Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,412 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
Article said:
For the first time in almost 50 years, the U.S. Army wants to replace the standard rifle shouldered by hundreds of thousands of frontline troops around the world.
Because, you know, The XM8, SCAR, and dozens of other rifles from myriad M-16 replacement programs dating back to at least the 1980s never existed. And the fact that the Army started replacing the M-16 with the M-4 as standard issue back in the 1990s doesn't count.

Also:
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1313151
For crying out loud, it's still on the first page of topics, man.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
65,070 Posts
Hey, just think of it this way: the losers will try to recap cost by marketing their rifles as semiautos for civilian consumption. That means more supply than demand will equate to plastic phantastics running around $1000 instead of the ridiculous $2000 current mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
900 Posts
This is good. Things change all the time, and the current issue rifle should be tested against the state of the art. Personally, I think it's time to change the caliber. The 5.56mm round does not carry enough energy to be as effective as other choices. Something similar to 6.5 Grendel would enhance effectiveness and range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
Enter a Dick Cheney company and a slingshot for only $3000 ea. LOL

For years I despised the Viet Nam era M16 format. We shot Colt AR15's after the war and they shot minute of car door window at 50yds. A few years back, we shot the M4 format into face sized targets at 200yds with open sights. Big improvement.

It would seem to me that the service is trying to come up with "only one battle gun". It would be an accurate 600yd battle rifle and a light fast urban sweeper carbine, combined. I don't think that it can be done, but the pencil pushers will probably have the last say.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top