Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Black Rifle Forum' started by ERASER, Aug 20, 2014.
I see the Washington Times is still beating this horse.
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?
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.
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.
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.
We went from a single shot to a bolt action?
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?
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...
The magazine is "tinny"? Yikes. That's why God created Magpuls.
I read somewhere that the rifle that beat out the M4 was the Keltec SU16....
Read it on the internet.. has to be true.....
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??
I wonder what "rifle C" was?
For...like....a million reasons? No, you're right. NATO should just adopt stuff you like.
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?
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.
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