GUN Army Looking for replacement for M4?

phrozenlikwid

Active Member
Jul 13, 2007
5,544
NKY
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbineday_112308w/

Discuss.

Personally, I don't have a huge opinion. I don't really get into AR's that much, but have always found them excellent for nearly any run and gun type stuff. I realize that my needs, and that of the soldier (or government providing weaponary for said soldier) are vastly different, so I feel as though I simply don't have anything that could resemble an informed opinion.

I'm actually more worried about the possible implications regarding the future validity of "the chart" once the TDP goes public. If something were to change to the TDP, thus making "the chart" invalid, I think the ripple effect of everyone immediately having obsolete M4geries could cause such turmoil amongst the gun community that a black hole would develop over Hardford, CT thus comsuming us all in a downward spiral of unparked FSB's, Prancing ponies, and HK elitism.

For Reference:

chart.jpg
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
I dont think it will change for at least another 5-10yrs. If you look at the tortue tests(60k round test) that they run on there weapons and look at how failures the weapons get (M4, M16, 416, XM8, etc). I think the M4 was around 700 failures where the 416 and XM8 were 400 and 200.

So roughly M4 = 1.2%percent failure, and others between .2-8%. Its going to come down to a cost versus actual benefit. I think thats why the army keeps denying dragon skin also to be honest. Also I doubt any non standard NATO will ever take off for alot of reasons. I mean 6.5grendal is a great rounds but it will never be a issue round since it isnt NATO.

The XM8 is a great example for instance once they started giving them to units they HATED them. All there pluses ended up not working or failing. They were great in test but sucked in the field. Plus most testing is retarded like the M4 sand test that had them shoot 6000rds :rofl: Thats 200magazines more than any soilder will probably carry in Iraq or Afghanistan
 

THT

The easy way is always mined
Mar 16, 2005
12,561
The booby hatch
I dont think it will change for at least another 5-10yrs. If you look at the tortue tests(60k round test) that they run on there weapons and look at how failures the weapons get (M4, M16, 416, XM8, etc). I think the M4 was around 700 failures where the 416 and XM8 were 400 and 200.

So roughly M4 = 1.2%percent failure, and others between .2-8%. Its going to come down to a cost versus actual benefit. I think thats why the army keeps denying dragon skin also to be honest. Also I doubt any non standard NATO will ever take off for alot of reasons. I mean 6.5grendal is a great rounds but it will never be a issue round since it isnt NATO.

The XM8 is a great example for instance once they started giving them to units they HATED them. All there pluses ended up not working or failing. They were great in test but sucked in the field. Plus most testing is retarded like the M4 sand test that had them shoot 6000rds :rofl: Thats 200magazines more than any soilder will probably carry in Iraq or Afghanistan
I thought Dragonskin was rejected because it could result in more deaths due to blunt force trauma? Don't the hard plates of traditional armor absorb some of the kinetic energy of a projectile and the soft armor beneath helps dissipate it further? Dragonskin lacks the hard armor and therefore, when you get hit with, say a shotgun slug, you're more likely to die not due to penetration but rather blunt force trauma
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
I thought Dragonskin was rejected because it could result in more deaths due to blunt force trauma? Don't the hard plates of traditional armor absorb some of the kinetic energy of a projectile and the soft armor beneath helps dissipate it further? Dragonskin lacks the hard armor and therefore, when you get hit with, say a shotgun slug, you're more likely to die not due to penetration but rather blunt force trauma

They said it failed on penetration but theres been alot of :hsugh: about that including a man buying a vest that the DOD tested that "had been penetrated" but the vest had none. Also Dragon Skin is a good 20-30lbs heavier than IBA's
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
Even they guy of Interceptor says Dragon skin is better
[y]KTrTrsJu3pk[/y]
 

Market Garden

Oh god, not the chart!

I'm in for the 6.5 Grendel issue weapon though.
 
TS
TS
phrozenlikwid

phrozenlikwid

Active Member
Jul 13, 2007
5,544
NKY
I'm betting bigger (longer OAL) magazines, and a fuck you to the Hague stuff (to run the TSX bullets) would tidely nip a lot of the terminal ballistics stuff in the butt, without having to change platforms/cartridges.

Fuck playing with a handicap.
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
Remember we cant use any hollow points, but they are talking about switching to 72-75gr bullets
 

THT

The easy way is always mined
Mar 16, 2005
12,561
The booby hatch
Remember we cant use any hollow points, but they are talking about switching to 72-75gr bullets
I'll never understand the point of the Geneva Convention. It's war not a pillowfight. The boundaries are set by the combatants.
 
TS
TS
phrozenlikwid

phrozenlikwid

Active Member
Jul 13, 2007
5,544
NKY
Remember we cant use any hollow points, but they are talking about switching to 72-75gr bullets

I know, and I think that's the stupidest fucking thing ever. A "hollow point".... really!?!?! It's like the kind of trash you'd expect to hear in a movie.


Need to get some priorities in check..... It's been a while since I heard someone who carried a gun for a living, doing so WITHOUT intent to kill a motherfucker. If that's the case, might as well issue everyone pepper spray and a tazer.
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
Actually when it comes to actual War injuring is better than killing. If someone is injured its going to require 2-3 people to take care of him thus getting rid of removing 2-3 people from the fight. If someone is dead they will still get the body but continue to fight back without having to attend to the wounded.
 
TS
TS
phrozenlikwid

phrozenlikwid

Active Member
Jul 13, 2007
5,544
NKY
I've always heard that..... but never been keen on it.

If I was shooting at someone, I would want them down for the count, not able to pull some hero shit and kill me with their last dying breath or something retarded.
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
You have to remember also that the military has to shoot through body armor, steel targets etc.. so i dont even think a hollow point would be really a good idea except for maybe select special forces units.

They do have the Mk262 right now which is an OTM bullet
 

kellyclan

She only loves you when she's drunk.
May 16, 2001
18,817
First off, there could not possibly be a black hole OVER Hartford, CT, because it would be sucked into the black hole that IS Hartford, CT.

Second, the Army's been looking for a replacement to the M16/M4 since 1972. Believe it when it happens and not a second before.
 
TS
TS
phrozenlikwid

phrozenlikwid

Active Member
Jul 13, 2007
5,544
NKY
You have to remember also that the military has to shoot through body armor, steel targets etc.. so i dont even think a hollow point would be really a good idea except for maybe select special forces units.

They do have the Mk262 right now which is an OTM bullet


The phrase "hollow point" is an absolutely meaningless designator.

Case in point: Many varmint bullets have a "hollow point" tip, meaning that there is a cavity in the meplat. So does a TSX. They don't at all perform equally in regards to controlled expansion, nor terminal ballistics.

Its simply a feel good term, that does absolutely nothing to describe the bullet construction proper, nor the expansion tendencies which all correlate to terminal ballistics.
 

Market Garden

The phrase "hollow point" is an absolutely meaningless designator.

Case in point: Many varmint bullets have a "hollow point" tip, meaning that there is a cavity in the meplat. So does a TSX. They don't at all perform equally in regards to controlled expansion, nor terminal ballistics.

Its simply a feel good term, that does absolutely nothing to describe the bullet construction proper, nor the expansion tendencies which all correlate to terminal ballistics.

+1

The bullet on the left is a hollowpoint as people think of them. The bullet on the right is an OTM bullet. While the point is hollow, it isn't designed to perform as a traditional hollowpoint.
68115prepro_65123sections.jpg
 

kellyclan

She only loves you when she's drunk.
May 16, 2001
18,817
Actually when it comes to actual War injuring is better than killing. If someone is injured its going to require 2-3 people to take care of him thus getting rid of removing 2-3 people from the fight. If someone is dead they will still get the body but continue to fight back without having to attend to the wounded.

Old school warfare, son. The people we're fighting these days don't try to rescue their injured, they leave them to live or die Inshallah. Faster they get their virgins, the better.
 

LancerV

Buttslut sighting
OT Supporter
Sep 16, 2003
72,347
+1

The bullet on the left is a hollowpoint as people think of them. The bullet on the right is an OTM bullet. While the point is hollow, it isn't designed to perform as a traditional hollowpoint.
[IM]http://www.65grendel.com/gallery/68115prepro_65123sections.jpg[/IMG]
And we now use the bullets on the right in war :h5:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
492
Guests online
96
Total visitors
588

Forum statistics

Threads
369,739
Messages
16,915,630
Members
86,875
Latest member
ddunn9448