Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-20-2014, 09:24   #1
ERASER
Nyuk,Nyuk,Nyuk!
 
ERASER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,162
Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...le-outperform/
__________________
DEMOCRATS:
Gun Control......making criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
Amnesty..........making criminals into law-abiding citizens.
ERASER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 10:17   #2
dkf
Senior Member
 
dkf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,747
I see the Washington Times is still beating this horse.
dkf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 13:05   #3
GlockViking
Senior Member
 
GlockViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: An Uncommon Commonwealth
Posts: 1,134
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERASER View Post
This article is not new, but the one thing I have always wondered about is why the Big Green Army (as the Small Arms PEM) didn't switch out to the Mk 262 (over the M885 and its derivations) round?

for this topic, I am talking about rifle applications, not LMG (M249)

The M855 has been documented as ineffective against non-IBA wearing enemy since 1993 in Somalia.

I also understand the logistical magnitude of such an effort, but I would think that, in a 2-3 year period, the Army could have transitioned to the Mk262 for anyone carrying a rifle in DOD?

Anyone have any inside scoop?
__________________
Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
GlockViking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 14:14   #4
dkf
Senior Member
 
dkf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,747
Well the MK262 would do well against flesh. What they want with the M855 and the fairly new M855A1 is penetration through hard barriers and as much hard tissue damage as possible. The M855A1 is supposed to do a better job in both departments. You have to stop and think about what they would be going up against. Soldiers who may end up having vests with a bunch of commie steel mags loaded with ammo in the pockets right in front of the vitals. It would be good to have a round that will punch through the filled mags and be able to damage the soft stuff. Something the Mk262 would not do so well at. Then there are vehicles, and other barriers that may be encountered.

Last edited by dkf; 08-20-2014 at 14:16..
dkf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 14:52   #5
GlockViking
Senior Member
 
GlockViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: An Uncommon Commonwealth
Posts: 1,134
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf View Post
Well the MK262 would do well against flesh. What they want with the M855 and the fairly new M855A1 is penetration through hard barriers and as much hard tissue damage as possible. The M855A1 is supposed to do a better job in both departments. You have to stop and think about what they would be going up against. Soldiers who may end up having vests with a bunch of commie steel mags loaded with ammo in the pockets right in front of the vitals. It would be good to have a round that will punch through the filled mags and be able to damage the soft stuff. Something the Mk262 would not do so well at. Then there are vehicles, and other barriers that may be encountered.
Very good points...especially with IBA becoming more prevalent, the potential of having to penetrate it would be outweighed by a superior "soft target" round like the Mk262.

Whatever shortcomings the M855 may have, getting hit with it would be NO fun!

I'll have to Google the M855A1 and see if I can find some info. A while back someone had posted a link to a 2003 NAVSEA Crane pPPT talking about the Mk262...something like that on the M855A1 would be nice informaiton.
__________________
Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
GlockViking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2014, 15:04   #6
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,764
Right now...more than anything. Money.

The Army is doing everything it can to save money.

From a strategic acquisitions standpoint we can fight another war with the infantry weapons we have now. They may not be the best but they are adequate and a replacement system is currently only offering marginal improvement over the M4. I truly think the Army is looking for something that is a game changing shift such as when we went from a bolt action to a semi-auto rifle or when we went from a single shot to a bolt action. That's based on my discussions over a few beers with a good friend who is a Brigadier General with the Army Acquisition Corps.

There are other capital expenditures and program improvements to Stryker and other vehicles that WILL significantly improve our warfighting capabilities.

Put it like this...If I'm a tanker and someone says I can spend money to improve your tank or give you a different handgun.... I'm spending the money on the tank--all day!

So that's the issue. Its also not just the cost of the weapon. Its the whole training curriculum surrounding the new weapon. New repair parts. New training manuals. New equipment training for exisiting troops. Ammunition development and inventory. New supply codes new arms room storage racks, new racks for weapons storage inside vehicles, new training devices, new training mock-ups, new maintenance manuals and records/forms... Its really endless and painfully expensive. Plus you loose the value of your current inventory of rifles and possibly ammunition. All that investment becomes a liability because you have to clean out and dispose of that inventory.

Its fun to discuss on a gun forum. But as anyone can tell you who's ever gone through fielding a major piece of equipment in the Army before...its a serious, painful, time consuming, circle jerk. If it only offers a marginal improvement over the M4 then there are better things we can do with the time and money to field a new rifle that will improve our soldier's ability to fight.

Just some perspective...
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”

Last edited by Big Bird; 08-20-2014 at 15:07..
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 07:15   #7
GlockViking
Senior Member
 
GlockViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: An Uncommon Commonwealth
Posts: 1,134
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Right now...more than anything. Money.

The Army is doing everything it can to save money.

From a strategic acquisitions standpoint we can fight another war with the infantry weapons we have now. They may not be the best but they are adequate and a replacement system is currently only offering marginal improvement over the M4. I truly think the Army is looking for something that is a game changing shift such as when we went from a bolt action to a semi-auto rifle or when we went from a single shot to a bolt action. That's based on my discussions over a few beers with a good friend who is a Brigadier General with the Army Acquisition Corps.

There are other capital expenditures and program improvements to Stryker and other vehicles that WILL significantly improve our warfighting capabilities.

Put it like this...If I'm a tanker and someone says I can spend money to improve your tank or give you a different handgun.... I'm spending the money on the tank--all day!

So that's the issue. Its also not just the cost of the weapon. Its the whole training curriculum surrounding the new weapon. New repair parts. New training manuals. New equipment training for exisiting troops. Ammunition development and inventory. New supply codes new arms room storage racks, new racks for weapons storage inside vehicles, new training devices, new training mock-ups, new maintenance manuals and records/forms... Its really endless and painfully expensive. Plus you loose the value of your current inventory of rifles and possibly ammunition. All that investment becomes a liability because you have to clean out and dispose of that inventory.

Its fun to discuss on a gun forum. But as anyone can tell you who's ever gone through fielding a major piece of equipment in the Army before...its a serious, painful, time consuming, circle jerk. If it only offers a marginal improvement over the M4 then there are better things we can do with the time and money to field a new rifle that will improve our soldier's ability to fight.

Just some perspective...
Appreciate the well-written response.
__________________
Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. -- Thomas Jefferson
GlockViking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 07:24   #8
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,355
I have often wondered why people who will never, ever, be issued a weapon by the military, spend so much time and effort arguing about what weapons the military should use, in gun magazines, on the internet, etc.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 09:05   #9
Matthew Courtney
CLM Number 285
Instructor #298
 
Matthew Courtney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 5,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
Right now...more than anything. Money.

The Army is doing everything it can to save money.

From a strategic acquisitions standpoint we can fight another war with the infantry weapons we have now. They may not be the best but they are adequate and a replacement system is currently only offering marginal improvement over the M4. I truly think the Army is looking for something that is a game changing shift such as when we went from a bolt action to a semi-auto rifle or when we went from a single shot to a bolt action. That's based on my discussions over a few beers with a good friend who is a Brigadier General with the Army Acquisition Corps.

There are other capital expenditures and program improvements to Stryker and other vehicles that WILL significantly improve our warfighting capabilities.

Put it like this...If I'm a tanker and someone says I can spend money to improve your tank or give you a different handgun.... I'm spending the money on the tank--all day!

So that's the issue. Its also not just the cost of the weapon. Its the whole training curriculum surrounding the new weapon. New repair parts. New training manuals. New equipment training for exisiting troops. Ammunition development and inventory. New supply codes new arms room storage racks, new racks for weapons storage inside vehicles, new training devices, new training mock-ups, new maintenance manuals and records/forms... Its really endless and painfully expensive. Plus you loose the value of your current inventory of rifles and possibly ammunition. All that investment becomes a liability because you have to clean out and dispose of that inventory.

Its fun to discuss on a gun forum. But as anyone can tell you who's ever gone through fielding a major piece of equipment in the Army before...its a serious, painful, time consuming, circle jerk. If it only offers a marginal improvement over the M4 then there are better things we can do with the time and money to field a new rifle that will improve our soldier's ability to fight.

Just some perspective...
We went from a single shot to a bolt action?
__________________
You will never begin in the fight you have planned for. You will begin in the fight the other guy has planned for. Retreat in a manner that leads him into your fight should he press his attack.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Matthew Courtney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 11:32   #10
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 21,192
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
I don't think the mass of the army moved to Spencer's or Henry's. I thought they worked through the various single shot 45-70's to the bolt 45-70's and onto the 1892 Krag?
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 15:20   #11
Big Bird
NRA Life Member
 
Big Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 10,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Courtney View Post
We went from a single shot to a bolt action?
We went from the Trapdoor Springfield to the Krag.

We still had soldiers fighting in the Spanish American War with Trapdoor Springfields and the Spaniards were shooting Mausers...
__________________
Big Bird,

“Est Nulla Via Invia Virute”
Big Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2014, 20:34   #12
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 15,423
The magazine is "tinny"? Yikes. That's why God created Magpuls.
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 00:29   #13
Boot Stomper
Senior Member
 
Boot Stomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Metro East of IL
Posts: 2,655
Blog Entries: 1
I read somewhere that the rifle that beat out the M4 was the Keltec SU16....
Boot Stomper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 00:30   #14
Boot Stomper
Senior Member
 
Boot Stomper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Metro East of IL
Posts: 2,655
Blog Entries: 1
Read it on the internet.. has to be true.....
Boot Stomper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 04:19   #15
panzer1
NRA MEMBER
 
panzer1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: p.a.
Posts: 2,053
Why not just go with a piston AR in 6.8spc? Done deal!

P.S. And for a side arm maybe a sig,226 in 357sig??
__________________
THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR VICTORY!
NRA MEMBER

Last edited by panzer1; 08-22-2014 at 04:21..
panzer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 04:32   #16
BuckyP
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
BuckyP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 9,602
I wonder what "rifle C" was?
BuckyP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 04:37   #17
M&P15T
Beard One
 
M&P15T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Arlington, VA.
Posts: 11,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzer1 View Post
Why not just go with a piston AR in 6.8spc? Done deal!

P.S. And for a side arm maybe a sig,226 in 357sig??
For...like....a million reasons? No, you're right. NATO should just adopt stuff you like.
__________________
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 430 BC) Power should only be given to those that want it least.
M&P15T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 05:08   #18
faawrenchbndr
CLM Number 281
DirtyThirty fan
 
faawrenchbndr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: east of East St. Louis
Posts: 34,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzer1 View Post
Why not just go with a piston AR in 6.8spc? Done deal!

P.S. And for a side arm maybe a sig,226 in 357sig??
Do ya think the US has money fallin out it's arse? How do you think they would pay for all the new ammo that is 3x the cost of 5.56? You have any clue?
faawrenchbndr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2014, 07:58   #19
D.S.Brown
Senior Member
 
D.S.Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 1,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
I have often wondered why people who will never, ever, be issued a weapon by the military, spend so much time and effort arguing about what weapons the military should use, in gun magazines, on the internet, etc.
My favorite are the people that get all bunged up about which handgun and handgun caliber the military should go with, as if EVERYONE in the all of the branches gets issued a handgun! And I'm a handgun guy.

Best,

Dave
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
D.S.Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2014, 01:09   #20
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,300


Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird View Post
We went from the Trapdoor Springfield to the Krag.



We still had soldiers fighting in the Spanish American War with Trapdoor Springfields and the Spaniards were shooting Mausers...

Our guys were using Gatlings while they were using Maxims. At least the Rough Riders had their own Colt Potato Diggers.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:39.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,250
402 Members
848 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31