDE man!So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? Hypothetically, does LaRue even have the capability to manufacture that many uppers? Also, I wonder if the decision to carry over everything from the existing A4 save the buffer, upper, and stock is partly due to the fact that nobody can get BCGs right now.  edit: i am pretty sure if i could, i would have not been told that i would have to wait 7 months for my predatAR, when i tried to order one 2 years ago. Ended up not getting it and now i hate myself :(
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:31:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
So they went with the VIS instead of LMT's MRP? And they are going to keep the old barrels? I'm sure they will gain accuracy from free floating and the rigidity of the VIS but a new barrel just seems called for. (but what the hell do I know?) The MRP cannot detach the lower section of the rail to accommodate a barrel mounted M203, the ability to barrel mount a '203 is still a requirement for all general use service rifles in the US military. As for keeping the old barrels all I can guess is it saves money and they didn't feel they needed any more accuracy for the work they were going to be doing with the A5 system. The Corps has DMRs and this isn't one, it is more like a half step to a DMR. Also keeping the old barrel means they don't need to install (and thus headspace, fit, etc.) a new barrel. This contributes to it being a quick and easy armorer conversion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:32:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: So they went with the VIS instead of LMT's MRP? And they are going to keep the old barrels? I'm sure they will gain accuracy from free floating and the rigidity of the VIS but a new barrel just seems called for. (but what the hell do I know?) The MRP cannot detach the lower section of the rail to accommodate a barrel mounted M203, the ability to barrel mount a '203 is still a requirement for all general use service rifles in the US military. As for keeping the old barrels all I can guess is it saves money and they didn't feel they needed any more accuracy for the work they were going to be doing with the A5 system. The Corps has DMRs and this isn't one, it is more like a half step to a DMR. Also keeping the old barrel means they don't need to install (and thus headspace, fit, etc.) a new barrel. This contributes to it being a quick and easy armorer conversion. How do you replace an upper without installing a barrel? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:32:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16? This part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:32:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight. A $900 free float monolithic rail and then they put a sling on the front sightQuoted: But it's in FDE man!So it's just a rear BUIS on a railed monolithic upper and a buffer tube and stock for $1200? .I'm in the wrong business. I should be scamming the US government/taxpayer like everyone else, that's where the money is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:33:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16? The M4 is the order of the day for the Army and they have little interest in a 5.56 platform with a barrel over 16". They have decided to field a 7.62x51mm rifle for all marksman work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:34:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
TL; DR summary: Marine Corps is buying monolithic uppers and adjustable stock kits from VLTOR en masse, having armorers slap them on existing M16A4s, adding optics and fielding them as marksman rifles. They stop short of actually fitting heavy barrels or even using new barrels, choosing instead to free float the barrels of the existing M16A4s. Fyi, that's still TL;DR Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Gun Marines Accuracy Same barrel, new upper Wasted money Better? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:34:45 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So they went with the VIS instead of LMT's MRP? And they are going to keep the old barrels? I'm sure they will gain accuracy from free floating and the rigidity of the VIS but a new barrel just seems called for. (but what the hell do I know?) The MRP cannot detach the lower section of the rail to accommodate a barrel mounted M203, the ability to barrel mount a '203 is still a requirement for all general use service rifles in the US military. As for keeping the old barrels all I can guess is it saves money and they didn't feel they needed any more accuracy for the work they were going to be doing with the A5 system. The Corps has DMRs and this isn't one, it is more like a half step to a DMR. Also keeping the old barrel means they don't need to install (and thus headspace, fit, etc.) a new barrel. This contributes to it being a quick and easy armorer conversion. How do you replace an upper without installing a barrel? You don't but the barrel and bolt are already cool with each other as opposed to having to install a new barrel and headspace the old bolt to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:35:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: It's really not a scam on VLTORs part so much as it's about the most retarded way to do what they want to do. They are so obsessed with every rifle having the ability to mount a M203 and then they want to improve accuracy. It's the same mentality that wanted to issue a target rifle to everyone in WW2. Quoted: That's LaRue Stealth money. Except the Stealth comes with a great barrel and BCG instead of a stock and BUIS. This A5 garbage doesn't even replace the front sight. A $900 free float monolithic rail and then they put a sling on the front sight .I'm in the wrong business. I should be scamming the US government/taxpayer like everyone else, that's where the money is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:36:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16? The Army is (or was, the last time I read about it) going all "M4", although I've seen pics of Soldiers training with the A4 here in CONUS before deployment to SWA. Not being in the Army, I don't know what the plan is officially. The USMC still issues the A4 with it's A2-length buttstock to CA and CS units deploying forward. The biggest complaint was the length of the buttstock when wearing body armor with SAPI plates. LOP is increased considerably with the fixed buttstock and bulky body armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:36:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16? The M4 is the order of the day for the Army and they have little interest in a 5.56 platform with a barrel of 16". They have decided to field a 7.62x51mm rifle for all marksman work. I think you mean 20", right? M16A1/A2/A3/A4 all have 20" barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:37:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not up to speed on the latest military weaponry (I'm from the M16A1 era). When they say the Marines are bucking the trend of the other services by updating the rifle length M16 does that mean the other services have simply dropped the M16 (in favor of M4 carbines?) or does it mean the other services have adopted something else to replace the rifle length M16? The M4 is the order of the day for the Army and they have little interest in a 5.56 platform with a barrel of 16". They have decided to field a 7.62x51mm rifle for all marksman work. I think you mean 20", right? M16A1/A2/A3/A4 all have 20" barrels. Oh, I meant to type "over" 16" |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:37:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: For spending $1200 per rifle before optics cost to improve accuracy 35% you would think they could have sprung for a bolt and barrel instead of a rail that lets them put a grenade launcher on a designated marksman's rifle. They are going to check headspace anyway when they put the old barrel back in.You don't but the barrel and bolt are already cool with each other as opposed to having to install a new barrel and headspace the old bolt to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:38:10 PM EDT
[#46]
Why use a monolithic upper just to keep the front sight?
Just cause they're Marines, doesn't mean they can't be .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:39:11 PM EDT
[#47]
I thought the M16A5 with an M16A4 fitted with the safe-semi-full triggergroup. (Much like the M16A3 was the M16A2 with the safe-semi-full trigger group)
If thats the case, wouldn't this be the M16A6? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:40:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Why use a monolithic upper just to keep the front sight? Just cause they're Marines, doesn't mean they can't be .Why not? The VLTOR VIS is 12" long which means the front sight still fits, also I read somewhere that military abhorred the idea of and I quote "folding sights on a fighting rifle." Also, this obviates the need for the installation of a new gas block and front sight, which saves time and $. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:40:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I thought the M16A5 with an M16A4 fitted with the safe-semi-full triggergroup. (Much like the M16A3 was the M16A2 with the safe-semi-full trigger group) If thats the case, wouldn't this be the M16A6? Your'e thinking of the M16A3. Nope, I think whatever version you are talking about never go an official A_ designation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2013 5:41:02 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Institutional inertia fucking fail. What? Sources inside the Marine Corps indicate that the Corps has bucked the other branches of the service and plans to continue and further the use of rifle length M16 family firearms Is this a bad thing? Why? (I'm not arguing, but I note the little 'military' icon under your username and therefore I am genuinely interested in your opinion of this). A rifle length system isn't conducive to operating out of a vehicle or entering buildings. It's not fun swinging a 20" barrel down a narrow mud hallway with body armor on. It combined with the IAR concept are two of the dumbest decisions that Marine Corps has made, and looks like they are sticking to it. You should try getting through a hell hole in the bottom of a helo with a Mortar tube, and a 20" Rifle on your person. GOOD TIMES! I tell ya!!! 
|
|
|
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.
