The links above are from an ARMY TIMES article about what is apparently slated to be the next battle rifle for the US military.
As far as I can tell, It’s rather kewl looking, but other then that I can’t see much reason to change from the M-16 system.
The only real benefits I can see are:
Attached Optics.
Weight Reduction (if more then a few ounces)
Increased Reliability (assuming it actually is more realiable)
However, I’m not sure how much weight reduction can be done(The M-16 system is steel barrel/alumium lower reciever/and a lot of plastic and composites), and the M-16 system can easily accept optics.
Am I the only one who doesn’t see the pressing need for this replacement rifle?
On Mail Call R. Lee Ermey was talking about it, and said the air burst attachment is the biggest reason it is so anticipated. They did a demonstration where the they shined a laser through a window, and programmed the round to explode in the middle of the room. It worked well, But they never even mentioned anything about the guns it’s direct fire capabilities compared to the current stuff which I found interesting at the time.
I saw the Mail Call episode. And it was pretty sweet in Ghost Recon and Ghost Recon: Island Thunder…
But I wonder if a combat rifle should be so…fangled, you know? The more crap you put on it, the more there is to break, wear down, get dirty, and lug around.
That 5.56mm bullet seems awfully small for a battle weapon. Great for small varmets but do you really want just a 22 caliber rifle between you and a squad armed with RPGs?
The M-16 is 5.56, IIRC, and we’ve been using it for ages. It must do something right. Alternately, it’s so entrenched and they’ve bought so much ammo for it that they don’t want to throw it all out.
Personally, I’d want a .50 Barrett between me and anyone out to kill me. But that’s me.
Well, the US military been using the M-16 family, which uses the same round, for the last 35 years. Going to a larger caliber cartridge isn’t really an issue with this rifle.
