Gun Hub Forums banner

Rear Lug Receiver, and SASS.

5K views 44 replies 8 participants last post by  M118LR 
#1 · (Edited)
I was wondering if anyone else thought that the M25 should have been upgraded to a Receiver with a rear Lug after the Metal Plate was dropped and Bedding became the Standard? Any comments or opinions? Thanks in advance.


P.S. Anyone have a Lead/Link towards the procurement of a Brookfield Precision Tool Piston 7267047 Revision #2?
 
#2 ·
Upgrading the M25's to a lugged receiver would have required welding a lug or replacing the receivers. That's not exactly practical for a weapon that's essentially obsolescent, and at that time had some serious parts availability issues. Putting that much effort into the M14 just didn't make sense. So doing the lug really wasn't necessary for a practical DM rifle. It makes sense for a target rifle where you need more than just a hit, you need a high scoring hit. But in the field it's an 800m rifle and anything beyond that is just best left to a purpose built long range weapon. So although the lug fixed some problems and made the weapon more accurate, it didn't transform it to a longer range weapon...it's still just an 800m weapon. So I think they made the right call, too much trouble for a rifle that's probably not going to be with us long enough to justify all the trouble.

I LOVE the idea of a Designated Marksman, and the M21/25 is well suited to the task. In the role of the Dragunov, it out-Dragunov's the Dragunov by a good margin. I mean, anything the SVD could do, a properly built M1A/M21/M25 could do better. Certainly the SVD is more reliable and so wsa the FAL and G3...be that as it may, that doesn't mean the M14 was UN-reliable.

But the military had to make a decision because they were pressing M14's back into service and really didn't have much of a supply line for true military spec replacement parts. So they either put the M14 back into production, or go with a new purpose built Designated Marksman rifle. They opted for the M110 and it was the right choice for a lot of reasons. But quite predictably, the M110 has had it's share of growing pains, the same growing pains that the M14 has already worked through.

Whatever they choose next will be dependent upon if they stay with the M4 or move to something else. If they stay with the M4, then they either need to devote more effort into de-bugging the M110, or go with something like the H&K 417. (I personally would love to see a military wide switch to H&K 416's & 417)/ If they go with something like the SCAR 16, then obviously the SCAR 17 makes sense. I hear rumor the Special Ops guys can't get enough SCAR 17's and are generally very happy with them.

The problem with the M14 is the fact that it's difficult to build RIGHT and keep the costs down. Its a rifle from a different technology era, and putting that particular design back into large scale production just doesn't make sense. And then of course, there's the bedding issue.

So in the lug may have solved problems for a target rifle, but it wasn't needed for the designated marksman weapon in combat.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Thanks for the input Kevin. Very valid points now that We look back in retrospect.

Before the shelving of the M-14 By McNamara and the Whiz Kids, every rifleman was a Designated Marksman.

Back in the early 90's Neither Designated Marksman or the M110 had yet to be considered.

So the M25 was supposed to be an upgrade to the M21. While the Government was Re-barreling with Douglas or Krieger Heavy Barrels with Match Chambers, wouldn't it have been faster and more cost effective to just R&R Receiver (instead of of the steel stock liner) that never became part of the final spec, and lent the rifle to be just bedded?

Now by the time the M-14 was being pressed back into service (2000+) for the DM Program the EBR Chassis was chosen in part because it allowed the M-14 to effectively maintain 300-800 Meter Range without the need of bedding.

I think the biggest selling point of the short lived M110 was that it required less Training for Troops already accustomed to M-16/M-4 operations. But the MK17/MK20 are already replacing the M110 in the Special Operator World.

Although I must confess that the Navy never really Shelved the M-14 like the Army or USMC. If they can work out the Optics/Recoil Impulse on the SCAR's, McNamara's Bean Counting Dream of having one Rifle/Platform for all the Services might become a reality. The wheels appear to already be turning.
 
#4 ·
I don't see a one rifle solution ever. I think the Russians had it right a good 40 years before we caught on. Have a variety of weapons in each platoon to cover different situations. A one size fits all solution never seems to work, that's a less we've learned over and over and over again; yet we still continue to fall for it. That's because it looks so damn good on paper. But even if you have an outstanding do it all rifle, wherever we find ourselves fighting, we find we WANT something very specialized. So I say stick with a 5.56 AR-ish weapon for general issue; it has worked out very well. Then have people trained on special weapons and have a good supply of "other" weapons for when the time calls for them. I like the Russian model, we should have copied what they were doing decades ago; just with better weapons.
 
#5 · (Edited)
I'm somewhat confused about the US to Russian Platoon theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon

Modern Use[edit]

In the United States Army,[10] Rifle Platoons are normally composed of 42 soldiers. They are led by a Platoon Leader (PL), usually a second lieutenant (2LT), and with a Platoon Sergeant (PSG), usually a Sergeant First Class (SFC, E-7). Rifle Platoons consist of three nine-man Rifle squads and one nine-man Weapons squad, each led by a Staff Sergeant (E-6). The Platoon Headquarters includes the PL, PSG, the PL's Radio-Telephone Operator (RTO), Platoon Forward Observer (FO), the FO's RTO and the Platoon Medic.

United States Marine Corps[edit]

Platoon of the U.S. Marine Corps
In the United States Marine Corps, rifle platoons nominally (per TO) consist of 43 Marines and are led by a platoon commander, usually a second lieutenant (O-1), assisted by a platoon sergeant, a staff sergeant (E-6). The platoon headquarters also includes a platoon guide, a sergeant (E-5), who serves as the assistant platoon sergeant and a messenger (Pvt or PFC). Rifle platoons consist of three rifle squads of 13 men each, led by a sergeant (E-5). In the attack (especially if part of the assault echelon) or in a deliberate defense, rifle platoons are usually augmented with a two-man mortar forward observer team and are often reinforced with a seven-man machinegun squad and/or a four-man assault weapons squad.

End Excerpt

The one Rifle for all situations and all Branches is "The Bean Counters Dream" but the Handwriting is on the Wall.

The 7.62 NATO Mk-17 is being Modified into a SASS (Mk 20) and Quick Conversion 5.56 NATO. Government Contracts for the Mk 16 SCAR 5.56 NATO have been pared or cancelled to make way for the Mk 17 5.56 NATO Capability. Granted, this is only at the SPEC OPS Level at present, But the M14 SSR (XM25/M25) Upgrade to the XM21/M21 that preceded the 14 EBR and M110 originated at the same SPEC OPS Levels. So instead of a Politician Leading the change (ALA M-16), if the Mk-17 SCAR Movement continues to a logical conclusion Main Line Troops should one day field the (Multipurpose) SCAR in one version or another.
Quick Link: US Special Operations | Weapons

I guess the biggest question is what will SPEC OPS be using by the time Main Line Troops begin to see the SCAR Variant of the future?
 
#6 ·
I was talking about the general loadout of small arms available to an infantry unit. We have EVERYTHING available to a Special Ops unit, but often our regular infantry squads need a little more diversity in small arms and we've always tried to get it all done with just one or two weapons.

In 1945 the Germans had a fully functional, highly effective assault rifle. Two years later, the Russians had one. It took us 20 years before we had the M16, and it really wasn't the equal of the AK until the M4.

The Russians seemed to get the infantry platoon weapons load right back in the 1950's.

Weapons for a Russian infantry platoon include:

AK 47/74 - General infantry rifle (7.62/5.45)
RPK 47/74 - Magazine fed squad automatic (7.62/5.45)
RPD - Belt fed squad auto (7.62)
SVD - Designated marksman rifle (7.62x54R)
VSS - Special purpose suppressed assault rifle/sniper rifle (9x39)
PKM - General purpose machine gun (7.62x54R)


With the adoption of the new H&K M27 IAR, at least the Marines now emulate what the Russians had more than a generation ago.

Weapons for a US Marine infantry platoon include:

M4 - General infantry rifle (5.56)
M27 - Magazine fed squad automatic (5.56)
M249 - belt fed squad auto (5.56)
M39/M25/M21 - Designated marksman rifle (7.62 NATO)
M240B - General purpose machine gun (7.62 NATO)

The one saving grace is since it took us a generation longer, we have much better weapons.

I wouldn't mind us adding something like a .300 Blackout AR type weapon that's either integrally suppressed, or short enough to add a suppressor and still stay a handy size. Again Spec Ops has such things, but I'd like to see these available to general infantry. (I'm also guessing the super sonic versions of the .300 blackout would be VERY popular in urban fighting for its increased lethality and barrier penetration).

And some smart upgrades would be to replace the M39 with something more modern, and replace the M240B with the M60E6, which is the best GPMG in the world today.

Increasingly it's boots on the ground that are doing the hard lifting, yet the Quartermaster General is SO incredibly tight fisted about letting new things into the supply lines (especially if you're talking something that takes a new cartridge). We need to open the flood gates for a while, then we'll have a very good idea what works, what doesn't work, what we can live with and what we can live without.

They finally opened up the flood gates on sniper rifles and we now have .308, .300 Win Mag, .338 Lapua, and .50 BMG. And our snipers would tell you there's a time and a place for each.
 
#7 · (Edited)
Excellent Post Kevin, clear and definitive.

As this is my Maiden Voyage I'm not sure about the Latitude of Drift allowed within threads, but I did start the Thread so if I can live with it I hope the Moderators can.

Need some common ground to begin: Combat (General) Infantry is Army Specific, The USMC considers "Every Man a Rifleman", Both the Navy and Air Force Components indulging in most Direct Combat can be considered Spec Ops.

So by General Infantry I'll assume We are discussing the Army. First thing first in the Army, POG's (People Other than Grunt's) shall be using M-16's/M-4's until well past the Maximum Service Life of the 5.56 NATO or the Weapons Themselves. (Agreed?) So now on to the foreseeable future, of small arms.

SCAR Bean Counter Philosophy:

Assault Team:
SCAR Mk-17 13 inch CQB 5.56 Conversion, Breacher/Sapper M-1014 + Specialty Weapons.

Rifle Squads:
SCAR Mk-17 16 inch Standard 7.62 (Main Battle Rifle)

Weapons Team:
M240B (Probably not an M60 Variant)

Forward Observer Team:
SCAR Mk-20 7.62 Sniper Support Rifle
+ Main Sniper Rifle.

Notice that the 5.56 NATO has become a Specialty Cartridge and the 7.62 once again is the Mainstream "Battle Rifle Cartridge" for Combat Infantry. No need for Designated Marksman or the M-249 (Stoner in Navy Terms)! POG's will keep the 5.56 NATO alive for more time than the Army will admit to! Now We can come back to the "Main Sniper Rifle".

Alas, the 7.62 NATO M118LR MK316 mod 0 etc... is no longer considered in the "Main Sniper Cartridge Category". It SHALL be Fielded as the Sniper Support or/and Rifle Squad "Main Battle Cartridge" But it lacks "Reach Potential"! (SOCOM's Min Spec is now 1500 Meter's)

Starting with the M-2010, There isn't a Primary Sniper Rifle less than 7.62 X 67 MM (300 Win Mag) Fielded TODAY.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/ Click on any of the Sniper Rifles NOT 7.62 Nato for current Employment.

So round about We have come back to Today's Sniper Rifles, Hope I haven't Broken any rules!
 
#12 ·
More to add, but first...great conversation, I'm loving your insightful posts on the subject.

More on the 5.56

I'm not sure where this currently stands...

It's been quite some time now, but it was at one time announced that the Marine Corps was standardizing on the Mk 318 Mod O ammunition which featured an open tip bonded core bullet. Essentially a modified version of Federal's Trophy Bonded Core bullet. Apparently the JAG has ruled it an "open tip" bullet not intended to expand for increased wounding, which all of us know is BS; it's an expanding bullet, and a damn good one at that.

(by the way, this is all from memory of what I read about this cartridge a few years ago, if I'm mis-remembering anything, please correct me).

If the US is intending to switch to expanding bullets, the bonded core hollow point, or a solid copper hollow point are the designs that make the most sense as they would likely produce at least adequate barrier penetration. Such a bullet would completely transform the 5.56 as a military cartridge making it about as ideal as one could possibly imagine for a general purpose, general issue weapon. Now you could have actual meaningful lethality and effectiveness all the way out to 800 meters from a cartridge that has almost no perceivable recoil. That's a military dream.

If such bullets are allowed, then what would that mean for other cartridges? How would that change other small arms chambered for other rounds? I personally would want anything .308 changed over to .260 Remington or .25 Souper (basically a .25-08). Then there's the .300 Win Mag...well honestly a .25-06 is flatter (slightly higher BC with .25 bullets) shooting with MUCH less recoil, and with a Trophy bonded core bullet, it would hit with a lot of authority at any distance a .300 WM would. Although it would take a hit on barrier penetration. But I don't think our snipers use the .300 WM because of it's barrier penetration, but because it's a true long range cartridge.

I mean the mind could really wander. I just wonder what the current status is of that round today in US military service???
 
#13 · (Edited)
I must agree that the "Big Army" runs on Dollars and not sense.

" After fielding, operators reversed the previous decision and called for a SCAR platform that could change calibers. The Mk 17 was chosen to be scaled down because it had a larger receiver for the 7.62 mm round, and so the 5.56 mm Mk 16 could not be scaled up to chamber the larger round. The 5.56 conversion kit was finalized in late 2010 and orders began in mid-2011.[44"

The SCAR-L (MK16 5.56 NATO) order for 123,641 Rifles was canceled, while a considerable order it would have only been a drop in the bucket of "Big Army" inventory.

The Navy on the other hand procured both SCAR-L (5.56) & SCAR-H (7.62) for the TEAMS.
"On 9 December 2011, the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division released a sole source 5 year IDIQ procurement notice for the Mk 16 Mod 0 (SCAR-L), Mk 17 Mod 0 (SCAR-H), Mk 20 Mod 0 (SSR), and MK 13 Mod 0 (40mm EGLM) from FN to sustain inventory levels.[45][46] Navy special operations forces procures their firearms through SOCOM and fielded the Mk 16 more than any other unit.[38]"

So the 5.56 M16/M4 World may continue as is, but the 7.62 NATO World is already converting. 36,843 FN SCAR-H (7.62) have already been acquired with more orders forthcoming. So the M110, M-14 Variants are being taken out of inventory.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

As to the 5.56 NATO Ammo question.
" As the issue of environmentally friendly ammo grew, the Marines looked to see if the Mk318's lead could be replaced while still meeting specifications. They found that by replacing the lead with copper and slightly stretching the jacket around to crimp the nose even more, the bullet's ballistic coefficient increased. To avoid visual confusion with the Mk 262 round, the bullet was entirely nickel-plated for a silver color; the enhanced silver-colored copper jacketed, open tip match, 62-grain projectile was named the Mk318 Mod 1. The Marine Corps will make a decision as whether to field the Mk 318 Mod 1 or M855A1 as its standard rifle round.[104]"

Reference Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

The "Big Army" is moving to the M855A1, but the USMC has been known to base it's decisions on the "Needs of Riflemen" sort of like the 500 KD Range Qualification verses the 300 KD Qualification of the "Big Army".

I'll include an interesting Read from Shooting Times: The Best 5.56 Load: The Black Hills MK 262 Mod 1 - Shooting Times

But I've already covered the SOCOM Minimum 1500 Meter MOA Requirement for Long Range Engagement Rifles & Cartridges. So both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO rounds are not even relevant in the World of Today's Snipers.

Good conversing with you Kevin, caught on to that (Stoner) SAW mention.
 
#15 ·
Different times, the M60 ruled the 7.62 World back then. Who knew a one time Jungle Conflict would dominate the way Real War's were fought around the globe? I mean Tiger-stripe Camouflage wasn't issued for all the other conflicts around the World, but the 5.56 Assault Rifle Cartridge was? I think that the Wiz Kidz and McNamara got it backwards. JMHO
 
#16 ·
Different times, the M60 ruled the 7.62 World back then. Who knew a one time Jungle Conflict would dominate the way Real War's were fought around the globe? I mean Tiger-stripe Camouflage wasn't issued for all the other conflicts around the World, but the 5.56 Assault Rifle Cartridge was? I think that the Wiz Kidz and McNamara got it backwards. JMHO
McNamara would have made a project of tying his shoelaces .... not that he could ever be accused of actually being able to TIE THEM. :twisted::twisted::censored::censored::argh::argh:
 
#20 ·
That and, WWII wasn't quite the "Automatic Weapon In Every Hand" paradigm of today's infantry. They had bigger rounds, and they were trained to Make 'Em Count rather than Spray-N-Pray.
 
#23 ·
Also have to consider how the numbers were tabulated. The famous statistic of 50,000 rounds was just a measure of expended ammunition, not hits in combat. That expended ammunition tabulation included rounds expended by Miniguns on AC-47's as well...An AC-47 with 6 miniguns can wreck your curve with a single mission. Compared to WW II we had a mass proliferation of machineguns as well as select fire weapons in the hands of soldiers. In the 90's soldiers scores have gone up, and I believe these days they're the best Big Army has ever had. We've learned a lot about training troops over the years.
 
#21 ·
I thought that the Big Army was moving toward 3 shot burst instead of Full-auto to make up for the lack of range time required to learn short burst techniques? Sort of "Spray and Pray" is to expensive so let's restrict the Rodent Rifle even further and remove greater training requirements through advances in technology. That's still 12 Trigger Squeezes per EKIA, instead of 2. I'm thinking 35 Rounds of 5.56 NATO still weighs and cost more than 2 Rounds of 7.62 NATO. So I'm not to satisfied with the 5.56 NATO for General Issue. The 5.56 NATO for CQB with the proper projectile, NICHE Cartridge, that I can agree with. But for General Warfare I'm on the 7.62 NATO Bandwagon Kevin.
 
#24 ·
Okay Kevin, let me just make sure I'm following you here.
Rifle squads will be equipped with the same 5.56 NATO M4A1 as the Assault Squad.
Link: M4A1 | US Special Operations | Weapons
We can even go so far as to make it a SOPMOD. They just won't have a SAPPER. Isn't that the failed Idea that caused the big army to come up with the Designated Marksmen Program during our current conflict?

Rifle Squads need to be equipped with 7.62 NATO SCAR MK 17's so that they can contend in open Battle, and the Assault Squad can contend with CQB. Don't forget that the SCAR is also select fire Full-Auto.

The Forward Observer Element will have the SCAR MK 20 and a precision rifle capable of a min 1500 Meters.

Along with most of the other elements of a Platoon.

That was the formula for a successful "Big Army" During WWII, and while conflicts of that scale aren't the current normal. Too the Grunt on the Ground conflict size is of little importance, it's still all out WAR.

Today's "Big Army" is suffering from the decision to use the M-14 instead of the FN-FAL in order to keep the Training Costs (Familiarity) down. The FN SCAR is the combination of Battle Tested User Functions with the Reliability of a Gas Tappet Rifle. Just like the 3 Shot Burst (Bean Counters Solution) has failed, The M110 Use the same platform in a larger caliber (M-14 vs FN-FAL) keeping the manual of arms the same also has failed. While it may sound a bit abnormal, arming Our Troops with the most effective Battle Rifle in the Field, just like WWII.(Garand) Is the Formula to continued success. Could you imagine what the outcome of WWII would have been if the Standard Issue Rifle would have been the 1903 for standardization? We could have even chambered it for a .22 caliber round like the Japanese!

Okay, someone kick the soap box out from under me.
 
#25 ·
Well I don't know that any version of the SCAR has been adopted by Big Army, it's simply a special ops item thus far as far as I know. I hope it is adopted, or something quite like it.

I don't know that the M110 is what I'd call a failure. Surely it's not as reliable as the other .308's but it has served pretty well, and has a good accuracy edge. I think with further development and training, there's no reason it can't be as reliable as an M16/M4 Still the SCAR would be a real upgrade.

My recommendation would be to continue to use some form of 5.56 as the general issue infantry rifle, but to add in a dedicated DMR rifle at the very least, and have them in abundance. There may come a time when you might want MOST of your soldiers armed with a 7.62 NATO. It just doesn't make any sense to me to have everyone carrying a .308 all day every day; we did that, didn't like it and we moved on. But we need diversity in weapons for our soldiers.

Instead of the desire for a one size fits all that we've been doing for the past century, I'd like to see them offer a nice palate of options...

.45 handguns
9mm handguns
Shotguns
5.56 carbines
.300 Whisper (or something like it) carbines suppressed
7.62 NATO rifles
.300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua sniper rifles
5.56 squad auto's
7.62 NATO LMG's

Honestly, all these things are available to our spec ops people. Why not make them more available?
 
#26 ·
It's only been half a century Kevin, We still have yet to bury all those ghosts of WWII Past, but it is close. Even in their absence they call to real Warriors Kevin. But this is the forum of take a day to respond, and I like that. So I have responded earlier than I should have. Forgive me, tomorrow I will have a better response than I posted today.
 
#27 ·
Personally, I've long thought that part of initial weps training should be assessing what caliber and platform best fit the individual soldier--if you're better suited to a .45 you get a 1911, one of the various BlocksGlocks or if there's a .45 Beretta variant one of those, whichever fits you best, 9mm ditto with the appropriate bore. Rifles, if you can better handle a .308 you get an AR10 variant or M14, whichever fits you; 5.56 you get an M16 or M4.

The problem is, like matching kids' learning styles with teachers' teaching styles, it takes WORK to do that... and if there's one thing the pus-sucking pogues are averse to it's "REMFs actually having to EARN their paychecks."
 
#28 ·
Yeah the problem with infantry marksmanship training is that it's looked upon purely as a cost center for Big Army, so they want an acceptable marksman for as cheap as they can possibly do it. For the past 40+ years "hitability" has been a very big factor in small arms evaluations. And while I think that is something of utmost importance, the reason Big Army wants it is to determine which rifle will save them the most money, not which rifle will be most effective.

So we've had the "war" in Kosovo which was "settled by air power" (BS), and the first Gulf War where infantry soldiers played a very small role. Other than that, EVERY real war has been settled by the infantry soldier on the ground. Yeah the equipment has to have it's battle to establish dominance, but eventually you have to have a grunt with a rifle come close the deal. I wish they'd understand that you just can't close the deal without your grunts, and treat weapons acquisition and training like they do with tanks. With armor or aircraft, we don't settle for acceptable; we demand dominance. We need to have that same attitude with our infantry*

*not to deride or infantry, I think today's infantry is the most effective the US military has ever fielded. I would not want to square of with US infantry, especially Marines.
 
#29 ·
Kevin, I don't know what the Marines do today, but when I was still with the Big Army the Marines did it right. Every swinging d**k was a combat rifleman first then what other MOS they needed. I wasn't Infantry even though I qualified as Expert with every rifle I was issued, be it carbine, Garand, M14 or M16, but I always wondered why Big Army operated as it did. You're right, despite the hype given bombing, no conflict was ever won until Pvt. Snuffy was standing on the hill with his rifle and said, "This is mine!"

Now we can go back to regular programing and discuss the next battle rifle or handgun.
 
#32 ·
Kevin, I don't know what the Marines do today, but when I was still with the Big Army the Marines did it right. Every swinging d**k was a combat rifleman first then what other MOS they needed. I wasn't Infantry even though I qualified as Expert with every rifle I was issued, be it carbine, Garand, M14 or M16, but I always wondered why Big Army operated as it did. You're right, despite the hype given bombing, no conflict was ever won until Pvt. Snuffy was standing on the hill with his rifle and said, "This is mine!"

Now we can go back to regular programing and discuss the next battle rifle or handgun.
I can see a couple of scenarios for Big Army.

1 - the cheap route (I see this as least likely): A conversion of M16/M4's to a piston system similar to the H&K 416. While this may not be the best option, it's really not a bad option at all. Certainly I'd prefer a SCAR over the H&K 416, but if I was just handed the 416 and told to get over it, I'd be over it pretty darned quick.

2 - Going out to bid for a "system". Given the direction toward modularity, I could see an RFP for a weapon system that allows maximum flexibility for configuration, cartridges, etc. Thus giving options for one general "system" to fill pretty much every auto-loading "rifle" role we have now. That would be THE way to go, and the SCAR is most of the way there. I just hope they take this opportunity to can the STANAG magazine and go with a much better design.
 
#30 ·
It is a curiosity why the Navy has taken the Lead on the SCAR Program. Perhaps it's due to the relatively small quantity of Small Arms when compared to the USMC or even larger "Big Army".
I must agree that if there is to be a change in the "Big Army" Dollars vs sense, it will probably take an urging or incentive from the USMC. Should the USMC decide to start upgrading the inventory of 7.62 NATO Rifles, I would expect the "Big Army" to Piggy Back on some of the purchase orders the USMC initiated.
As the SCAR MK 20 7.62 NATO is already in service, the M-14 & M-110 are being phased out. Granted this is only for a small percentage of each of the Combined Services, but as the SCAR MK 20 is now the designated Sniper Support Rifle, (Sniper Support was a 5.56 NATO M-16) at least SOCOM has moved away from the Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only time and more Battle Field Exposure will tell if the SCAR is an improvement, but for now it appears that the FN SCAR is coming in multiple Mod's for all the 7.62 NATO Chores that the High Command have realized exist outside of the Urban Battle Field.

So while the Oxen moving the Big Army are slow, the Earth is patient. At least for now the 7.62 NATO has Supplanted the 5.56 NATO for Sniper Support.
 
#31 ·
Yeah, the various SCAR's really have the edge over the competition. Their use by SOCOM is VERY fortuitous for them because they get to have very busy US soldiers out there doing their testing, which allows them to de-bug the weapon systems, making them probably the most developed of the latest generations of military rifles. That will put them in a really good position if the US military decides to go out to bid for a new rifle/system.

And I don't know if the 7.62 NATO has supplanted the 5.56 NATO for sniper support, but they now have that option. I'm sure sniper support weapons are chosen for the particular mission; we are talking SOCOM here. Certainly there are times when you would want a 7.62 and times where you'd want a 5.56 for sniper support.

I'd just love to see those SCAR's filter down to the regular Army; I'm sure the grunts would appreciate it very much.
 
#33 ·
I think they already scrapped the cheap route "carrier tilt". Scrapped the FN-SCAR MK 16. (with the exception of the Navy) Scrapped the H&K 416. So it appears that the "Big Army" will charge forward with the (completely cheapest M-16 Replacement) M4A1 DI in 5.56 NATO. It will take something like an embedded reporter filming a Human Wave Overrunning OUR TROOPS while they blaze away with Rodent Rifles and can't stop the Charge, before the "Big Army" drops it's Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only Poor Public Publicity seems to have a Major Effect on the Upper Echelon. JMHO.
 
#34 ·
Delta has the H&K 416 as their preferred rifle. Carrier tilt isn't a problem with that system, and my understanding is that carrier tilt is more of the theoretical problem for most piston rifles than an actual problem...again, that's most.

I don't see the US dumping the 5.56 pretty much ever at this point. If they do, it will be after I'm good and gone.

If Big Army would just adopt the Mk 318 Mod 0 cartridge, or something quite like it, then the 5.56 would be more than adequate to take down hoards of zombies. I'd love to see us abandon the whole Hague Accord thing.
 
#36 ·
I researched some old info on the M-14 Forum giving Tank's Rifle Shop as a possible location for the M25 Steel Liner that allowed for repeatable zero after breakdown, but I can't find anything on the web-sight about it. Anyone got a Heads-up on the availability of the Steel Liner that was made for the M25? Thanks.
 
#37 ·
I'd suggest that Y'all just give up on the antiqued M-14, and all it's variations. It's a dated platform with limited usages and not worthy of your time and research. It isn't part of the future, it's time is long past. Treat the M-14 like any other "Historical Footnote". JMHO.
 
#40 ·
Old War Rifles and even Older Warriors, what an excellent combination. We can only hope that the avant garde and thier hip new weapons outperform US. Thank Y'all for your experience and wit.As to the current Generation of Warriors, I Salute You, carry on smartly.
 
#42 ·
And then you have the odd cases like me... I suppose there are those who would rather make me have every bone in my arm and hand broken and reset "resculpting" it to fit a Glock or Beretta grip rather than leave me and the 1911 that's fit me so well my entire adult life to operate in peace.

Hence my proposal of "six service sidearms" a while back, selecting chassis and bore to fit individual operator--my only effective way to get a STOP with an M9 is "hold it by muzzle and beat other guy into submission with it," the damn thing is so painfully ill-fitting to my hand and wrist I'm better off sticking to throwing punches. Dunno if the P320 can be configured to replicate 1911 grip...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top