Shooters Forum banner
  • Hello Everyone! Let us know what you would spend a $50 Amazon gift card on, HERE For a chance to win a $50 Amazon Gift Card!
81 - 96 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
🤦
Anyone who followed the links and researched the actual sources, knows that the requirement for the 277 ammo was to weigh less than the 7.62 NATO. Meaning they know that the ammo doesn't weigh anything like 2.5 times what the 5.56 does... Similarly, they would have researched the XM157 contract. Meaning they also know the new optic weighs less than the currently issued mess.

Here are some more links, that some will also ignore.

XM157 discussion, from the source.

Study on hit probability of the Garand.

Study on hit probability of the M16 family with optics.
i'll give Vortex the nod because you don't need batteries to shoot it. the only problem that i have will be CQC (close quarters combat). i would mount on the side a reflex sight, i know, the batteries.....its much easier to use than a 1x scope on a rifle. but that is just my opinion.

back when i was using my m16a2 and aperture sights, i learned(but it was not taught) that anything under 50 meters was a front sight only. i didn't need the back aperture, just the front sight. but this was just with thousands of bullets that i fired that i learned to do just the front sight. 75+ meters, i had to use the aperture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pudfark

·
The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
·
10,042 Posts
I'm not a big fan of most of M.A.C.'s click-bait videos(and un-ending "Hey guys" vernacular), but thought for the most part it was a reasonable enough discussion of folks' opinions.(y)
They, like many here, appear to be stuck on some incorrect info that they didn't really vet out; unless I'm behind on some more recent updates. "The Army" isn't simply swapping over to this rifle, it's a limited roll-out and testing process to a few specific groups. Not unlike SOCOM doing limited use of various things, which they rightly noted happens. They also seemed unaware of the specific statement officially made, which is that they aren't simply loading everything to 80K psi. Again, that really changes the conversation for "everyone" in the Army, and discussions of the 'average person' controlling full-auto fire of said HP ammo. I also am unaware of "The Marines" adopting this platform whole-hog, as it were. Seems to be more of the same "The Army is swapping everyone over". That nuance(limited number of weapons and testing) is not a minor detail to overlook in the discussion.


i'll give Vortex the nod because you don't need batteries to shoot it. the only problem that i have will be CQC (close quarters combat). i would mount on the side a reflex sight, i know, the batteries.....its much easier to use than a 1x scope on a rifle. but that is just my opinion.
For the system to function as intended, it does need batteries. But as with any FFP etched reticle scope, can be a basic telescopic optic without power; No different than an illuminated reticle who's battery died. But I suppose compared to a dead red dot, yes it still "works".
I'm curious, what you are thinking of distance-wise, for CQC. Are you thinking room-to-room point shooting, or across the street aiming? I don't really see point shooting having any difference either way, personally. But if we are talking a red dot @1x Vs a scope @1x, for across the street; why your preference?



Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
i just find it easier to use the reflex sight instead of the scope. with a scope, you have to have a cheek to stock weld every time in the same spot. with a reflex sight, as long as you can see the "dot", (then cheek to stock weld goes out the window) then you are good to go.

i guess you can call it point shooting. i don't know.

room to room, then "point shooting. across the street, it depends. i'd go "point shooting", but anybody else would go to the scope.

i treated the M16 like a shotgun under 50 meters. i was good at shotgunning small game. "if it flies, it dies" was my grandpap favorite saying i must have got a gene from my dad, because i was a terror in fields and woods. pheasants and grouse were on my menu. i shot coveys of them. it was 1 shell to 1 bird. except doves, it was 3 or 4 shells to 1 bird. you gotta take me down a step. :ROFLMAO: i don't know if i magically shot a pheasant or if i had some skill. but i did have it, whatever "it" might be.

i try and go back to the times i did "point shoot", but it was just something i did. i wish i could teach "point shooting" but for the life of me, i can't remember the what, but i can remember the why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkker

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
The Netflix documentary on the Boeing 737 Max explains most of this. Wall Street's demand for higher stock prices. Do as opposed to stock grow at a slower pace faster means more $ for other the boardmembers of corporations but Wall Street as well. One way to force growth is the introduction of new products. That generates more $ faster than existing product improvement and evolving existing products to consumer demands.
 

·
The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
·
10,042 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: tdoyka and Pudfark

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
Can you provide some budgetary reference, for that cost claim?
i'm still waiting on that price too.
in any case, the government could pay $100,000 for a new rifle or a scope, if it works!!! and i don't think the 6.8x51 is an answer. cost doesn't matter, we deserve better for our troops.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Pudfark

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
"New and Improved" was proven to me to be a marketing gimmick that was laughed at and understood to be a lie designed to take my money.....as a teen-ager, but people are still falling for it.
As I get older, "Show me". becomes more important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
Discussion Starter · #91 ·
Darkker posted two interesting and historical reports from the department of the Army which I think are worth reviewing. The links can be found in post number 80 from May 15.

The first is titled, “ Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon,“ or “Study on hit probability of the Garand,”and was published sometime around 1952. It was obviously a U.S. Army research project, but appears to have been done with the assistance of Johns Hopkins University. It begins by commenting on the effectiveness of U.S. Army service weapons from World War II and Korea, and begins to speculate about what type of weapon would be more effective and give the soldier a higher probability of making hits against an enemy.

Initial observations are that terrain and visibility limit a soldier’s ability to fire at an enemy, and that most soldiers have a hard time seeing an enemy beyond 300 yards and therefore do not fire much beyond 300 yards. Soldiers reported that 80% of EFFECTIVE rifle and light machine gun fire took place at less than 200 yds, and that 90% of such fire took place at less than 300 yds. 87% of Korean vets reported that 95% of their rifle fire was within 300 yds.

It was stated that the M1 .30-06 rifle had an effective range of 1200 yds. It was stated the hit probability for the average rifleman declined rapidly past 100 yds, and that hit probability for an expert rifleman declined past 200 yds to a low probability at 300 yds. The hit probability for all riflemen declined under extreme combat conditions.

Regarding the full auto rifles available in 1950 (presumably the M14), it was stated that in 5 round burst testing, only the 1st round would hit the test target at 100 yds because of excessive recoil. Multiple hits could be achieved at less than 50 yds. Regardless of skill or marksmanship, only the 1st round of a burst could be directed to a target at 100 yds. It was stated that, “The fully auto feature was valueless from the standpoint of increasing the number of targets hit when aiming at separated man-sized targets.”

At this point, they began to speculate about the hit probability of low-recoil small caliber weapons. It was stated that, “If the combined weight of weapon and ammunition is held constant at 15 pounds, the overall expected number of kills from a .21 caliber rifle is approximately 2.5 times that of the present standard .30 caliber rifle. It was said that a .21 cal missile at 3500 fps muzzle velocity would create equal damage to a .30 cal bullet at 800 yds. It was also stated that, “Since the recoil of a small caliber weapon would be less than the recoil of present weapons, the dispersion of rounds in a short full-auto burst would be considerably less than the dispersion of current models.”

It was therefore postulated that, “Since 70% of ranges over which a man-sized target is visible to a defending rifleman lie within 300 yds…the short-range weapon will be designed…for maximum effect up to 300 yds…It may be suggested that 7 in every 10 infantry hand weapons should have the characteristics desirable for short-range use.” It was also stated that, “From experience at Fort Benning, the development of no more than two expert riflemen per squad may be expected from the normal recruit stream without special training…This does not mean that it would not be desirable to have much higher performance in marksmanship among all the men in the squad.” The men writing this could perhaps could not even dream of a computerized laser range-finding, trajectory-calculating, intrasquad Bluetooth-communicating, multi-range reticle variable power scope mounted on a Picatinny rail…part of a squad linked to an overhead drone scanning in multiple spectrums (including infrared) and AI processing for suspicious pattern recognitions.

At this point, the researchers speculated that light-weight low-recoil weapons firing multi-projectile flechette ammunition in full-auto low-dispersion bursts could potentially have a much higher hit probability than current weapons. This seemed to be a primary focus of the second research project which Darkker provided a link to, titled “Study on hit probability of the M16 family with optics.” I will try to provide a review of that document in the coming days.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,046 Posts
The squad auto rifle in 1950 was the BAR.
"Spray and pray" has been a thing since they threw pots of boiling oil on the attackers below.
 

·
The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
·
10,042 Posts
Darkker posted...
..... I will try to provide a review of that document in the coming days.

If we've come to the point of needing to do book reviews for people who won't read on their own, this thread will be closed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
The 1950s report does sound like a cheer leader for the M16!

A thought just came to me (shocker!).

If they use the lower quality stainless in the heads of the composite shell cases, we will finally be able to use those so far useless brass magnets!!!!🤣😂😇
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,924 Posts
More BS from those that market by 'new and improved'. Without a new product, there can't be a new income stream.
This was hashed out in the past days on this forum.
This link will fill out your question, I think.
And if you dont believe that just look at the frequent changes in uniform, Army at least. I dont hink Navy and AF change as often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
the Army went back to WW2 dress greens (or i think they did?).

the BDU's has changed so much it makes my head spin. i would make everyone wear a ghillie suit. the POG's would be ecstatic. just think, a chairborne warrior in a ghillie suit making coffee. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
81 - 96 of 96 Posts
Top