idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out - Page 2

Jo6pak · February 22, 2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles11B

And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues.

Winning comment. Can I use that as a sig line?

TriumphGuy · February 22, 2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I find it incredibly unlikely that they'll get any kind of government contract state, federal or otherwise when it takes them a month (and counting) to get a mess like that cleaned up. This fiasco has made me lose all respect for their company.

rickyrick · February 22, 2012, 07:40 PM

Armoured hummers and full length m16's don't mix. The m4 was a godsend. The m16 is easier to shoot.

kraigwy · February 22, 2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Armoured hummers and full length m16's don't mix

Guess that's true, but I was Infantry when Infantry walked.

SPEMack618 · February 22, 2012, 08:06 PM

Walking? Pffft. That's for the Marines.

Death before dismount.

That being said, there were times when I told myself that a full sized M-16A4 would have been great, it was shortly followed by father's voice echoing in my head saying "When your in charge, take charge." and then remonstrating myself that Danny was pretty damn good with his DMR.

rickyrick · February 22, 2012, 08:08 PM

I prefer m16,

According to reports, rebadged m14's are being used I think all bases are covered.

Also most things I've heard, Its foolish, still, to engage US troops, and the outcome isn't very pleasant.

I don't see a need to replace US inventories.

SPEMack618 · February 22, 2012, 08:11 PM

I like my M-4A1 when I was doing Squad Leader type things.

You know trying to read a map with my stupid pen light, talking on the radio, trying to open an MRE with my Gerber, trying to fold said map.

But when I had to do real shooting, there were more than a few time when I wished I would have liked an M-16.

Nitesites · February 22, 2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriumphGuy

I find it incredibly unlikely that they'll get any kind of government contract state, federal or otherwise when it takes them a month (and counting) to get a mess like that cleaned up. This fiasco has made me lose all respect for their company.

They never gave you that RFB, did they?

TriumphGuy · February 22, 2012, 08:19 PM

Never heard a peep back from them after I emailed and told them where the bad links on their sites were. Of course,every time I check back it's in a different place. They've got some serious problems and it's all kinds of irresponsible to keep the site live until it's worked out. If nothing else, they're putting current and potential customers at risk of identity theft and costing them money in PC repair costs.

Nitesites · February 22, 2012, 08:22 PM

Too bad. Very bad mojo for their reputation (and I like 'em, oh well).

MTT TL · February 22, 2012, 08:51 PM

The using a Kel-tec as a military rifle idea makes my belly giggle. I think we should give them to the Afghans. (Or the Syrian insurgents)

Quote:

You know trying to read a map with my stupid pen light

Whats a map? Isn't that the software they use for the BFT? Why do you need a penlight for that? How do you "fold it".

Quote:

I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.

Well in defense of my brethren there is no way that anyone with an AK will be able to hit you at that range so you are pretty safe (at least in Iraq you were). It is also just outside of the minimum danger range for a 500#er ....so..... Me and a few dudes with rifle conducting Battle Drill#4/5 or.... the 500#er off the F-15 and everyone goes home with all their limbs intact.... not seeing the downside here....

okiewita40 · February 22, 2012, 08:59 PM

I will agree that the army does not spend enough time at the range. Now the m
Marines on the other hand do spend time at the range. The last i knew the marines were still qualifying at 500 yards with the M4. That was when I left Kuwait last year. So something may have changed.

Achilles11B · February 22, 2012, 10:36 PM

Jo6pak, as long as I get credited, it's yours.

KraigWy, the Infantry still walks. A lot. M4's are also easier to hop a fence with.

I always wished that us grunts hit the range more often, the Marines have it right (maybe, I've never been a Marine, can't say for sure). But, I don't trust the terminal ballistics of a 62-grain pill at 500 yards. Great for punching paper, not sure about people, though.

SPEMack618 · February 23, 2012, 10:20 AM

BFT?

Haha. Good one. It worked great for the Blackhorse Cav in "Executive Orders", but for us....not so much.

Now, some of the guys who had been to OEF talked about how great it was there, but as much as I deride this saying, it was definantly something designed for the Cold War.

Doesn't work too well when your trying to figure out which farm "down the road aways, to the left" your going to.

And I'll echo Achilles, I like the M-16/M-4 weapon system. However, I think there needs to be more training earlier, and that we need better ammo.

Jo6pak · February 23, 2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles11B

Jo6pak, as long as I get credited, it's yours.

Roger that. Thank You

Achilles11B · February 23, 2012, 08:51 PM

Jo6pak,

I'm touched.

And you're quite welcome.

Not sure what can be done with the ammo, though. Perhaps a switch to something in the 75-77 grain range would be more effective at range, bucking the wind better and bringing more hitting power as well. Also, perhaps a switch to a heavier bullet would wake up the Army, and the military in general, to hit the range more often. We have enough shooters, let's get some more riflemen.

SPEMack618 · February 23, 2012, 08:57 PM

I sometimes wonder if the NJ compliant EFMJ would be an advisable round to issue out to the masses.

And, as always, more range time is imperative.

February 22, 2012, 07:40 PM	#28
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	Armoured hummers and full length m16's don't mix. The m4 was a godsend. The m16 is easier to shoot. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

February 22, 2012, 08:06 PM	#30
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	Walking? Pffft. That's for the Marines. Death before dismount. That being said, there were times when I told myself that a full sized M-16A4 would have been great, it was shortly followed by father's voice echoing in my head saying "When your in charge, take charge." and then remonstrating myself that Danny was pretty damn good with his DMR. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

February 22, 2012, 08:08 PM	#31
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,236	I prefer m16, According to reports, rebadged m14's are being used I think all bases are covered. Also most things I've heard, Its foolish, still, to engage US troops, and the outcome isn't very pleasant. I don't see a need to replace US inventories. __________________ Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!

February 22, 2012, 08:11 PM	#32
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	I like my M-4A1 when I was doing Squad Leader type things. You know trying to read a map with my stupid pen light, talking on the radio, trying to open an MRE with my Gerber, trying to fold said map. But when I had to do real shooting, there were more than a few time when I wished I would have liked an M-16. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

February 22, 2012, 08:22 PM	#35
Nitesites Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 2011 Posts: 600	Too bad. Very bad mojo for their reputation (and I like 'em, oh well). __________________ On Yellow

February 22, 2012, 08:19 PM	#34
TriumphGuy Senior Member Join Date: October 5, 2009 Posts: 559	Never heard a peep back from them after I emailed and told them where the bad links on their sites were. Of course,every time I check back it's in a different place. They've got some serious problems and it's all kinds of irresponsible to keep the site live until it's worked out. If nothing else, they're putting current and potential customers at risk of identity theft and costing them money in PC repair costs.

February 22, 2012, 08:59 PM	#37
okiewita40 Senior Member Join Date: June 11, 2007 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 409	I will agree that the army does not spend enough time at the range. Now the m Marines on the other hand do spend time at the range. The last i knew the marines were still qualifying at 500 yards with the M4. That was when I left Kuwait last year. So something may have changed. __________________ What on god's green earth do you think your doing?

February 22, 2012, 10:36 PM	#38
Achilles11B Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 595	Jo6pak, as long as I get credited, it's yours. KraigWy, the Infantry still walks. A lot. M4's are also easier to hop a fence with. I always wished that us grunts hit the range more often, the Marines have it right (maybe, I've never been a Marine, can't say for sure). But, I don't trust the terminal ballistics of a 62-grain pill at 500 yards. Great for punching paper, not sure about people, though. __________________ Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.

February 23, 2012, 10:20 AM	#39
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	BFT? Haha. Good one. It worked great for the Blackhorse Cav in "Executive Orders", but for us....not so much. Now, some of the guys who had been to OEF talked about how great it was there, but as much as I deride this saying, it was definantly something designed for the Cold War. Doesn't work too well when your trying to figure out which farm "down the road aways, to the left" your going to. And I'll echo Achilles, I like the M-16/M-4 weapon system. However, I think there needs to be more training earlier, and that we need better ammo. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

February 23, 2012, 08:51 PM	#41
Achilles11B Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2010 Posts: 595	Jo6pak, I'm touched. And you're quite welcome. Not sure what can be done with the ammo, though. Perhaps a switch to something in the 75-77 grain range would be more effective at range, bucking the wind better and bringing more hitting power as well. Also, perhaps a switch to a heavier bullet would wake up the Army, and the military in general, to hit the range more often. We have enough shooters, let's get some more riflemen. __________________ Good equipment will never be a substitute for good training.

February 23, 2012, 08:57 PM	#42
SPEMack618 Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2010 Location: Central Georgia Posts: 1,863	I sometimes wonder if the NJ compliant EFMJ would be an advisable round to issue out to the masses. And, as always, more range time is imperative. __________________ NRA Life Member Read my blog! "The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search