Army to gun makers: show us a 7.62 service rifle

>>34145743
Any reason to not use a SCAR 17?

>>34145774
They probably want a cheaper alternative, but still not the M14

>>34145743
you forgot
>that we won't buy

Arsenal shows up with the Vepr 47.

File: 047691f44fbadff36826c31ddd37f682.jpg (129KB, 800x358px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x358px

Any reason to not use an AR-10?

>>34145774
$$$

btw requirements are
>16 or 20 inch barrel
>Collapsible buttstock
>Extended Forward rail
>Detachable Magazine of at least 20 rounds
>Weighs <12 pounds unloaded and without an Optic

aka, the field is wide fuckin' open

>>34145786
Of course not. It's just a market research.

File: 1419727870599.jpg (220KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1600x1200px

>>34145743

>>34145795
>New

Not saying it wouldn't be viable but they'd probably want it heavily modified

>>34145795
I was thinking the same thing. It also simplifies the GI training process and logistics if the weapons system are the same instead of training for two different platforms.

>>34145743
>inb4 DSA enters their FAL, and PTR decides to join in the party too with the G3

>>34145823
Also
>"The rifle must be a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) system readily available for purchase today. Modified or customized systems are not being considered,"

>>34145804
>weighs 12 pounds unloaded

Are they high?

Why 7.62 again? Didn't the US force all of NATO onto 5.56 because they realised they made a mistake with 7.62 (that they previously forced on all of NATO)?

>>34145834
What's with the mils obsession with cots lately?>>34145838

>>34145823
But idk why they'd want a new one when there isn't a single battle rifle on the market that is actually better than the AR-10 design.

File: fnac_fn_advanced_carbine-tm-tfb1.jpg (43KB, 540x272px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x272px

>>34145802
SCAR 16s sell for under $1000 to department level buyers.

A .308 version of the FNAC would be even cheaper

>>34145846
Probably comes to price again.

>>34145841
You didn't get the memo? We're never having another war outside a mountain valley again. Cities everywhere stabilised overnight for some reason. We also have a force field that prevents anyone inside a building from thinking bad thoughs anymore.

Intermediate calibers are now unnecessary.

>>34145838
They sure did set the bar pretty low.

File: 27078009081_964f37d0ac_b.jpg (134KB, 1024x989px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x989px

>>34145846

>>34145846
they don't

>>This Request For Information (RFI) is for planning purposes only and should not be construed as a Request for Proposal or as an obligation on the part of the Government to acquire any services or hardware.

/k/retins lack basic reading comprehension

>>34145854
Atleast on the commercial market an AR-10 is one of the cheapest options for newly made battle rifles.

File: digital-veg.jpg (203KB, 750x922px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 750x922px

>>34145858
You didnt hear?
There are .308 bullets that will swiss cheese any rifle plates out there.
With the price and avalibility of body armor, something able to defeat it trumps many rounds that will have far less effect.

>>34145863
The SCAR is better in literally zero ways compared to the AR-10 design.

>>34145885
Shit b8. Kys

File: tumblr_nqmmbtj7FT1s57vgxo10_r1_1280.jpg (117KB, 1280x580px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1280x580px

>>34145890
It's not. Please tell me even one thing the SCAR does better than an AR-10.

>>34145852
An M4A1 costs the US Army ~$650.

>>34145885
>Summer really has started
You need to use better quality bait son

Just going to throw this out there https://pof-usa.com/revolution/

>>34145901
lighter recoil

>>34145901
Reliability first and foremost. Ar10 already btfo.

>>34145907
What functional advantage does a SCAR have again besides costing more?

>>34145795
It seems likely when you consider this paragraph.

>Milley told lawmakers the Army might not require a new rifle since weapons can be chambered for various calibers.
>The M4, however, would require a new barrel, bolt carrier group, and buffer system in addition to
> a new lower receiver to shoot 7.62mm ammo, experts maintain.

Huh, its almost as if those expects dont realize that would be a completely different gun once you change all those parts.

>>34145922
Folding stock.
Adjustable gas for suppressed/unsuppressed use
Parts longevity

>>34145901
>>34145795
see
>>34145804
>Collapsible buttstock

>>34145920
Oh it's the
>ar is unreliable
Meme, well not that i expected more of you.

File: tmp_30651-images(12)-1974704733.jpg (6KB, 150x113px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x113px

>>34145954
Nigga this is 7.somthing pounds and it's 762

>>34145901
it's a standardized design, and not fragmented worse than android.

>>34145841
It says in the article it's because they developed 7.62 rounds that could penetrate ceramic plates.

>>34145918
Wrong.

>>34145932
>things that can be had on an AR, but are normally left out because they are not wanted/needed

I said functional advantage.

>>34145977
>it's a standardized design, and not fragmented worse than android.

So buy a cheaper SR-25 derivative.

>>34145987
It does. I have both. With the same brake. AR weighs more. SCAR recoils lighter.

>>34145843
cots ensures that you already have tooling available to make the rifle, and increases the potential that there are multiple redundant manufacturers.

it also lets you know that it has some moderate field testing in the commercial market.

>>34145972
ANTS

>>34145852
Is it just me or does Funco's little sister look THICC?

>>34145989
Parts longevity isnt functional?

File: IMG_0091.jpg (54KB, 597x597px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 597x597px

>want to switch rifle fleet over to new caliber based on range and penetration
>don't use the opportunity to adopt a new cartridge instead of just using a legacy one
>look at us we're doing something

>>34145977
Take a guess at what will happen to AR10 standardization if the US military adopts an AR10 rifle.

>>34146004
No, it's the military.

File: 1340780889962.jpg (2MB, 3489x2316px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3489x2316px

>>34145743

>>34146012
they wont, because the infighting will reach levels that will make even congress take note, and throw them all in the stockade for corruption.

>>34145992
>>34145992
>cheaper SR-25 derivative
cheaper. thats funny sully.

>>34146014
Why are all the army DMRs so aesthetic

>>34146004
The only part on a SCAR that lasts longer is the bolt, and that is because it is a huge brick.

>>34146062
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_24/467919_.html

>>34145875
I thought the problem was machine gun overmatch? Now it's armor? Wish they'd make up their minds, because clearing a room looks hard as fuck before you add in a heavy recoiling 20" .308 rifle.

>>34146028
Since you don't get it let me dumb it down for you. If the US army adopts an AR10 service rifle, any manufacturer part that isn't compatible with that will disappear from the market within a year.

>>34146082
So choose a light recoiling 14-16" .308 rifle

>>34145743
why not just convert the exsisting m16's m4's into a 7.62 caliber it would probably be cheaper and m16 can live on as the me gun it is

File: Clinton-has-no-idea.gif (3MB, 1024x512px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x512px

>>34146095

>>34146095
Obviously because they want a bullpup.

>>34146083
BIG ARMY isnt going to adopt shit that some greedy ass general isnt going to be able to retire to his own private island from.

they will do some massive asspul and pick something retarded before going to KAC or even God help us all, DPMS.

>>34146106
RFB here we come!!!

>>34146106
MDR is being delayed to meet Military contracts first

>>34146091
No .308 is ever going to recoil lightly enough to compare to .223 imo, especially for follow up shots. Just way too much powder in the case.

Maybe they can rig up something like that AK that used opposite travelling weights or something. Or, just come up with a better AP 5.56 bullet. You'd think we'd have discarding sabot AP rounds for an M4 at this point.

>>34146074
>http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/09/08/ar-endurance-findings-at-a-rental-range/
>Then why did SOCOM and the rest ditch your SCAR.
>Because they had other issues in the field. Cracked receivers, poor accuracy, broken stocks, etc. The bolt however was not an issue after FN changed the bolt material. Original bolt material was getting poor bolt life on them. The new bolt material is more along to Carpenter Aermet, which BTW LMT uses in their enhanced bolts.

File: IMG_20170228_174639302.jpg (2MB, 2331x3535px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2331x3535px

>>34146126
The budget got slashed, thats why
But I dig on LMT too. Recoils harder though

File: F-35 1.5 Trillion.gif (275KB, 416x551px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 416x551px

>>34145782
>Tfw US military wants to save money
What has the world come to
:'(

>>34145826
Would be dope

>>34146144
sour grapes
o
u
r

g
r
a
p
e
s

The best part of that is it implies the reason a SCAR bolt lasts longer is because it uses a more expensive metal than the norm, which would have the same effect if an AR bolt was made out of it.

>>34146191
nigga, ive got both an LMT and a SCAR. How is it sour grapes?

>>34146082
>because clearing a room looks hard as fuck before you add in a heavy recoiling 20" .308 rifle.
It'll be even harder when you consider that the 7.62x51mm M993 AP ammunition will have wound ballistics after penetrating a rifle plate comparable to M855 or other 5.56 ammunition when it fails to fragment. The tungsten carbide core that M993 uses is about the same diameter as a 5.56 bullet, about .8" long, and isn't going to fragment inside a person. Can you imagine having to shoot a guy in the chest several times with a rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO for them to go down?

>>34145875
If it's armor and not PKMs anymore, there practically any major caliber under 7.62x51 will have less recoil and comparable SD.

The 6/6.5 families have relatively low recoil and comparable or higher SD in particular. Downside of a 20 round mag super sucks though.

>>34145743
>ALICE pouches
HOW OLD IS THIS PICTURE

File: hqdefault.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

>>34146014
>no forward assist

>>34146205
7.62x51 has hydrostatic shock though, so first round should incapacitate. Once we step back from that POS poodle shooter the eggheads put on us back in the 70s, it's going to be loud and quick.

File: R18FSFST-308-1024x269 (2).jpg (27KB, 1024x269px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1024x269px

>>34145743
This. Not sure if they could put out 10k though.

>>34145967
>Ar-10 = Ar-15
This is how we know you're retarded.

>>34146205
>Can you imagine having to shoot a guy in the chest several times with a rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO for them to go down?
considering you've already shot them in the chest, you might as well double tap.

besides, you don't need to use AP ammo all the time. if you're shooting taliban just take some regular ammo.

>>34146258
>trolling: The post

>>34146191
The key to bolt life for the SCAR is longer cam track. That's it! That's how SR15s do it. That's how they all should do it.

>>34146283
>double tap

There's the crux though. Takes a lot more practice to be able to do that with .308 compared to .223. That and more rounds per guy are why we switched in the first place.

I guess we'll just have to make sure all the infantry guys get more range time.

>>34146306
>He hasn't shot a SCAR 17 before

>>34146313
Not double tap, no. Color me skeptical.

But I'm 100% sure it's easier to double tap with a SCAR 16 and still get 10 more rounds in the mag.

>>34146313
If this were true, I expect to see SWAT teams the world over start swapping out their 5.56s for the Scar 17 then.

>>34145743
>show us a 7.62 service rifle
Honestly, just keep with an AR platform. Everyone's familiar with it and it won't require any extra training to implement.

>>34146331
Obviously not the same, but close. Waffle space magic.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KIRzvhTMgj4

>>34146274
>I wasn't making a generic statement towards AR rifles

>>34146413
Now lets see him do that with a flash hider instead of a brake.

>>34146414
I specifically mentioned AR10 >>34145920
How have you not killed yourself yet for this much retardation?

>>34146428
https://youtube.com/watch?v=HCREQpzn5dA
Linear comp = more recoil than flashhider.

File: 1475020783709.jpg (38KB, 480x220px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x220px

>>34146258
>hydrostatic shock
Thanks for announcing to everyone that you don't know shit. Also, M993 will leave a 24" barrel about 130 FPS faster than the 5.56x45mm Mk262 Mod 1 travels from a 20" barrel, and the tungsten carbide core M993 uses only weighs about 13 grains more than the bullet the Mk262 Mod 1 uses, so you aren't going to be seeing enough energy for your "hydrostatic shock" if it did exist after the bullet travels through a rifle plate considering you claim 5.56 can't generate "hydrostatic shock". The point stands that 7.62x51mm M993 AP will perform like a shitty 5.56 after penetrating body armor, and worrying about penetrating body armor in its current form instead of shooting around it with an infantry rifle is overall a bad idea.

>>34146339
>this retarded
>cost of rifles
>cost of ammo for training
>308 loudness indoors
>308 overkill for law enforcement
Underage >>>/out/

File: Screenshot_20170603-130520.jpg (336KB, 969x1003px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 969x1003px

>>34145743
>nice

>>34145743
Lmt mws is the only sane choice

>>34146467
308 is the most used police sharpshooter round.
223 doesnt work fast enough, designed to wound and all

>>34146413
>3 yards

>>34145743
>308 carbine with integral suppressor and recoil reduction system when

File: image.jpg (17KB, 178x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 178x320px

>>34146149
>tfw biggest fighting bucks in the world
>tfw dont want to use any of it
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck

>>34145804
>12 fucking pounds
>unloaded
That has to be a typo

File: 100_0212.jpg (3MB, 2909x4421px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2909x4421px

>>34146487
Shes heavy as fuck though

>>34145901
Folds

>>34145967
I don't know how reliable the ar-10 is compared to the ar-15, but the SCAR itself is actually more reliable than the ar-15 anyway, at least the H version is. I would imagine it's the same across the series. They are just genuinely good rifles and the only reason they weren't standard service rifles is because they are fucking expensive because FN are a bunch of moneygrubbing jews

>>34145901 SCAR is probably more accurate too. Only problems with the rifle are the stock and expense.

>>34145743
Why does the army insist on this charade? Is this backdoor gun control trying to waste time and money from gun makers?

>>34146095
Because the M4 lower is incompatible with a 7.62x51 magazine.

>>34146512
Well the whole criteria that says 12 pounds or less tells me they are already considering the lmt if the bar is set so low for passable weight

>>34146149
cheapness and ease of manufacture will always be a factor in military contract guns

dpms g 2 series for service weapon when?
or is it shite too?

>>34146339
like one guy max should be using something bigger than 5.56 in a swat team. that shit would suck

>>34146117
might if it comes with a good standard break

>>34146413
And how long did it take him to practice to get this down? Again, we switched for a reason. Barring recoil comp or exoskeletons, full size rifle rounds are not coming back outside of DMRs.

Props if you do this with your .308 though, hopefully farther out than 3 yards.

>>34146495
>sharpshooter
We're talking about a general purpose rifle here. Are you in the right thread?

>>34146010
> 7.62
> legacy
What do the M240, Mk 14, and most DMRs and several sniper rifles use?

>>34146117
what if they give it an aa-12 stock?

>>34146498
So? If he keeps his groups small enough, why does it matter?
>>34146605
>not allowed to train or practice
Hmm really made me think.
>Everyone who's shot a scar 17 says the recoil is light
>They all must be wrong, and I'm too poor to buy one and prove them wrong, so I'll just make endless excuses.

>>34145810
Spa-loosh

>>34146517
Ar-10 is notorious for being finicky. KAC had a lot of problems with the M110.

>>34146663
This.
Even the 3-gun pros that run Ironman (308, 45, 12ga) have a hard time keeping their 308s running. Even JP and other over-$3k guns.

>>34145743
why don;t they stop being poorfags and just issue every soldier a SCAR17-H??

>>34146241
considering that his rifle has no rails or anything, pre 2004?

>>34146707
that's clearly a detachable carry handle

>>34146692
because they don't have to?

>>34146692
Because army legally needs to run trials.

>>34146644
Because its 3 yards.

>new 7.62 service rifle

You're going to carry that weight

>>34146223
>muh 6.5

NATO is not going to go through all the trouble of standardizing a new caliber/cartridge.

5.56 and 7.62 are what the US military has, and it's one or the other.

>>34146457
That's a suppressor, not a linear comp.

>>34146831
The US army wants to switch from .308 to .264 or .277

>>34145954
Dude AR-10 can easily be fitted with a collapsible buttstock if necessary.

>>34146249
G3 has no forwards assist FAL has no forward assist, why would the AR-10 need a forward assist?

File: 1490742135558.gif (27KB, 24x20px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 24x20px

>>34145972

>>34145743
G3

>>34146517
A stoner DI system is inherently more accurate than a piston system.

>>34145743
Why not the SCAR 17? I love mine, but my guess would be the money

>>34146842
The Army wants a lot of things, doesn't mean they'll get it

>>34146833
Hard to tell since it was very loud. Still more recoil than FH.

>>34146692
Because an AR-10 type rifle is better.

>>34146849
G3 and fal charging handles are forward assists. The original Ar10 had a FA CH too.

>>34146872
>zero recoil reduction is greater than zero recoil reduction

>>34145743
>lower the physical standards for everybody just to put bitches on the line
>request a heavier weapon that shoots heavier ammo

BRILLIANT!!!!

>>34146889
Suppressors have more recoil than FH if not tuned m8. RL not video game.

>>34146864
Because an AR-10 does the same job but is cheaper while being backward compatible with some of the army's stock of M16/M4 parts.

>>34146886
>G3 and fal charging handles are forward assists.
I don't know about the G3, but the charging handle on the FAL isn't. Some countries had modified FALs where the charging handle did function as a forward assist, but it definitely wasn't standard.

>>34146886
What the fuck are you talking about, both the G3 and FAL have non-reciprocating charging handles.

>>34145795
>dat powerpoint
Wh- b- HOW?! Tell me!!

>>34146900
Suppressors reduce recoil, as you said real life is not a video game.

>>34146901
I've been thinking about getting one, how does it compare to at a SR 25?

>>34146911
>>34146912
You guys are right. I was thinking of something else.

>>34146091
>develop new 308 round capable of defeating level IV plates
>rifles for it are too big! they're too heavy!
>make retard short 308 carbines
>round no longer defeats armor due to lower velocity

Where have I heard this story before?

File: muzzle brake.png (12KB, 1093x322px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1093x322px

>>34146919
No suppressors don't reduce recoil other than by their weight maybe.

>>34146942
topkek

>>34145901
I don't know why nobody's noticed but
>that filename
Kys my dude

>>34146919
I was talking about gas guns only. If untuned, suppressors increase recoil die to more blow back. But if you have a suppressed setting, then it doesn't matter. Also more weight will decrease recoil.

>>34146942
Suppressors catch gas coming out of the barrel, pulling the gun forward. This is the same principle that a brake uses, only less efficient. You could save yourself some embarrassment by spending 5 seconds looking it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hiju-bzvf34

>>34146955
I don't give a single fuck what the filename says, i download the first result that is of high quality that comes up on google. If you give a shit about filenames you should just kys.

>>34146528
They want a decent semi auto designated marksman weapon in that caliber. Why is that so hard to understand? If you look around for a semiauto in 308 there are a lot of options around but not so much that there isn't a lot of room for improvement.

File: 1462737816717.jpg (20KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x480px

>>34146977
>Suppressors catch gas coming out of the barrel, pulling the gun forward
wat

File: 1492129707808.gif (986KB, 155x155px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 155x155px

>>34146529
because it doesnt fit. Yes?

>>34146900
>tuned
are you... confusing barrel harmonics with recoil?

>>34146977
Except brakes exert those gasses rewards like thrust. Suppressors only expell them out front. I guess they do slow down gasses enough to reduce recoil but not the way you're describing.

scar 17 in 260 rem

>>34147012
Adjustable gas. Did you know you can "tune" many areas of your firearm?

>>34147059
you mean 6.5 creedmoor, but thats okay

>>34146977
The complete amount of force acting on the gun is same with or without a suppressor but with a suppressor the force is spread out over a longer amount of time.

>>34147064
RIP barrel life

>>34147064
> Wanting to retool for .30 T/C brass instead of .308 Win

For what purpose?

File: file.png (708KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 640x640px

>we want 7.62
>no we want 5.56
>we want 7.62 again
>no we don't want a 6.5mm intermediate cartridge that would be silly

>>34145743
Would it be possible to fix the 3 MOA on the FN Fal? Otherwise, why not fucking use the .308 ARs that DPMS has been making or the SCAR 17?

>>34147086
260 remington is just as bad

>>34147095
If only there was a cheap to manufacture, stamped, accurate, roller delayed 7.62mm gun based on German engineering

>>34147108
I was considering the G3, but would the military pick it?

maybe stop using 14 inch barrels and 5.56 will start doing what you want it to.

>>34147095
Have the austrians make them
OIh wait, they already did that? huh

>>34147113
this

>>34146644
Repeat after me.

Scar 17.
Will.
Never.
Be.
Standard.
Issue.

It's a fine gun that will sadly be less remembered than the FALs, G3s, and the M110.

>>34147095
>a goddamn tilting bolt design
No.

File: 1493607587405.jpg (94KB, 421x834px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 421x834px

>>34147092

>no we don't want a 6.5mm intermediate cartridge that would be silly

That would be indeed be silly. We have god knows how much 7.62 NATO stockpiled. Why would you want to introduce a third rifle caliber?

>>34147108
Roller delayed action introduces a ridiculously fast moving and heavy bolt.

>>34147122
The army is not looking to make it std issue...

>>34146495
>designed to would
fucking wound yourself

File: 1488923027142.jpg (532KB, 750x729px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 750x729px

>>34147122

>>34147158
> Checks first post to be sure
> Service rifle, i.e. standard issue

So, why even bring up that rifle as an alternative then.

>>34147186
If you can learn to spell correctly, I might

>>34147113

Honestly this. The M16 never had any problems. All this nonsense started right when they switched everybody to 14.5-inch barrel carbines.

>>34147052
The gasses exert a forward force on the suppressor baffles, its much like a compensator just much less effective as the gases have much less space to be redirected to.

Most recoil reduction from a supressor is just from the extra weight of it.

>>34146912
G3 has no forward assist, but PSG-1 had, welded externally:
https://youtu.be/gBYfbtoSHxo?t=8m39s

File: nope.jpg (117KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 960x720px

>>34147052
>>34147077
>>34146999
>Except brakes exert those gasses rewards like thrust.

The force of gas striking the baffles in a suppressor/brake is the primary source of forward 'thrust'. The open baffles of a brake produce additional forward 'thrust' which is why they reduce recoil more than a suppressor does. Stop being lazy and take 5 seconds to look it up.

somewhere in a grave an Armalite employee is turning like a dreidel

>>34147134
>We have god knows how much 7.62 NATO stockpiled.
honestly not that much in the grand scheme of things, and most of it is seriously suboptimal for warfighting considering the advances in projectile design and in body armor over the past decade

File: 223-barrel-length-velocity-umc-55-grain-26-to-6-inches.png (97KB, 669x564px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 669x564px

>>34147113
this

That 263 ft/sec difference might not seem like such a big deal at first but when you remember that kinetic energy is 1/2m x v^2 it starts to matter.

1750 J for the 20 inch

1465 J for the 14 inch

>>34146117
The free market would probably fix it--if it were legal.

They would likely want 20" barrels for it too though.

INB4 they adopt a 20" pencil profile (or fluted) 5.56x45 M16

>>34147242
not even remotely close to true

this retardation started with nebulous overmatch arguments where retarded or dishonest retired generals claimed that we were getting rekt in afghanistan by PKs out at 1k yards all because 5.56 didn't reach.

using an M4 or M16 with M855 most soldiers would be hard pressed to even make one hit in a whole mag against a camouflaged machine gunner.

File: monster-under-the-bed.jpg (72KB, 637x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 637x960px

>>34147317
ke is not a good metric to use as a benchmark for terminal ballistics

File: vietnam3.jpg (77KB, 720x443px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 720x443px

>>34147325
>INB4 they adopt a 20" pencil profile (or fluted) 5.56x45 M16
That would be the ideal solution imo. The M16 is such a brilliant rifle design due to its light weight and the light weight of its ammo allowing for one soldier to carry incredible amounts of ammo compared to battle rifles and some other intermediate caliber rifles resulting in brilliant firepower per soldier.

>>34147325
>The free market would probably fix it--if it were legal.
What exactly is keeping the free market from fixing it currently?

Why the fuck do we need a 7.62 to shoot sand niggers with Soviet era gear

File: calibers.jpg (104KB, 586x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 586x750px

>>34147356
Yeah i guess you're right, ke alone means nothing, but having a higher ke means that you have more energy available for shrapneling inside the enemy soldier and so on.

File: Long-exposure-photograph-of-a-firework.jpg (146KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1440x2560px

>>34147376
Dat overmatch

File: sa10a.jpg (187KB, 1017x484px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1017x484px

Honestly this whole range problem could easily be solved by just integrating some designated marksmen armed with something alike the M110 into the infantry squads or whatever.

>>34147361
The M16A1 with M193 is still the best pure irons rifle we've ever fielded. The A4 with an ACOG edges it out for modern sights.

File: military rifle wound profiles.jpg (57KB, 547x649px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 547x649px

>>34147382
>but having a higher ke means that you have more energy available for shrapneling inside the enemy soldier and so on.
But your picture demonstrates how that isn't always the case and how bullet design is more important, and the other images from that set further prove that point.

>>34147382
turn that pic 90* and its vaginas

>>34147419
Why is the squad of nothing but rifleman operating isolated from the rest of the platoon and the m240s again?

File: 40p.jpg (15KB, 126x191px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 126x191px

>>34147459
guess im jacking off today

File: DCS03170.jpg (141KB, 1037x864px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1037x864px

>>34147435
Imo the USAF version of the M16 is the best. Basically the same as the A1 but it lacks that unaesthetic forward assist.

>>34147092
The Army Ord board did come to that conclusion just before the adoption of 5.56 but by then they had exhausted all credibility and couldn't stop it.

Would have personally gone for something around the range of 6.35mm just because 0.25 inches is a nice number.

>>34147361
that would be a retarded choice
>still heavy as a M4 once all optics and illumination devices are on the gun
>same precision requirement
>marginal increase in muzzle velocity
>significant increase in overall length

>>34147459
Which of those are designed with a fragmenting wound mechanism?

File: 4cb181ba.jpg (68KB, 600x595px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x595px

>>34147459
Yeah ofc bullet design is important but what i was saying is that with a higher ke you have more energy to work with y'know, so you can design a round that shrapnels more violently and so on.

>>34145810
>10-12" barrel
>On a .30 Cal semi-auto
Enjoy your burned out suppressor

>>34147497
None of them. Especially not the match kings with open tips that are not hollow points because that would be illegal and we only build them that way because it's easier to manufacture the high BC bullet.

File: CNStarget.jpg (71KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x532px

>>34147497
155gr amax

>>34147462
The same advocacy bias that thinks just giving soldiers a 7.62 rifle will make them all into 1000 yard marksmen.

>>34147497
is this a rhetorical question? because the russian rounds were designed to tumble, M955 was designed to penetrate armor, M855 was designed around defeating CRISAT armor specs when shot from a M249, 77gr OTM is a match bullet, and the Hornady 6.8 is designed to expand, not fragment.

>>34147523
Army said it doesnt give a fuck about haller tip ammo being illegal like two years ago.

>>34147495
>marginal

Dude 20% increase in kinetic energy is not marginal. Also the range at which the round reliably shrapnels is increased as well increasing the effective range of the gun.

File: 1493669419601.gif (203KB, 607x339px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 607x339px

>>34146002
Don't lewd the blaster loli

File: 1269263338355.jpg (78KB, 800x472px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x472px

Man this thing just gives me the biggest of boners.

>>34145782
What makes the SCAR so expensive to make? Several of the major components are just molded plastic.

>>34147541
So what? That doesn't change facts

>>34147574
Design complexity and materials used.

>>34147574
FN jewery mostly.

File: read a book nigger.gif (4MB, 569x400px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 569x400px

>>34147523
>>34147541
Mk262 Mod 1 and other hollow tip designs don't work like hollow points do you fucking idiots. They still break apart at the cannelure like M193 and M855 do.

File: scar 1391315585338.jpg (2MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1280px

>>34147595
>>34147599
a little of column A, a little of column B...

>>34147547
First of all GWOT ISR footage has shown 5.56 out of a 14.5" barrel to be plenty effective. In real shootings, over and over, guys have found that people die when you shoot them in the chest and head. The idea that the unarmored bad guys are just soaking up dozens of 5.56mm rounds is just that, an idea. Usually borne out of intellectual dishonesty ("I totally hit him! It's my bullets' fault!") Obviously you can't see most of this footage but there's a reason SOCOM is trying to get a next-gen M4 upper shooting M855A1 as opposed to retardedly issuing everyone battle rifles.

And if you've ever shot M4s and M16s at long range you'd quickly realize the limiting factor is the inherent accuracy of M855, not any bullshit about muzzle velocity (especially so when we aren't training average soldiers to make wind calls). M16s shooting M855 are still going to be 500m guns, same as we expect from M4s.

also to be pedantic shrapnel is not the correct term. the rounds fragment.

File: VMAX.jpg (25KB, 450x405px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 450x405px

>>34147382
there are some great loads for 7.62x39 now

File: hornpic8078.jpg (49KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x500px

>>34147686

>>34147574
Logo and recouping R&D costs.

Though I assume they covered R&D long ago and the Jew urges were too hard to resist.

File: 7.62x39 golden bear soft point.jpg (32KB, 725x220px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 725x220px

>>34147686
>>34147696
How great are they really? Pictures of boxes with Hornady on them doesn't tell me anything.

File: sPeGbzB.png (26KB, 872x562px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 872x562px

>>34147670
50 meter increase in reliable fragmentation distance might not seem all the relevant but when you consider that it could mean going from 150 meters to 200 meters it becomes somewhat relevant. That's a 25% increase in in fragmentation range.

Now i'll agree that if you've got to do indoors fighting, door-kicking or whatever the M4 is totally the way to go but for anything else i'd rather have a 20 inch.

>>34147686
7.62x39 has potential to fuck a lot of shit up with its size and KE, just make it out of easily fragmenting metal like lead and maybe add a cavity in the middle and someone's gonna be in a world of hurt.

>>34147737
Have you ever ridden in a gun truck?

>>34147696
>>34147686
A 7.62x39 round with the M80A1's bullet would be breddy gud, although SCHV is still superior for an intermediate round.

>>34147761
Have you ever died because your round didn't fragment inside the chest of that sandnigger and he managed to shoot you?

>>34147737
at 150 to 200 meters you're still talking about MOUT operations for the most part where your weapon's length is a important factor. my point being that even if you make the rifle longer, the new frag distance is still well within the urban operations envelope.

the reality is that in urban operations i don't need anything longer than 14.5" except on a precision rifle. in wooded or green environments, i still don't need a 20" musket because it's not accurate enough to engage at any greater distance than my M4, and the new and improved frag range (200m let's say) is still well inside the distance at which i can observe and engage enemies, so I'm shooting them outside of my frag range anyways.

>>34147778
yes, it's my ghost posting on 4chan, duh

but actually no that's retarded

>>34146934
You're definitely not the brightest bulb in the pack.

File: 1q9437.gif (3MB, 360x202px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x202px

I love 5.56 better!

>>34147737
M855A1 will fragment down to at least 2300 FPS maybe lower. That will give you more than enough range even from an M4.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIKdstJP7Qw

>>34147772
7.62x51mm uses .309 bullets while 7.62x39mm uses .311 bullets so you'd experience some accuracy issues. They work well in .300 Blackout though, here's a test out of a 10.5" barrel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEIks1Y8KyM

>>34147822
What's happening in that gif?

>>34147868
A hot gun burning off oil residue.

>>34147822
round is about to cook off>>34147868

>>34147897
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7rOyPjK6ok
In the full video the 308 AR-10 he used did cook off.

The result will always be the same.
A new rifle or round will slightly outperform our current m4.

Due to much higher costs, the cheap ass military will keep using m4s.

>>34145795
No.

Give it free-floating barrel and all the fancy accuracy tweaks AR10/15 got over the years and you have the thing they're looking for.

>>34145795
Because that's not how bureaucratic governments work.

File: Robert-Horrigan-013.jpg (78KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 640x480px

>>34147928
>tfw KAC spent 5 years trying to make the SR25 reliable post-Army adoption and then the Army went HK

>>34147928
>implying you can't built an AR platform with a freefloating barrel
The real reason is because they are government faggots and government only pisses away money.

File: 11000489.jpg (185KB, 808x1116px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 808x1116px

>>34147928
Yea that's what i was thinking.

Wouldn't mind if they just straight up started issuing Portuguese AR-10's though.

I hope they go with LMT

File: 2eg4pxj.jpg (43KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1000x750px

>>34147941
The Portuguese didn't have any problems with their's back in the seventies, i can't see why you couldn't make a working AR-10 nowadays.

File: 1494286804851.png (315KB, 628x1024px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 628x1024px

why doesn't the US army just up the number of M110s per platoon?

>>34147941
>tfw KAC's proprietary design was flawed

>>34145743
God yes, time for more modular 308 bullpups to hit the market.

>>34147977
Yea that's what i was thinking as well.

>>34147977

There is some rule out there which says that the Army can't buy new guns without holding a contest. It's supposed to prevent favoritism, but really it just makes procurement of simple weapons take forever.

>>34147977
>>34147998
>>34148002
Watch that turn out to be exactly what happens as M110's are swapped out for the new CSASS.

>>34148002
I mean they've already got the M110 in service right? Can't they just order more of them?

>>34148002
>It's supposed to prevent favoritism
What the fuck kind of rule is that? The military, as dumb as it is, will pick a product that works the best. If they know it fucking works, why do they have to have a contest to just have more of the thing that works? Is this why the F-35 has so much money spent on it?

>>34145901
>>34145885
>>34145846
>>34145795
>>34145825
>>34145874

I miss when /k/ wasn't full of AR fanboys.

>No other military uses a DI gun (that doesn't get them free from us)
>Hey guys, let's use a DI gun!

>>34148044
>What the fuck kind of rule is that?

A procurement rule. It's designed to make procurement "fair" for purchases over a certain number of units (IIRC it's 100,000). It's the problem H&K ran into with the XM-8 like 15 years ago. I still remember seeing pics of the guys at Benning testing them out and then it just going away quietly.

IIRC once word got out about the XM-8 DoD decided that a requirement needed to be established for a system that could replace the infantry rifle, SAW, a designated marksman rifle, carbine, and PDW.

>>34148030

>Can't they just order more of them?

Not without holding a contest first. They are not allowed to buy new guns without holding a contest. Designs which are already in service are no exempt from this rule.

>>34147134
>Why would you want to introduce a third rifle caliber?
Not him but what is the actual problem w/ having multiple service rifles? It's not the cold war anymore, we don't need to sacrifice performance for standardization & cost savings. Look at ww2: garand, bar, m1 carbine, 1903. All within 5 years because the army & marines needed equipment to meet the requirements to employ good tactics.

Honestly I think if the DoD had been more open to spending money on developing better infantry weapons to meet environments we'd be outta Afghanistan by now. Instead we just waste billions of dollars on CAS flights just because procurement is such a fucking nightmare. I legit believe if the DoD just nuts up and makes their own research and development programs bypassing the MIC profiteering then we'd be in a much stronger position than waiting for abdul-quahaar to get stick on a mountain side while we waste 500K on blowing his ass up.

>>34145743
say this isnt just a bunch of smoke and the army really does switch back to .308, how would this affect the suppressive ability of your typical fireteam? smaller mag, less ammo carried etc

File: 3374186.jpg (169KB, 667x1001px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 667x1001px

>>34148096

>>34148080
i like going with the best rifle out there, it's not my fault that it just so happens to be the AR.

dont sf units already use sr-25's?

>>34145782
>still not the M14
Why the fuck not the M14? It already exists in limited service as a Designated Marksman's Rifle. It's the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle.
If they insist no M14, then the HK417 might be an option aswell.

>>34148096
That sounds pretty dumb. Although i guess it's fine as long as they take into consideration just how complicated and expensive adopting a new design really is.

>>34146117
If they do go back to 7.62NATO they're going to realize the women and mexican manlets that make up our military can't shoot it effectively. It's a perfectly effective round and already standardized, but even police departments are switching away from .40 because of goddamn women and manlets. As awesome as it would be to switch back, full-size 30 cal is going to be an issue for them unless a softer shooting platform can be developed.

>>34148044
this is why military acquisitions is a shit, retarded congresscritters always think they know best and have to keep their hand in everything

at best they are useful tools to effect change, but just as often they are imply impeding military progress

File: 1494792802563.jpg (88KB, 788x607px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 788x607px

>>34148099
Just about cut it in half i guess.

>>34148136

Because the M14 has always been shit, and that includes the EBR.

>>34148132
the M110 is big army issue to snipers. MARSOC went out and got their own shorty SR25s, IIRC the rangers and SF are using the Army issued rifles now.

>>34148136
M14 is a piece of shit and nobody who got to use both the Mk14 EBR and the reliable M110s or the Mk17 wants to go backwards.

>>34148136
Because the M14 is shit.

>>34148145
>congresscritters
I want arfcom to leave and take their stale memes with them

File: bren2-rifle-frenchgign-cz-czech1.jpg (65KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 630x420px

>>34145743
Do like GIGN.

Switch to glorious 7.62x39mm.

>>34148142

There is an exemption that only applies to very small purchases, however. This is how Special Forces are able to get SCAR's and stuff like that. But any sort of bulk order requires a contest.

>>34147371
making AP ammo is probably illegal where all of us live

>>34147522
enjoy being a huge faggot

>>34148175
idk where i first heard that term but it wasn't arfcom

>>34147495
altering the existing rifles is a low-cost solution that will markedly improve their effectiveness.

20" barreled M4s ahead

>>34147002
Yep. Mid-rangers like 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC, or subsonics like .300 Memeout were designed specifically to fit the same mags with just an upper swap. 7.62 NATO is just too long.

>>34148202
no no no no no
no 20" barrels
fuck that noise

you're not going to meet any of the supposed "overmatch" goals with a 20" 5.56 gun. you're not even going to meet any of the armor penetration goals. You're not going to meet any of the terminal ballistics goals. It's all shit.

>>34147242
M855A1 fixed that.

>>34147599
>FN jewery

These guys make a handgun twice as good as a glock for $150 less... A lot of people try to make them out to be H&K but they're not selling a polymer handgun for $700. The SCAR is expensive because of it's complexity and materials.

>>34148136
M14's are terrible by modern standards, the only reason they got adopted as a DMR rifle was the urgent need.

File: 1426268900091.jpg (302KB, 1280x1557px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1280x1557px

>MUH BARREL IS TOO LONG I NEED SHORT BARREL FOR INDOORS
>MUH BARREL IS TOO SHORT I NEED LONG BARREL FOR MOUNTAINS
And so the cycle continues neverending.

>>34145841

Because the .30 caliber cult still has old fudds in command, and Pouges will say their M4s suck because they never use it.

>>34148243
Honestly i'm a bit annoyed that nobody seems to be able to design a good bullpup.

>>34148184
No, it's not. If a company wanted to experiment with 5.56 or 7.62 NATO AP ammunition all they would have to do is modify the cases to be a few hundreths of an inch longer, cut slightly different chambers in the rifles they want to use, and not chamber pistols in their newly designed cartridges. A bigger problem with developing AP ammunition is that purchasing and working with tungsten carbide is fucking expensive.

>>34147778
No. My M4 killed people fine, though I can only take sole credit for a couple. Usually it's several of us gangbanging one of them, or a M240 gutting dudes.

Thanks for confirming the rhetorical question btw; I'll explain it to you: if you had been a "doorkicker" like me, you would know that that 14.5" is long enough as is. 20" is full retard.

>>34148264
Radom, desert tech, shit even kel tec. It's not hard these days.

>>34148264
FN just needs to upscale the P90 to a rifle caliber and swap it to gas operation. Who cares if the rifle is "wide", those dimensions will do nothing to its performance or is portability.

>>34148293
How was it getting pinned down with enemies at 500+ yards away shooting 7.62x54 at you, when all you had is a .223 which at that range is less effective than a .22lr?

>>34148274
and if they did it would swiftly go under because they can't sell them to the people, stfu

>>34148320
not him but similar experiences

it never happened to me. seems like it only happens to big army dudes who think when the enemy shoots in your general direction that you're "pinned down", and that the appropriate response is to dump mags all over the countryside so that you can't even hear where the shots are coming from. If you gave those spray-n-pray types .338 lap mags they still wouldn't hit anything.

>>34148304
P90 design with tapered bullets would look really wonky but i guess a locked breech gas operated P90 in, say, 5.56 with 40 round magazines would work fine.

Also what the hell is up with FN making a straight blowback design in this day and age?

>>34146831
If the rest of NATO continues being dumb and America goes its own way, it could happen because now its everyone for themselves.

>>34148320
Never really had that problem. In Afghanistan we stayed near crests or foliage, or in trucks, or near towns.

War isn't an individual sport. If you're fixated on individual people shooting individual people, you are already fucked up. Outside towns, it's about spotting, comms, and positional fires.

>>34148339
There's nothing stopping them from selling the bullets to people who reload. The bigger problem is that there isn't much demand for AP ammunition and most people wouldn't be willing to pay how much limited production AP bullets would cost. Simply saying "but the free market" isn't the answer to everything.

>>34145795
>>34146913

Oh, good point.

>>34145743
please make 7.62 standard issue again, America

I want to rock with SLR's

>>34148302
>gimmicky vapourtech designs
Idk mang.

>>34148377
You stack the rounds in alternating directions and then you use some mechanical doohickey in either the mag or the gun that decides which way to flip the round so that it is nose forwards. There, tapered cartridge in a straight top mounted mag.

>>34148435
That sounds way worse than just accepting the unaesthetic appearance.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 176x101px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 176x101px

Did someone say
>7.62
>check em

>>34146459
>if it did exist

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3051.pdf

>>34145826
I want to believe

>>34148453
Nein Nein Nein

The Zippermag™ will be a thing, it must be done!

>>34148384
If America goes its own way, NATO will just be re-purposed as an EU army.

Canada will go its own way as well, but that's because if they fight they lose.

>>34146116

Source?

>>34147625
> Hunt with 69gr SMKs
> No cannelure
> Round still fragments

It's because the open tip allows for a lower yaw velocity which results in a greater chance for fragmentation than FMJ, cannelure or not, around 2200fps. Without that open tip, you'd be back to 2700fps for fragmentation like m193.

Maybe don't call people 'fucking idiots' if you don't know what you're talking about?

>>34147574
922r

>>34148616
>It's because the open tip allows for a lower yaw velocity which results in a greater chance for fragmentation than FMJ
No, the bullets will yaw just the same. The weakened bullet jacket at the location of the cannelure is what lowers the velocity required for the bullet to fragment, which is why it was added to the Mk262 Mod 1.

File: 1407536354300.jpg (802KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

802KB, 1920x1280px

>>34147660
This is how I want my Scar 17 set up, such perfection but I don't want to give Leupold money, any alternative scopes that would be good?

>>34148707
> Moving center of mass towards the rear of the bullet has no effect on tumbling
> Taking a chunk out of the front of the bullet has no effect on how much force is required to sheer/flatten jacket at the tip
> Bullets like 69gr SMK or 75gr Hornady match without cannelures still fragmenting near 2200fps

Dude. Stop. Cannelures are not required for an OTM to fragment. And you aren't going to get pieces of .224 jacket spread out all over a pig's lungs at 2200fps without that missing tip. The cannelure is simply there to allow crimping to prevent setback.

>>34148995
> Moving center of mass towards the rear of the bullet has no effect on tumbling
Except OTM bullets have a boat tail which moves the center of mass forward a lot more than the tiny bit of tip missing will move it back.

> Taking a chunk out of the front of the bullet has no effect on how much force is required to sheer/flatten jacket at the tip
Bullets aren't stable in flesh in the first place, you don't need the tip to flatten to destabilize them.

> Bullets like 69gr SMK or 75gr Hornady match without cannelures still fragmenting near 2200fps
Evidence of that being the minimum velocity those fragment at?

>The cannelure is simply there to allow crimping to prevent setback.
Which is why bullets that fragment tend generally break apart at the cannelure when they have one?

>>34148869
Trijicon accupoint/accupower for like 2x the price

>>34149133
Not him but you seem to be confusing the fact that a cannelure helps bullets to fragment with cannelures being what causes a round to fragment.

The open tip of OTM bullets certainly helps in destabilizing the bullet in flesh more than a pointed tip. A deformed tip may not be necessary for destabilization but it is very helpful. Because of this these designs are much less AOA or velocity dependent than classic FMJ for fragmentation. If the cannelure was the primary cause of fragmentation then you wouldn't see an improvement between SMK OTM performance at a distance over m193/m855.

There is quite a bit of evidence out there for FMJ and even to a lesser extent OTM rounds exhibiting variable performance. Not quite sure but it looks like you're trying to argue that OTM designs wont frag more reliably than comparable closed nosed designs, to which i would query, why then do almost all purpose made fragmenting designs incorporate an open or open but polymer filled tip?

File: Featured-static-stab.jpg (18KB, 620x350px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 620x350px

>>34149133
>Except OTM bullets have a boat tail which moves the center of mass forward a lot more than the tiny bit of tip missing will move it back.

Going to disagree there.

>>34149233
>cannelures being what causes a round to fragment.
I haven't said that anywhere.

>Because of this these designs are much less AOA or velocity dependent than classic FMJ for fragmentation. If the cannelure was the primary cause of fragmentation then you wouldn't see an improvement between SMK OTM performance at a distance over m193/m855.
The Mk262 Mod 1 has a lower fragmentation velocity than M193/M855 because it has a thinner jacket across the whole bullet, which fractures more easily, not because of the open tip.

>why then do almost all purpose made fragmenting designs incorporate an open or open but polymer filled tip?
Those are purpose built hollow points and they expand then fragment rather than tumble then fragment. Also, the polymer tips are only there to make the bullet more aerodynamic.

>>34149279
What is that picture supposed to prove?

>>34145795
If only that rifle was in service and available in Korea and Vietnam war.
It was only available to Portuguese and Sudanese.

>>34149133
> Except OTM bullets have a boat tail which moves the center of mass forward a lot more than the tiny bit of tip missing will move it back.

Still must be behind the center of mass, otherwise the bullet would not flip in tissue. Removing material from the tip further moves it backward.

> Bullets aren't stable in flesh in the first place, you don't need the tip to flatten to destabilize them.

It helps though, and it also makes it easier to start shearing the jacket away from the lead core.

> Evidence of that being the minimum velocity those fragment at?

Velocity tests and lack of fragmenting past 100m on 10.5" barrels with 75gr bullets. Full disclosure, this is internet heresay, because I don't have an SBR rifle.

> Which is why bullets that fragment tend generally break apart at the cannelure when they have one?

I'll grant you my posts imply that cannelures do nothing to the jacket, which is false. But fragmentation is not the primary, or even 80% of the reason for a cannelure. It's preventing setback.

Otherwise, we'd just start add a cannelure to our M885 (if we hadn't already) and boom, MK262 performance minus the better BC.

>>34149368
>M193/M855 because it has a thinner jacket across the whole bullet

Oh shit man, call the military, you just fixed M885. Didn't need that M885A1 after all.

File: m855a1.png (91KB, 222x227px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 222x227px

>>34149413
>It helps though, and it also makes it easier to start shearing the jacket away from the lead core.
Except the jacket breaks away from the core starting on the side of the bullet when it tumbles and not from the tip.

>But fragmentation is not the primary, or even 80% of the reason for a cannelure. It's preventing setback
That doesn't change how having a cannelure also helps lower the minimum velocity that a bullet will fragment at.

>Otherwise, we'd just start add a cannelure to our M885 (if we hadn't already) and boom, MK262 performance minus the better BC.
Addressed here: >>34149368, the Mk262 also has a thinner jacket over the whole bullet when compared to the older M193 and M855.

>>34149437
The M855A1 will already fragment at least down to the minimum velocity the the Mk262 Mod 1 will fragment at though, possibly lower, in addition to penetrating better than both M855 and M80 ball. I'm also pretty sure that the M855A1 fragments by having the jacket stripped away from the hardened steel tip rather than being dependent on tumbling. Videos of how low of a velocity the M855A1 and M80A1 still will fragment well at were posted here: >>34147853

>>34148143
>switch back to 7.62x51
>all the women and Mexicans stop being able to qualify as marksmen or even survive basic
I really see no problems here.

>>34146897
>lower the physical standards for everybody

Nope. Just lowered the standards for the women.

File: 1454747315966.gif (692KB, 400x200px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 400x200px

>>34148080
DI is perfectly adequate.

most other countires use an AK variant, or an AK itself.

just because its not widely used, doesnt immediately mean its shit.

File: MPT-76_Assault_Rifle.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>Turks ahead of the curve because the majority of their fighting is outside urban centres against mountaineer PKK

MKEK

File: notfunny.png (93KB, 172x360px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 172x360px

>>34148460
7.62 NATO you fuckwit.