What gun will replace the M4 as the main rifle of the US

File: 1493485612842.jpg (242KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1500x1000px

>>34823467
CZ Bren 806. As good as the FN SCAR (or better) and half the cost.

File: cougar.jpg (150KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1280x800px

>>34823497
What makes it better? Genuinely curious, because I love Czechnology.

>>34823517
different charging handle mechanism

>>34823880
Oh, is it non-reciprocating?

>>34823467
>What gun will replace the M4 as the main rifle of the US military
An M4 with a new stock (maybe), and a different projectile.

The M14, 7.62x51 is back.

>>34823467
The M4A2, if anything.

Nothing. The M-16/M4 platform has been here a half-century, and isn't going anywhere until literal phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range get invented.

>>34823467
It's hard to say because it's highly unlikely there will be a rifle to replace the M4 until there's a requirement for a new caliber. With a new caliber it's possible all the rifles that are dimensioned for STANAG mags won't be suitable.

>>34823497
The Bren 805 is less expensive on the civilian market. I personally doubt CZ would be able to undercut FN's unit price on military contracts. Also, FN already has all the huge domestic manufacturing facilities which the US military is big on.

>>34823467
I don't think it exists yet but if you look at all three parts in a p90, it's clear some innovations remain to be made.

A laser rifle?

what is an AR-10?

>>34826129
something that will not replace the M4. The US army is trying to replace 5.56 with some kind 6mm, or, more likely, some kind of new technology like telescoping ammo, caseless, sabots. The current style of projectile has hit a wall. While some of those 6mm bullets are better than 5.56, they're not so much better than replacing the millions of 5.56 weapons is not worth it.

The Army is waiting for the development of a new infantry weapon technology.

>>34826191
What?

>>34826204
you speak english? are we gonna have to do that pulp fiction thing?

>>34826204
youre gay and retarded

>>34826204
fuck off retard, not peoples job to spoon feed you easily obtainable information. neck yourself.

Flintlock rifle. The britfags are coming.

>>34826191
Didn't they just put out a feeler for a 7.62 rifle?

>>34823497
>CZ Bren 806
This isn't even listed on CZ's website, all I see is the 805.

>>34827429
806 is Czech/Mil/LE variant only for now.
When it gets released to the public, we never know. Its a good gun tho.

>>34823467
if i remember correctly, the reason the SCAR wasn't universally accepted was because it wasn't better than the AR enough,
so whatever it is replaced with has to be notably better than the SCAR.

>>34823467
blaster rifles

Nothing until personal laser weapons become a thing.

And even then it will likely be some kind of laser upper that fits on existing M4 lowers and uses batteries that fit in a M4 magwell.

>>34827538

SOCOM set the requirements. It passed.
SOcOM did the testing. It passed.
SOCOM approved all variants of the SCAR including the Mk16 for Milestone C. Operationally suitable/sustainable.

The SCAR had several years of testing, mostly because of internal forces trying to keep it in testing hell like other rifles that were going to replace the M4.

In 2008 the Democrats won the election. In 2009 they passed a budget that slashed SOCOM's budget by 15% and ordered them the train, equip and field an extra battalion at every group.

In 2010 that budget went into effect and suddenly SOCOM couldn't actually pay for the contract. So they broke it and because they didn't want to piss off the new boss, they fucked FN over.

Instead of telling the blogs about the budget cuts and additional personnel, they said that the SCAR wasn't justified when.... "limited funds" were taken into consideration because they knew that without the original context people like you would jump to the conclusion that the rifle was at fault... even though it was built to SOCOM's continuously evolving specifications over those several years.

So why didn't FN complain? They did. FN's US branch started to fight back but were told to shut up by FN's headquarters in Belgium out of fear. If FN continued to protest then the rest of their contracts and bids would be in trouble.

tl;dr
>You are going to buy a new car.
>Your custom dream car. Built to your specs.
>Then your stocks/finances take a nosedive.
You're embarrassed, but least no one knows.
>Oops. A friend you were bragging to before asks: 'where's the new car?'
>"Oh. yeah... It wasn't better than my old one when my limited funds were taken into consideration."
>"Weren't you the one who set the specs-"
>"HEY LOOK OVER THERE"

File: IMG_0354.jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>>34823467
>What gun will replace the M4 as the main rifle of the US military in the future?
End this stupid meme. Army only said they wanted a new battle rifle you dumb dumbs.

>>34823467
honestly there isn't much to improve on to make the transition worth it other than a new caliber maybe.

>>34823467
aek-971

>>34827460
I know nothing of whats the difference between the Mil var and the civ one beside full auto?

>>34823517
Non-reciprocating charging handle and a very good trigger for a milspec rifle

>>34823467
Plastic rifle chambered in caseless round. Until then we will only have M4 derivatives.

>>34828089
The 806 is essentially a new rifle completely. While the design is the same, certain features have been changed to catch up with modern times.
The 806 has better ergo's, lighter, and certain features removed. IIRC, the 805 had to have the charging handle manually pulled back and released because the Czech military always used rifles like that. On the 806 thats not the case. Or maybe im spouting bullshit. MAC has a vid on the 805 if you watch him.

>>34828089
>>34828211
Just rewatched the vid myself, I am correct.
Heres the link if youre interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JUHfxKLBfU&t=165s

File: whosthatbullpup.png (11KB, 1000x309px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 1000x309px

>>34823467
>FN is the most likely source because they already make all your damned guns
Meet the successor the F2000, the F2020.

The only reports about the 806 being good come from how bad the 805 was in comparison.

It's like the cycle of Keltec all over again.

>>34824154
This. Switching from one rifle to completely new one is a logistical and operational nightmare. Its way easier to jus send out parts to units for them to upgrade the guns themselves.

>>34824199
People thought the same about the M1 Garand, history will repeat its self and you will be wrong just like the stubborn folk back than.

>>34828936
Not the guy you replied to but...
the M-14 and the M-16 were substantial improvements over the M1 Garand. We went from 8 round internal mag, to a 20 round detachable mag, to a 30 round detachable mag with an intermediate cartridge.

What gun out there is a substantial improvement over the M-16/M4?

>>34829077
Literally anything that isn't 5.56.

>>34823467
Just another iteration of the M4, M4A1 Block III

>>34823467
Another M4.

File: ultimateDE.jpg (45KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x480px

>>34823467
the deagle of course

>>34828315
>famas_seen_from_above.png

Army Times recently had an article claiming it's going to be a 6.5mm caseless rifle or something.

Basically the ARMA III gun

>>34829802
>Army Times

>>34829802
Incorrect, commercially available only.
But after they chose the P320, I don't have any fucking fath left in Army "testing."

>>34829873
>he thinks that anyone on /k/ actually owns any of the guns they bitch about

>>34829906
>implying anyone on /k/ actually owns guns

>>34829906
>Replying to the bait trip

Whatever they replace it with they better do it fast, there would be a ton of military surplus m4 rifles. Bonus points if they let us have full auto before they do it.

>>34830020
Don't call me bait just because I'm right all the time.

>>34823467
By replace you mean supplement, and it will be the HK417/G28.

>>34827367
For 50k rifles intended for specific units, not a general service rifle.

>>34829325
t. retard

>>34830074
>Take round meant for 18" barrles
>Put it in 14.5" barrels
>Round is extremely sensitive to barrel length compared to others
>Even 262 is not reliably putting down threats
>Proliferation of armor to third world goatfuckers
>Widespread complaints about 5.56 not being killy enough at range
>About as useful as 7.62x39 at 400m

>Calling anyone else retarded not knowing these things

>>34827367
yeah, for limited use

>>34830098
>Take round meant for 18" barrles

t. retard

>you are feeling empty because you now realize you were born to early to fight aliums with an m16 and a beretta

They will never die.

File: manstopah.png (512KB, 889x315px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 889x315px

The man stopper

>>34823467
>mil wants a 7.62 real fuckin nato gun
>have some SCARs already
>they're working OK I guess

SCAR H for everyone

>What
Probably some SCAR-esque platform using telescoping or semi-guided ammo.

>When
Whenever the tech for it becomes available at low enough cost, or a big war breaks out, whichever comes first

>>34823497
>CZ Bren 806. As good as the FN SCAR (or better) and half the cost.
I like CZ and all, but let's not go crazy.

>>34830248
Stoner designed the round around an 18-20" barrel. It's bretty gud out to ~500m in a 16" and is as useful as an SKS in a 14.5". 5.56 relies on velocity more than most rounds, and is more affected by barrel length than most rounds.
It's fine for a carbine, shit for a service rifle and always has been.

File: 020iansmithDM_468x519.jpg (41KB, 468x519px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 468x519px

>>34830264
M
A
N

S
T
O
P
P
A
H

>>34830532
We don't use his bullets anymore and haven't in decades. It's been fixed.

>>34830532
>Stoner designed 5.56

t. retard

>>34830602
>All this goalpost moving
5.56 is shit for the Army's current needs. You can meme as much as you'd like, but it won't change this simple fact.

>>34830615

Shot placement is king.

Except when it comes to 6.5 being more accurate than 5.56. Then the excuses come from fanboys.

>>34830559
atlatl do ladlad

>>34830638
Shot placement can't be relied on in a firefight, and 5.56 effectiveness suffers at anything past 7.62x39 range. Again, fine for a carbine, but a service rifle should be a general purpose weapon. The M4 was the .mil attempt to have a sort of universal rifle, but that hasn't worked terrible well.

>>34830680

5.56 does the job for everything soldiers are expected to do. everything else is handled by specialized units, designated marksmen or just artillery.

>>34830615
>All this goalpost moving

The irony is deafening. M855A1 and Mk318 are perfect for the army's needs in a service rifle.

>>34830699
This

>>34830699
>5.56 does everything soldiers are meant to do
>Which is why we have specialized units
>The structure of which severely limit the average infantryman's ability to engage
Yeah, it's shit. Can't rely on always having ordnance support, and there's no valid reason to have the effectiveness of every single rifleman arbitrarily limited in engagement or effectiveness.
>>34830715
Both are pretty shit, but M855 is especially shit. The sooner you realize a carbine is a poor choice for a general purpose rifle, the sooner you'll make the same realizations as everyone in SOCOM.

File: 1486774768407.jpg (91KB, 784x643px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 784x643px

>>34830733
>carbine is a poor choice for a general purpose rifle
pls git

>>34830738
>Doesn't reliably produce immediately effective hits
>Does so even less past 300m
>Isn't effective at all past 500m
>Armor proliferation making plates accessible to literally anyone
The fun thing is, I'm just repeating what SOCOM/regular infantry have been saying, and you autists want to argue.
5.56 is a fine round - but not for general purpose military rifles, especially not from short barrels.

>>34830733
>every infantryman needs to be able to 1v1 a GPMG

By this logic every soldier needs to be equipped with an anti tank weapon, overmatch amIright?

>>34830779
you're retarded. Look up MK262 and literally any loading for 5.56 besides M855.

>>34830783
>Goalposts
Armor is why weapons platoons exist. Having fourteen guys rendered unable to fight by a single goatfucker with a fucking nugget is unacceptable.

>>34830733
>Both are pretty shit, but M855 is especially shit.

You don't even know what M855A1 and Mk318 are.

>>34830788
I mentioned 262 earlier, it still doesn't work particularly well beyond carbine range. Why are you all so offended at what the military has been saying for years?
>>34830794
What makes you say that? M855 is a generic ball round and requires a velocity of ~3000fps to do work. Mk318 is just M855 with more copper optimized for short barrels. Everyone who has to rely on it doing actual operating doesn't like it.

Every man woman and child in America will own an AR15 by the end of the decade.

>>34830779
>I'm just repeating what SOCOM/regular infantry have been saying
Because they want to get their shiny new toys from Uncle Sam. They keep seeing money being doled out to everyone but them and they want a piece of the pie too.

Government agencies have to fight for every dollar and then they have to spend it if they want to get more money in the future. This will continue ad nauseam. They'll continue to go through testing and trials and just go back to the M4A1 and 5.56 and then they'll do it all over again clamoring for something new yet again.

>>34830791
Yes you keep moving goalposts.

>Having fourteen guys rendered unable to fight by a single goatfucker with a fucking nugget is unacceptable.

Things that never happened.

>>34830823
it works perfectly fine out to 500 yards. Any further is unnecessary. I can't fucking believe people still think long range engagements are that common, so much so that they think our main infantry weapon needs replacing. Even IF a firefight is further than 500 yards, every platoon has a M240 for that shit.
And source your claims on people not liking M855A1 and MK318.
M855 only needs 2700 fps to work, btw.

>>34830779
>The fun thing is, I'm just repeating what SOCOM/regular infantry have been saying

You can stop pretending.

>>34830823
>What makes you say that?

Tell us what the difference is between M855 and M855A1 without looking it up.

>>34830846
>MIC boogeyman
It's not. Fucking. Doing the job it needs to do. Relying on ordnance or specialists just to engage anything beyond 500 yards is incredibly expensive, inefficient, and not always reliable.
That said, the benefit of whatever's chosen must also be worth the cost of doing so, but I don't recall anyone recently clamoring for a non-5.56 trial since the SCAR - which was much more effective than 5.56 according to the Rangers.
>>34830852
>Things that happened often
That or hadjis using GPMGs/old AA guns as long range weapons.
>>34830875
Except they fucking were in Afghanistan/Iraq. Do you think all the fighting took place in Baghdad or Fallujah? Range aside, it isn't putting people down reliably enough to satisfy the people who actually fight with it.
>>34830876
You can pick one up with a magnet.

>>34830532
>It's fine for a carbine, shit for a service rifle and always has been
Then just use the 18 barrels ffs

>>34830955
Or keep the portability and convert to 6.5 Grendel, which is better than 5.56 in every conceivable way with only marginal weight increase.
Alternatively, a .308 with a folding stock.
Ideally, a SCAR in 6.5 Grendel.

>>34830898
You can pick up both with a magnet you fucking retard, they both have a steel core.
You fail to mention that US squads CAN ALSO USE GPMGS AS LONG RANGE WEAPONS. Getting pinned down by one sniper with a Mosin has literally never happened, find one source that says it has.
The "firefights" you are referring to in Afghan are mainly one dude with a PKM that promptly gets fucked by the M240 when anyone sees the tracers.
>>34830532
Stoner didn't design the round, ammo tech has advanced tremendously since then, and modern loading aren't as affected by barrel length.
Where are you getting these claims from? Like Rangers saying SCARs are much better.
God, you are the fucking definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

>>34830898
>It's not. Fucking. Doing the job it needs to do
Yes. It. Is.

>>34830971
SCARs are heavier and more expensive than M4s, with the only advantage of being easier to clean.
6.5 Grendel has a better BC, but similar terminal performance. It's not worth the switch when M855A1, MK262, and MK318 exist.

File: 1500726349161.gif (3MB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 600x337px

>>34830829
But getting back on topic...

>>34830971
Logistical nightmare.

>>34830976
>Calls me out on not knowing the difference
>Doesn't know M855 had a lead core
Jesus fucking christ.
>Modern loads aren't as affected
Their effectiveness on target isn't as affected. In the 262, this is done with a heavier, lower velocity round with a steeper trajectory.
>>34830979
Then why has SOCOM been saying the opposite for years?
>>34830990
>Greater range
>Significantly better terminal performance
>Not worth it
Mkay.

File: 1486776368833.jpg (112KB, 644x527px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 644x527px

>>34831006
>Then why has SOCOM been saying the opposite for years?
If they didn't they wouldn't be getting money to try out and test new gear. Fuck. You spend every last dollar that you get if you want to get more the next fiscal year you fucking dolt.

>>34831006
Where the fuck are you getting this idea that SOCOM has been sating 5.56 is ineffective? SOURCE YOUR FUCKING CLAIM.
Better range by about 50 yards, and terminal performance that doesn't matter because MK262 already kills good enough while being small and lightweight.

>>34831006
>>34831041
oh yeah, and M855 has a steel penetrator AND a main lead core. Which means it's magnetic.

Guys Guys Guys.

Guys.

Obviously what we need is a military completely designed to fight goatfuckers innadesert with 50 year old soviet surplus. Scrap EVERYTHING and repurpose the entire military to do this, no other theatre or scenario should ever even be considered.

>>34824154
this is the most boring option so it's at the top. We're still using the m14's. The military is very resistant to change.

>>34830898
So you don't actually know the difference between M855 and M855A1.

>>34830971
>6.5 Grendel, which is better than 5.56 in every conceivable way

t. retard

>>34831028
>Muh police department budget meme
>Already gets enough budget to get 416s and decked out in Crye
>Clearly isn't because of 5.56 limitations
>>34830976
To add: You're not always going to have a GPMG set up where it needs to be to immediately respond. You're also limiting response to one or two weapons for no reason other than MUH 5.56 IS FINE memery.
>>34831053
>>34831163
>"The M855A1 has a copper-jacketed steel core, differing from the previous M855 round which has a lead core."
http://www.military.com/equipment/m855a1-enhanced-performance-round
>>34831041
Double the drop from M855. 6.5 Grendel has a slightly flatter trajectory than .308, retains energy better, and remains more effective at range.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2017/05/07/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-army-s-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-5-56/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
>>34831062
>Having an all-around more capable weapon is bad
>>34831163
>Better trajectory
>Better terminal peformance
>Better energy/velocity retention
>Marginally heavier
>Not better

>>34823467
A laser rifle or some type of gauss cannon that looks like an M4. I'm not sure we can do it, I'm not sure it is possible. But an M4 blaster rifle wouldn't surprise me in the slightest due to how institutional inertia works.

>>34831177
>had to look up what M855A1 is
>still gets it wrong

>>34831177
It's not police department budget meme. It's literally every government agency/department/branch.

Also as for the 416 and Crye, that isn't every god damn infantryman and every soldier. Those are special units and their gear is always in flux.

>>34823467
None until there is a major change in firearms design or munitions

>>34831253
No, they're just the ones doing the most work, and the most bitching about 5.56 - probably because they actually have to use theirs instead of acting as glorified police in an occupation or artillery observers.
Feedback has been that 5.56 just isn't doing what it needs to do. I don't get all the frothing-at-the-mouth autism when pointing this out.

>6.5 grendel shill stuck regurgitating decade+ old anti M4 propaganda in a 7.62 rifle thread

The fuck?

>>34831291
Still waiting on an actual citation.

>>34831335
You mean the ones I linked in >>34831177?
>>34831314
The trial isn't just for 7.62, it's a replacement for 5.56. 6.5 is on the table.

>>34831356
>You mean the ones I linked in

Which do not actually support your claim that 5.56 is ineffective.

>The trial isn't just for 7.62, it's a replacement for 5.56. 6.5 is on the table.

The trial is for a 7.62 rifle that is not meant to replace the M4A1 as the service wide rifle, and down the road the Army intends to replace 7.62 with a 6.5 or 6.8 round (which Grendel isnt a contender for).

>>34831434
Since you need literal spoonfeeding:

"One oft-noted recent study was authored by then-Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.....The major then cited a 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team, which also named the ideal caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm size. "

"But, Walker at Maneuver Center added, the Army can’t continue to ask more of the weapon system that has been in service for so long."

"At the 2016 National Defense Industrial Association Armament Systems Forum, retired Brig. Gen. Dave Grange and Jim Schatz, an Army veteran and weapons expert who has since passed away, each gave presentations calling for a new "intermediate caliber" in the 6.5 mm range.

"1. Extended combat in dusty, sandy environments that highlighted the weapon’s weak points as well as its comparative strengths, leading to escalating volumes of complaints; 2. The emergence of alternatives that preserve those strengths, while addressing those weak points"

"The fact of the matter is that technology changes every 10 or 15 years and we should be changing with it. And that has not been our case. We have been sitting on this thing for far too long.”

"5.56mm riflemen have no effective means to engage the enemy.”

"Stand-off shooters in Afghanistan employ the suppressive merits of 7.62x54R weapons by raining down .30 caliber projectiles onto troops armed mostly with 5.56mm rifles incapable of returning effective fire,”

"A U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don’t retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart."

Grendel would meet their needs at minimal cost. If they'd rather go with a 7.62, great.

>>34831614
>minimal cost


How many guns would need to be replaced? Every single m4, m16, m249 and I don't even know what the fuck else in the entire US military armoury would need to go in the trash, along with billions of rounds. This is not something you can describe as 'minimal cost'.
If you're going to spend F-35 level money on a new weapon, And require twenty plus other nations to do the same, there had better be a serious technological leap that renders the old guns obsolete overnight. Being a little bit better at 400 metres is not a reason to spend a trillion dollars.

>>34831696
With Grendel it's literally just a new barrel and bolt.

>>34823467

Well if they aren't retarded they'll keep the M4 and M16 concept and just change the ammo to 6.5mm Grendel.

But we all know they're retarded so probably whatever looks cool and doesn't cost any money to adopt. So probably nothing is going to change.

>>34831614
>no M855A1, Mk318 or Mk262
>Schatz
>random anecdotes that often have nothing to do with caliber
>trying to outrange PKM's with service rifles
>Army doesn't even train soldiers to shoot at 5.56's effective range

>>34831840
>Ignoring previous issues still present with M855A1, 318, 193, and 262 previously stated in thread
>Fallacy
>Complaints about effectiveness and range have nothing to do with caliber
>Thinking it's acceptable to be rendered unable to engage with all but crew-served weapons because of a 50 dollar GPMG
>Proving my point, infantry are for shooty, not for spotty

>>34823467
Probably an AR in 7.62

>>34831868
>issues resolved with M855A1, Mk318 and Mk262
>HK employee selling the army Hk417 rifles
>complaints that are not a result of caliber
>every soldier needs to be able to 1v1 any potential opponent (Javelins are now standard issue)
>giving every soldier a 7.62 rifle will make them effective out to 1000 yards when the army doesn't normally train soldiers to shoot past 300

>>34831928
>Range not fixed with fancyrounds
>Effectiveness at range not fixed, and actually hurt in some cases, with fancyrounds
>Not employed by HK expert, when the .mil only ever bought 416 uppers
>Range and threat stopping complaints aren't related to caliber
>HURR GOALPOSTS
Every soldier should be able to engage at fucking rifle distance, which they currently cannot do. Period.
>Training clearly won't change
>Doesn't realize the difference between range qual on irons and optics
>Doesn't realize qual and training aren't the same

>>34831952
>the effective range is unchanged with M855A1, Mk318 and Mk262

t. retard

>>34831952
>Every soldier should be able to engage at fucking rifle distance

5.56 is good to go them.

File: 1439536672463.jpg (17KB, 640x406px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 640x406px

>all these armchair generals discrediting the 5.56
decades of success speak for themselves, even the stubborn communists caved in

>>34824199
probably this
until some new technoology comes alond theyre gunna stick to the m4

>>34826191

So an AR-10 chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor? Cool.

Watching a Grendel fanboy's cognitive dissonance as his world is challenged is very entertaining.

>>34831997
>Worse trajectory
>Still only useful out to 500m
>>34832024
>500m is rifle distance
>Laughingsluts

>>34832083
Watching 5.56 fanboys sperg as the Army realizes the round isn't meeting their needs is even better.

We go back to muskets and start losing
After 2 years of using their own arms the arabs start to use our muskets
We come back with improved scifi weaponry because of the money we saved on munitions
We sweep the middle east

>>34832093
>as the Army realizes the round isn't meeting their needs

t. retard

>>34832086
see >>34832083

>>34823467
AR10 variant in 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Remington

>>34832093
Is it the army or is it just Mark Milley?

>>34832172
>Army says it's not meeting their needs
Why are 5.56 fanboys the most frothing-at-the-mouth, autistic sperglords? It's a fucking fantastic carbine round, but that's where it ends.

>>34832574
>5.56
>Carbine round
>performs best out of a 20" rifle barrel
What did he mean by this?

>>34828130
>non reciprocating charging handle

You mean what the m4/m16 already has?

>>34830062
>HK417
As if congress would ever approve the spending on anything by HK.

>>34832283
The funny part is this Grendel shill thinks the army wants a 24" barrel DMR service rifle when the whole point of this 7.62 rifle is to combat level IV ceramic armor.

>>34833279
M110A1
M27

File: download.jpg (5KB, 573x88px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 573x88px

MOIST NUGGET

File: IMG_1644.jpg (123KB, 506x686px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 506x686px

Why has this not been posted yet?

something something SKS wielding troops dropping into north korea in aerogavins something something

5.56 NATO is the perfect rifle cartridge designed by the Emperor himself.

Replacing it is the utmost heresy.

>>34833384
because the BAR was garbage and a modernized BAR is even worse.

>>34833384
Because its garbage just like your taste.

>>34833296
Which doesn't make sense, either, since trying to penetrate level IV with a service round means basically going to .338 Lapua. 7.62x51 M80A1 won't penetrate fucking level IV.

All switching to 7.62 will accomplish will be making training longer, more difficult, and more expensive; increasing the combat load while decreasing the amount of ammunition carried; and providing an increase in lethality... at ranges your average infantryman has no hope at hitting anything at.

I mean, it's not even just seeing the target at that range, it's proper range identification and holdover, wind adjustments, and all that jazz. At 500 yards 7.62 will have dropped something like 50 inches from the aim point.

>>34828936
The Garand wasn't around for nearly as long as the M16/AR/M4 has been, you dumbass.

We've had 5.56mm for over half a century at this point. It's time for a new calibre to combat the new threat posed by 7.62r.

>>34837287
>It's time for a new caliber to combat the new threat posed by a caliber that's been around twice as long as 5.56
huh

>>34837287
just pick any of the 6.5 memerounds and call it a day.

>>34837287
Just issue a new rifle with 40mm diameter, and issue all ammunition with discarding sabot to fit.

5.56 wrapped in sabot, 7.62 sabot, literally anything up to 40mm.

It should be future-proofed for YEARS so it's very economical, and while ammo would cost more due to the sabot you could slap some kick-ass optics and shit on there so each shot is more accurate, meaning you need to fire less rounds total.

A m4 with 77 grain ammo.

>>34828315
I don't know if it will come from fn but the military will eventually adopt bullpup designs. The advantage of being able to put a longer barrel in a shorter gun is simply too great to ignore. I think bullpup rifles will have to mature some more before that happens though. Bullpub designs suffer from some issues that that traditional configurations don't have to deal with and manufacturers are still sorting out the best way of dealing with them.

>>34838909
Such as?