Gun Luddites

>waaaaah people disagree with me
KYS buddy.

1911 and m14 new US Army standard issue confirmed, millenial nu-/k/ btfo

>>34816173
Dem tiddys. I need moar!

>>34816173
steel frame, hammer fired is more durable and reliable. We do need a longer range cartridge atm, Muzzies all have PKMs and SVDs. Drop safety thing is kinda worrisome but it'll no doubt be fixed. People like you complain about summerfags and idiots when exposed to contrary trains of thought. Kys faggot.

hold up senpai. The 5.56 has been in service for over 50 years. You may be the luddite if you're discounting 6mm rounds because of it.

File: 1497376579583.jpg (136KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 720x720px

Never post a picture more interdasting than your topic

>>34816302
OP here. I think 6mm should be used for DMRs and LMGs and even smaller calibers for "rifleman/grenadier" grunts. We need to get rid of 5.56 SAWs and get more of a PKM style gun where a GPMG is light enough and effective enough to be used more often along with DMRs to also extend current squad range capabilities while minimizing the footprint of standard riflemen. Give riflemen a more pdw style of something like mp7 4.6mm with a little larger range envolope guns as well so they can still fight up to 300m but carry more mission equipment and more spare ammo for their crew served weapons.

Riflemen just need to fire and manuever, nothing really fancy or special is needed for them when M240/M249 and M203/320 are doing the all real work for the squad. Those are the roles we should be looking to employ better in the squad/platoon level.

>>34816173

What place has mixed drinks, lockers and a bottled water machine? Srsly where the fuck is this bitch?

>>34816417
a strip club locker room

>>34816362
Literally what most threads do

>>34816394
Actually this is a decent picture of what infantry loadouts would look like if body armour technology was able to outpace rifle development. Infantry would have CSWs to do the actual fighting, and carry PDWs that were specifically made to penetrate body armour so they can kill at very close ranges if need be.

This being said, I would wager that the US would develop a service rifle that fires a sabot that has extreme penetration and range before that happens.

>>34816394

Look up the LSAT program.

I'm hoping they finalize it on 6.5mm with a Grendel class round.

>>34816173
Nice appeal to novelty fallacy there, OP. The fact is there are legitimate reasons for preferring steel frames and larger calibers.

>>34816668
Yeah, I'm interested in the concept as well.

>>34816694
Our average soldiers can't even point fire to man sized targets at 300m reliably during quals reliably. What would make you think reducing their combat load with a larger caliber for their main rifle will help them a shooting baddies past 300m?

>>34816173
So what youre saying is the evidence, is pointing to you being the Fudd.

>>34816245
WORD! Dats hcaf, bruh. Thanks, I now have two full weeks filled with nightmares of being fish-hooked by the most disgustingly horrible hammer toes to contend with.

>>34816173
THICCC

how much does she cost?

>>34816287
>steel frame, hammer fired is more durable and reliable.

Wrong on both counts. Steel rusts and hammers can break or have shit stuck in them. These failures aren't possible on polymer striker guns. Polymer frames can crack too, but the gun will still shoot unless it was literally blown to pieces, in which case a steel gun wouldn't be usable either.

Literally the only advantage of a steel frame is that the heavier weight makes for softer shooting, and the only advantage of a hammer is that hammers can have nicer triggers than strikers (assuming it's single action only because double action triggers suck worse than strikers). These features don't matter for people who actually NEED their guns to be reliable and durable.

>>34816173
Well, the last time the military did anything worthwhile was also half a century ago, I guess if the shoe fits...

>>34817726
>hcaf
say again?

>>34818036
>Steel guns rust

You do know all the important parts of polymer guns are made of steel too right?

Otherwise you pretty much just admitted steel and/or hammer guns shoot better.

>>34816173
we need to be able to shoot gooks on open ground from 5-800 meters again. AR10 with a defined milspec service rifle soon.

>>34816173
tl;dr
post sauce faggot

>>34816173
The obvious choice for the next standard infantry weapon is every getting SCAR-Hs with select fire.

It answers everything.
seriously.

>full size 7.62 battle rifle
>full auto fire recoil comparable to 5.56
>everything you could possible want in a rifle

Just get a license to manufacture locally and it would be perfect.

Let me guess. It is a trap.

>>34818650
A 6.5 diameter cartridge is advantageous still though.

7.62x51 is feeling some age, I think.

>>34816750

The fact that we have such optics in cheapand large quantities and training them isn't such a big deal?

>>34818583
It's just some run of the mill stripper bitch, find the sauce yourself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=women+in+tight+dresses&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSmQEJcVfa2WTPOOIajQELEKjU2AQaBggCCAUICwwLELCMpwgaYgpgCAMSKMkRnRr2Ee4PnR3cEPIc6hncEZodxjymP-Q65jqlP88uzS7iOuE65ToaMIBzwogcPslLNjDpsPFUxGotPOVu4eaXH1CvGAfiH4iOURGg_12w7TW24qaF2oC53ryAEDAsQjq7-CBoKCggIARIE6Lk2fww&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6y6z_58zVAhVD1CYKHTFpAP0Q2A4IJigB#imgrc=_

>>34816394
Small arms are outdated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Uw0KWhYAoY

>>34816173
The current 5.56 - 7.62 paradigm creates a capability gap that forces soldiers to endure the added system weight of a 7.62 gun any time they want to effectively engage threats more than ~300m away.
A 6.5-7mm cartridge such as .264 USA would require a marginal increase in system weight over 5.56 guns and would provide acceptable accuracy and terminal performance out to 600m and beyond in rifles and LMGs.
One of the most frsutrating things in the world is how militaries have been dancing around the One True Infantry Automatic Cartridge for literally over a century.
http://quarryhs.co.uk/TNG2.pdf

File: 1435265.png (35KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x626px

>>34818825
>small arms are outdated
>literally an insurgency with no air and modern tank support

File: 53454.jpg (514KB, 1291x893px) Image search: [Google]

514KB, 1291x893px

>>34818847
Fake news.
.264 USA has more drop and windage at 400 yards than 5.56 has at 300. At 600 yards .264 USA has 3 time more drop and windage than 5.56 has at 300.
In no way .264 USA can be considered "600 yards cartridge" if 5.56 is 300 yards.

>True Infantry Automatic Cartridge
>pick cartridge with 7.62x39 recoil
Why NATO can't into automatic guns design?

>>34818895
>small arms can do job of air and modern tank support

>>34818980
>comparable PBR
>more energy at 400 yds than 5.56 has a 100
>still supersonic at 1000
>less windage and drop at every distance past 300 yards
>recoil comparable to 7.62x39
It's the future of infantry small arms.

>>34819802
>non effective beyond 400 yards

>>34816173
>The US Army is now a hipster fudd luddite

>>34818799
>training them isn't a big yuppie guydeal
T. Guy whose entire concept of military training comes from full metal jacket, we were soldiers, and band of brothers

I don't think you appreciate the amount of planning and funds all that takes

>>34816750
>Our average soldiers can't even point fire to man sized targets at 300m reliably during quals reliably. What would make you think reducing their combat load with a larger caliber for their main rifle will help them a shooting baddies past 300m?
All I can say is: get good.

File: 20066818_1893506530974289_6353101764383735808_n.jpg (10KB, 406x406px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 406x406px

>>34816173
/k/ is not a board for well informed people. it's a board for socially inept fetishists, for whom firearms and militaria are of special interest,

in most cases, they sperg out simply to sperg out, or because they have specific favorites. there beliefs are primarily informed by their tastes, with a smattering of cherry picked studies or ballistics thrown in so that they can't be as easily dismissed.

there is nothing wrong with this, as this board is for discussion at best, and, at worst, bantz and shitposts. this is how it is. if you're looking for scientific discussion with those who have an actual background in weapons procurement and selection you should look elsewhere. most of us are just here because we are bored and want to talk shit.

also, kys

>>34816173
>all of my replies are because of my pic