Topic: Ferret's Bar And Grill "A new contender for the US Army's M-16 replacement"

[Ferretlxix_XC]

CHeck this out!
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

[J. Carney]

I first heard about this while I was still overseas... and I am wholeheartedly in favor of the 6.8mm taking over. I like the balistics enough that if the Guard would allow me to purachase the upper to put on the M-16 frame personally, I would do so happily and use it for making my own semi-auto brush gun upon leaving.

The stoping power this thing has is excelent and having something hit a target at 600m from a 16 1/2" bbl and score a "1-shot kill" every time is outstanding.

THe Army needs to go to this caliber for rifles and to .40 S&W for pistols... I say the .40 instead of the .45 because the .40 can also get the "1-shot kill" everytime, but it has less recoil and can fit more rounds in the same size weapon with no real loss in stopping power.

[S'Raek]

I would have to agree with you J. Carney, I would also like to see the military go to a more powerful round.  I own a .40 pistol and love it, though I don't get to shoot it much.  But they made a good point at the end of that article, I imagine that the government has tons of 5.56 rounds sitting in warehouses around the country.  Spending the money to buy new ammunition would add a lot to a new weapons program. 

[J. Carney]

I would have to agree with you J. Carney, I would also like to see the military go to a more powerful round.  I own a .40 pistol and love it, though I don't get to shoot it much.  But they made a good point at the end of that article, I imagine that the government has tons of 5.56 rounds sitting in warehouses around the country.  Spending the money to buy new ammunition would add a lot to a new weapons program. 

Compared to training new soldiers to replace the ones that the jam-prone piece of junk BB gun that we are issued right now lets down on a regular basis?

The M-16 has been the riflf of choice for America since Vietnam because we have only now really begun to use it in a proteacted conflict in truely harsh conditions. Sorry guys, Central America isn't all that harsh... just hot as hell and wet- oil can fix that. Sand is a lot harder to deal with than wet, and the very act of cleaning the gun is what attracts more dirt and grit- it sticks to the oil. We had to clean our -16's EVERY DAY... and might have done it every half-day if we had the chance. By contrast my SAW would fire for days dirty and I won't even count the .50 cal... those things a hardy beyond discription.

It was a bad choice to start with.

The ammo can be sold off to private wholesalers at about the same price that the Gov't paid for it, if not one more benificial to the Gov't. New ammo will be contracted at the same insanely low prices.

Money is not an issue here. Politics is all that keeps the M-16 in style... the fact that it is made in Belgum (FN makes all new M-16's and M-4's) and the Baretta is made in Italy makes us look friendly to a couple of  our 'cross the pond' neighbors... and probably makes some congressman a lot of money.

We need to contract Colt to make a new .40 cal internally identical to a double-stack 1911A1 and Barrett to make 6.8mm uppers to replace all the old .223's we have. American companies, American jobs, and good old fashioned American 'bigger is better' thinking.

We need a little more of that these days.

[*EZKILL*]

I like the idea. sounds smart and relatively cost effective.

Never was a big fan of the .22 on steroids idea anyway. Sure they're light to carry, but a ~50 grain round just ain't gonna cut the mustard.

gimmie a M-1 Garand any day of the week.

Ain't Barret the guys that make the .50 sniper rifle for the military?

[J. Carney]

I like the idea. sounds smart and relatively cost effective.

Never was a big fan of the .22 on steroids idea anyway. Sure they're light to carry, but a ~50 grain round just ain't gonna cut the mustard.

gimmie a M-1 Garand any day of the week.

Ain't Barret the guys that make the .50 sniper rifle for the military?

Yep... sweet weapon, too. All th punch abd reach of the.50 and no more recoil than a 12 guage... some EOD guys let me blow up a couple of cluster munitions we found with one.

I got to shoot cause I pointed them out before the EODguys drove their truck over them .

[jualdeaux]

I like the idea. sounds smart and relatively cost effective.

Never was a big fan of the .22 on steroids idea anyway. Sure they're light to carry, but a ~50 grain round just ain't gonna cut the mustard.

gimmie a M-1 Garand any day of the week.

Ain't Barret the guys that make the .50 sniper rifle for the military?

Yep... sweet weapon, too. All th punch abd reach of the.50 and no more recoil than a 12 guage... some EOD guys let me blow up a couple of cluster munitions we found with one.

I got to shoot cause I pointed them out before the EODguys drove their truck over them .

it seems you all got something out of that deal.

Oh, want your own? Check here.
http://www.model1sales.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=KCEM46R610&storeid=1&image=carm416e68r.gif

And if you want the tactical handguard.
http://www.model1sales.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=FTH002&storeid=1&image=tacthg.gif&CFID=1936063&CFTOKEN=70331805&jsessionid=84303378951088819961859

[Ferretlxix_XC]

Well aside from political reasons, it sounds sensible, even with the ammo change, the cost is less dramatic than congiguring to a totaly new gun.
And for the pollitical side, which wondernut in the works is going to argue over this one?

[J. Carney]

Well aside from political reasons, it sounds sensible, even with the ammo change, the cost is less dramatic than congiguring to a totaly new gun.
And for the pollitical side, which wondernut in the works is going to argue over this one?

Ferret...

You wear the Blue Suit, you should know that the chances of a weapon system's being approved for use is inversely proportional to it's practicality. There would be someone in Congress- if only that drunken sod Ted Kennedy- who would try to keep this excellent new toy out of the hands of guys that would love to get it.

Personally, I think it would be nice if the Gov't canceled FN's contract and let Barrett start making all the -16 based designs. Tennesee could use a few hundred new jobs- even if they don't approve the caliber swap.

[Byzantine]

I had been seeing the advert for the M468 in the last couple issues of American Rifleman and wondering what it was.  Thanks for the heads up ferret.  I like the thinking behind the M468 a LOT.  But my political question would be - does the US have any obligations under NATA STANAG to stay with the 5.56?

[*EZKILL*]

I had been seeing the advert for the M468 in the last couple issues of American Rifleman and wondering what it was.  Thanks for the heads up ferret.  I like the thinking behind the M468 a LOT.  But my political question would be - does the US have any obligations under NATA STANAG to stay with the 5.56?

Excellent question, hadn't thought of it.....

Beuller??

Anyone??

[jualdeaux]

Define NATA STANAG please.

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

CHeck this out!
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

I tired to post this article last week but when I pushed the post button I got one of those stupid error messages.

Anyway the big thing about this gun is this...

What it all boils down to is that when the 5.56mm cartridge was first introduced to U.S. combat rifles, it was adopted because of its size and its fit with the U.S. "shoot-to-wound" philosophy of the time. While the 7.62mm NATO round used in the M-14 is much more powerful than the 5.56mm bullet, it is also much larger; a soldier can carry twice as many 5.56mm bullets as he can 7.62mm. In extended combat operations (wars lasting years), it was also estimated that wounded combatants would require more logistical support than dead ones -- with this in mind, the U.S. adopted the 5.56 round, since if the bullet did not kill outright, it would certainly cause a serious enough injury that the casualty would be hospitalized for a significant amount of time.


But it is heavier and more expensive than the other contender, the Heckler Koch XM-8.

Still the change in it's core philosophy makes it a strong contender.  With the shortage of soldiers we are currently experiencing our boys (and girls) will be finding themselves in more and more situations where "one shot one kill" will save many lives and missions.

[J. Carney]

 

Amen to the 'one shot, one kill' thing. I don't care if the SOB dies on the spot and doesn't tie up 3 of his buddies to drag him to safety. I would prefer knowing that I have a dead guy out there over hoping that I hurt him bad ehough to put him out of comission.

We kinda had a gentlemen's agreement with the Russians when it came to the posiblity os war- we would try to destroy each other with as swift and certian an action as we could and would try to kill as few soldiers as we could get away with doing it.

We have nothing like this with the terrorists. No reason to worry about how many bodies we leavebehind here... noone likes these guys.

[Iceman]

CHeck this out!
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl

I tired to post this article last week but when I pushed the post button I got one of those stupid error messages.

Anyway the big thing about this gun is this...

What it all boils down to is that when the 5.56mm cartridge was first introduced to U.S. combat rifles, it was adopted because of its size and its fit with the U.S. "shoot-to-wound" philosophy of the time. While the 7.62mm NATO round used in the M-14 is much more powerful than the 5.56mm bullet, it is also much larger; a soldier can carry twice as many 5.56mm bullets as he can 7.62mm. In extended combat operations (wars lasting years), it was also estimated that wounded combatants would require more logistical support than dead ones -- with this in mind, the U.S. adopted the 5.56 round, since if the bullet did not kill outright, it would certainly cause a serious enough injury that the casualty would be hospitalized for a significant amount of time.


But it is heavier and more expensive than the other contender, the Heckler Koch XM-8.

Still the change in it's core philosophy makes it a strong contender.  With the shortage of soldiers we are currently experiencing our boys (and girls) will be finding themselves in more and more situations where "one shot one kill" will save many lives and missions.

While the orange stuff is all true, I'd personally want 1 less person to deal with.

[Byzantine]

Define NATA STANAG please.

Sorry, typo.  NATO STANAG.  I believe it stands for STAndard NAto something or other.  But there are a number of STANAG specs for ammunition, magazines, etc and who knows what.  So can the US unilateraly change caliber of it's primary battle rifle without running into treaty issues?