The BAR was a bipod mounted weapon that weighed about 20 pounds. That's a hell of a difference compared to a standard, shoulder-fired rifle weight weapon. I have fired both the M14 and BAR in combat.So....BARs were useless, then? Oh, that's right, they were a "squad automatic weapon " I forgot. I would bet that there are more than a few combat vets out there that were very grateful for that "auto" position on their M-16s.
Go fondle your Webley Mk VI Vern.... you will feel better.....we know that you have one....
Slater wrote:
Looks like they want to stick with the tried-and-true 7.62mm NATO round instead of going with something smaller.
tark wrote:
So....BARs were useless, then? Oh, that's right, they were a "squad automatic weapon " I forgot. I would bet that there are more than a few combat vets out there that were very grateful for that "auto" position on their M-16s.
carbine85 wrote:
What about the AR10? It also shares parts from the AR15.
Hanzo581 wrote:
For some reason I thought Scar 17s were already in use in the military.
Moisin Bubba wrote:
IIRC, they are paying something like $4000 each to soup up M14s.
Where did you ever get such an idea? You need to cite sources for such assertions.
Tricky Dick wrote:
Wouldn't it be interesting if each soldier that would be issued said rifle could just choose their own that fit this criteria with an allowance?
Logistically, it would be a nightmare, but it would be neat.
Moison Bubba wrote:
What does IIRC mean to you?
A link has already been provided in previous posts to the solicitation for an RFI as well as a link to an article discussing it. I adopt the definition of IIRC used in the articles. Please read these thoroughly before replying again.
You should also note that the Army's Small Arms Caliber Study and the USASOC’s current evaluation; studies that will determine the caliber of the future service round are still to be delivered and they DO NOT include consideration of the 7.62 round.
Had you read previous posts that I have written, you would be aware that from the time I was a graduate student, I have been involved in the work to select a replacement of the 5.56x45 cartridge. After a preliminary analysis, in which I materially participated, a 6.5mm bullet was selected. Thirty years later the Army remains focused on 6.5mm as the future combat round, not 7.62.
Thus "interim" means "temporary selection" - - that is assuming the RFI ever results in the selection of even a single rifle that is ultimately procured.
when will they finally adopt a round in between the 5.56 and the 7.62/ 308 with a 6.5 bullet if they are looking for a new round? or do they just want a new rifle?No.
You're not taking into account that there has been an on-going analysis of rounds below 7.62 and above 5.56mm going on for 30+ years. The Small Arms Caliber Study and the USASOC’s current evaluation, which will determine the caliber of the future service round are still to be delivered. Remember, this proposal is for an "interim" solution; not what the military will adopt on a go-forward basis. The 7.62 round is not under consideration for anything in the future other than a medium machine gun round.
they don't raise taxes for that or mostly anything else they just print more money borrow sell bonds etcAs you noted, it would be a logistical nightmare that would end up getting people needlessly killed (unless your income taxes were raised considerably to pay to stock the plethora of additional parts and hire, train and deploy the technicians required to use the resulting stock of nearly-identical spare parts).
Would you be willing to vote to have tax rates raised by 5% to fund this suggestion?
If not, they you should probably withdrawn it; with prejudice.
Absolutely. When I was a BAR man (on the range, in the states), I would only use the low rate, which was between 400 and 450. In Viet Nam, a village below our battalion HQ was attacked. I looked across a road, toward another hilltop and saw three men, in uniform, with weapons, all down on one knee. Since I only had a carbine, I grabbed a sentry's BAR, put it on low, and got one before the other two scattered like a covey of quail.Curious, Vern, and all sarcasm aside....I have talked to several men, including yourself, that have seen combat. and carried a B.A.R. They told me that the rifle is most effective when left on the lower rate of fire (350 RPM I think it was ). Was this your experience as well? I have fired B.A.R.s extensively but never in anger. I was in Ordinance. It seemed to me that the gun was much easier to control, especially from prone with the bipod, when it was on low rate of fire.
It didn't help that it had about twice the cyclic rate of the BAR -- and the Ordnance types thought that was an advantage!!I think we agree on the M-14, it is uncontrollable when fired in full auto mode. I had an M-14A1 in Nam. It had the bipod, pistol grip stock, muzzle brake and the recoil pad. There was an extra grip for your left hand. It weighed almost as much as a B.A.R. when loaded. Didn't help. Couldn't hit anything with it on auto beyond twenty or thirty yards.
The point has merit.If I were designing a machinegun, I'd design it for a low rate of fire -- only when engaging aerial targets do you need a high cyclic rate
Amen to that, Vern. When I was a Small Arms Repairman (45B20) in Germany We had an M-60 that was unfortunately ran over by a jeep. We got it running again but the receiver was slightly ....uhhhh.... pinched! The gun would reliably fire, but the constriction slowed the rate of fire to about half what it should have been. And we discovered that the thing was devastatingly effective against any targets out to several hundred yards. It was very easy to hold it on target, it just seemed to have a perfect cadence for putting rounds where you wanted them to go.If I were designing a machinegun, I'd design it for a low rate of fire -- only when engaging aerial targets do you need a high cyclic rate.
Well, it really depends, I imagine... PKM fires at 650 rpm and weighs about 17 pounds (e.g. less than BAR), and although not intended in SAW role originally, it was so often used that way that Russians even came up with a fixed barrel version around 2010. Reportedly, it's fairly controllable.If I were designing a machinegun, I'd design it for a low rate of fire -- only when engaging aerial targets do you need a high cyclic rate.
Had you read previous posts that I have written, you would be aware that from the time I was a graduate student, I have been involved in the work to select a replacement of the 5.56x45 cartridge. After a preliminary analysis, in which I materially participated, a 6.5mm bullet was selected. Thirty years later the Army remains focused on 6.5mm as the future combat round, not 7.62.