Integrated Automatic Rifle

6.8mm instead of 5.56mm: does this mean worse accuracy and worse range in exchange for better "stopping power"?

Thirty years ago they tested things like the Steyr ACR, which fired the 5.56x45 flechette round for greater muzzle velocity and flatter trajectory (and probably also better accuracy) than those of M16. But with this new 6.8mm rifle it looks like a move in the exact opposite direction is what's practical.

Attached: steyr-acr.jpg (1141x408, 86.12K)

That it can transfer information and power both.

I give Zig Forumsomandos 12 hours to prove their google-fu. Then i will post it.

Attached: pm.jpg (640x272, 23.05K)

the smarter the soldier the more accurate it is, thats why they're going to put all smart white men on the front lines to get blown up for israel.

So will AR-15s no longer be "military-style" weapons?

Attached: Anime_Colonel.jpg (875x1000, 66.61K)

Here master faggot.
taskandpurpose.com/army-next-generation-squad-weapon/
Do I get a smiley face on my belt now?
zero effort jewgleing and tldr didju rike it

Wait
Can you shoot 360° with it?

Meet the US Army's new super rifle.

Attached: xm8-poster.jpg (850x911, 110.44K)

Meet the US Army's new super grenade launcher.

Attached: 550a42cf6ad11dd637f56c2d48f8ae87.jpg (720x437, 88.07K)

Meet the US Army's new super pistol, the Modular Handgun System.

Attached: 2455555_01_hi_point_c9_with_compensator_640.jpg (640x480, 48.48K)

Meet the US Army's new super rifle.

Attached: akg.jpg (598x335, 29.36K)

Your google-fu is weak and your are pathetic.

Attached: pm.jpg (1600x662, 452.43K)

Meet the US Army's new super rifle.

I case you haven't caught on by now, I don't have a whole lot of faith that this will lead anywhere. The only way to sell the Army on a new rifle is to do it in pieces. Start with an upper for the AR15/M16/M4 that eliminates the gas system and sell it as a low-cost conversion. Later on sell them on a replacement lower designed around some super-high cap mags.

Attached: SPIW.jpg (2100x527, 79.13K)

looks like an ork clunker

Are you fucking st–

Attached: serveimage(2).png (651x429, 22.49K)

Translation - "You suckers will buy anything."

SMHTBQHWY

Also meet the US Army's new all purpose omni-weapon

Attached: 9 barrels.jpg (500x334, 29.11K)

The US military industrial complex has seen better days.

Attached: AK47.jpg (682x339, 43.23K)

I'm beginning to like the fish. Will you post it tomorrow again?

Should we replace 308 with something like 6.5 or 7.92x41?

Oh fuck, they should just go ahead and make it caseless while they're at it.
What did they meme by this? Most every firearm is considered as having a high pressure chamber.
Was this infographic actually presented to the military, or is someone having a lark? The bipod was fucking copy pasted onto the diagram; they didn't even bother to use a fucking .png.

I love these "were going to REVOLUTIONISE OUR BATTLEFIELD" every so years, where all they manage to do is give defense contractors a couple billion to stay afloat while they create the shittiest meme rifle they can, claiming more and more rediculous feats every time to keep the retarded lawmakers from pulling funds, just to keep using the same shit we've been using for damn near 50 years now.

There are of 5-10 million AR's owned in the country in the country,and U.S. Military has 2.3 million total troops combined, active, reserve, and national guard.

So would the civilian market be a bigger market than the US military?

If they adopt this rifle then would the manufacturers push to gut the NFA?

Instead of 45,000 psi, they're looking for 80-100 thousand psi. Longevity is going to be a massive problem. This is another meme outing to keep defense contractors alive, and invested in our country and not others for the time being.
See:

So how much do I have to modify the M14 before they'll consider putting it back into service?

That gun did revoutionize the fire arm industry.

Attached: EM2 Test.webm (352x288, 6.18M)

5.56x45 is 55000 psi max pressure round. Proposed round has 75000-100000 psi max pressure. Nearly doubling that, it is more than any magnum rifle round has. This is some HIGH pressure.

the recoil must be crazy.

At that point, why not arm everyone with 7mm rem mags?

But this is what it is. 7mm rem mag on steroids in more lightweight space age technology package. Battle rifle fags should be celebrating.

For full-caliber rifles a 6.5 makes sense because of muh ballistic coefficient, 6.5 Mememoor, .264 winmag, and similar cartridges provide objectively better performance than their .30 caliber counterparts, and weigh less to boot.

Attached: The Army's New Rifle (1954)-qT435uvS0js.webm (480x360, 4.12M)

Meet the US Army's new super rifle, the Type-33 Guided Munitions Launcher.

Attached: next generation.png (1320x960, 1.27M)

The joke is that all those rifles were the new US army rifle you fucking /v/edditor.

Tell me if this is a stupid idea.

It's all the benefit of role-specific cartridges without the drawback of being completely screwed when your logistics system shits the bed.

>because you only equipped them for 90% and standardized it like a moron
Good job you just sank trillions of dollars into a losing war and became an international embarrassment.

...

This is what you get when you hire non-firearms engineers to design weapons, a fucked up hunk of junk just like SA80 project.

Is there some reason you can't engage a dialed in mg nest with mortar fire? Perhaps a quick deploying mortar system on a bike or motorbike? A mortar bike, if you will?

Attached: 1289184198_preview_Mortar Bike540p.png (960x540, 239.55K)

Nah, the proper response is to have a continous range and variety of weapon systems from pistol to heavy machine gun. Any standardization, any "arm for 90%" bullshit, and you leave massive vulnerabilities in your combat ability.

There's the soviet 107mm rocket which is basically the #1 piece of artillery used by durkas during the 15 years we were invading them. If you want to have fun watch this whole video.

Outside of small numbers of elite units, it's really not worthwhile. It's what all of the major players in WWII were doing, and all of them came to the conclusion that the logistics clusterfuck created by that kind of doctrine far outweighed the marginal benefits of having a different weapon and ammunition for every situation. This is (slightly) less true for asymmetric warfare, in which you have a massive economic and organizational advantage over the enemy, but it's fundamentally a bad idea to organize your army around the idea of fighting exclusively inferior foes, because it means your forces will get a hard unlubed dicking in any conventional war. And modern conventional wars are very much wars of economy, meaning your logistics are very much going to help influence victory; this is also why a large number of cheap, easily replaceable vessels would make a superior navy to the fuckhueg, white elephant supercarriers the USN is focused around today.

Furthermore, there's the issue of training. Even if you can handle the logistics of acquiring and maintaining such a large variety of weapons and calibers, the fact of the matter is your average infantry grunt won't have combat-effective accuracy at the ranges being requested. Even with optics your current infantrymen are effective to 300-400 meters. Part of that has to do with the somewhat lax standards of Army marksmanship (I believe 7 MoA is all that's required to gain an "expert" ranking), but even if you tighten up training the best you can hope for from the average infantryman is ~500 meters. Much more beyond that point, and the men have to be trained in not only marksmanship fundamentals, but more advanced precision shooting techniques that precisely and scientifically determine elevation drop, windage, parallax, and so on. And you run into issues deploying that kind of training on a large scale, again because of logistics. Marksmanship fundamentals are almost entirely muscle memory and don't need all that much practice to be kept at an adequate level. The advanced marksmanship techniques in contrast are very technical skills that need to be constantly maintained, expending tens of thousands of rounds per person per year; it's simply not practical to expect this kind of training on an army-wide level. As such, it's far better to train and equip the "normal" infantryman to reliably engage within 500 meters (current doctrine calls for 300 meters), and for those less common engagements at longer range rely on smaller numbers of soldiers with more specialized training, e.g. GPMGs, DMRs, and so on. Nathan F., a ballistician over on TFB goes into this pretty in-depth in several of his articles.
archive.fo/Eo5mv

If they adopt this rifle then would the manufacturers push to gut the NFA?

Why do people knock down 5.7x28 since it's an obvious replacement for 9mm grease guns?

Wouldn't we better off phasing out x51 and 5.56 for something like 6.5 CM to further reduce logistical headaches?

I don't see a point in replacing 50bmg, I mean if you need better range then load the bullet. Beyond 50bmg range, you should be using cannon caliber.

I don't think people knock as a PDW caliber so much as they knock people who expect the Five-Seven to be an effective carry gun without access to the AP ammunition.

Eh, there's more than one thing to look at. You don't gain very much from giving 6.5CM (or even 6.5 Grendel) to the bulk of infantry, because the average infantryman will a) be restricted by accuracy to a range far less than the bigger cartridge's effective range, and b) the vast majority of engagements will occur at ranges less than the greater ranges of the bigger cartridge anyways. So the benefits you gain are marginal, and somewhat niche, and in exchange for those benefits you have to use a much heavier ammunition. And that means you have to either issue your soldiers less ammo (bad for obvious reasons), or your soldiers will get fatigued much easier. That article I linked goes into greater detail. If you really want to replace 5.56x45 with something, a good candidate would be .224 Valkyrie, or something very similar to it. It's got far better characteristics than 5.56x45 and even outmatches 6.5 Grendel in several key areas, and it's barely heavier than 5.56x45.

It does make sense to replace 7.62x51 with something else, perhaps 6.5 Creedmoor, because 7.62x51 is just a pretty shitty cartridge all around by modern standards. But this would take place purely in specialized roles–machinegunners, designated marksmen, and so on, not as general issue to the entire Army.

Attached: Ivan Chesnokov on the Five-Seven.png (1233x247, 28.83K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (300x300, 106.17K)

Attached: super soldier.jpg (457x480, 26.27K)

Fuck off Nathan, nobody likes you.

straight walled rounds don't develop very much pressure. Rifle rounds, in order to be able to launch a hundred grains to two to three thousand feet per second, at all, need giant powder chambers, which can only reasonably be done with necked cartridges. Anti-material rounds even moreso, because you're trying to launch eight hundred to a thousand grain (2.5oz of lead, folks!) as close to mach two as you dare without exploding the receiver, nor needing a twenty foot barrel for your slow powder to offer enough acceleration.

But I'm going to bump this thread with a counter idea. Maybe do the same thing but with a necked round? Like tokarev but moreso; a 9mm dillon with the same neck the 556 has, and then go to the super-dillon, and the MG having 4" rounds that look like a longer dillon.

Attached: ATR1.jpg (600x378 52.06 KB, 42.03K)

Attached: trackingpoint-ar-2.jpg (993x767, 92.72K)

Why not use a straight walled case with a saboted projectile. If it were drag stabilized then you could avoid any accuracy problems from poor rifling engagement or warping in the sabot, you lose no velocity to drag on the rifling, and the cartridge is effectively necked down because the projectile is significantly smaller than the case diameter. Add a small solid rocket booster for anti-material weapons and you can potentially get penetrators up to mach 3.

They used an awful lot of words to say nothing at all. Do they hire liberals as saleskikes also?

Attached: CatHandsEyeTwitch.gif (600x450, 45.63K)

Attached: start arguing anytime.jpg (181x279, 10.9K)

I don't think it works that way; the sabot takes up space, and the issue is projectile volume, and bore surface area, in relation to case volume. A sabot requires a large bore, meaning you're back to a pistol round, albeit one with a little better muzzle velocity.

You know, a friend of mine was spending many hours of his, trying to devise a scramjet by forming a bullet out of carbon nanotubes. Just include a hunk of solid rocket fuel and about the time the carbon projectile exits the barrel, the scramjet should fire up …

And no offense, but that's RIDICULOUSLY complex and expensive. All that's needed, is a hunk of metal going fast. You'll probably sell osmiridium projectiles easier than gyrojets 2.0 regardless of how we'll run out of osmium or irridium long before we run out of rocket boosters.

MHO, of course.

Attached: GyroJetCartridge-283x300.jpg (283x300, 14.78K)

Straight-walled cases are inherently less reliable than tapered cases due to extraction issues is the problem, and as says sabot isn't quite the same as a bottlenecked cartridge. However, if one were to use CT ammo with that moving-chamber action the extraction issues would be made moot, and it would be a lot easier to "standardize" CT cartridges in the manner you're suggesting if they were all the same diameter.

Isn't spin drift the same as the magnus effect though?

If CT is so amazing, why don't why start reloading magnum shotshells with our 556 loads? I was under the impression there was a very good reason CT remained the bailiwick of over-anxious military contractors.

But if it's a solved problem, by all means clue me in – shotshells and a modified barrel should be all that's needed, right?

ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2018/science/Singleton.pdf

No, there are still kinks to work out from what I understand. However, the technology is much, much closer to true maturity now than it was a mere fifteen years ago, and I do think it's the next logical step in small arms technology. Due to existing ammo stockpiles, general government inertia, and the massive problems associated with the last two rapid adoptions (M14 and M16), any major change to the armed force's service rifle is going to need to have dramatic and noticeable improvements in effectiveness compared to what we have now in order to get through. Because, of the nascent small arms technologies in development right now, CT is the most mature by a wide margin, I think it's safe to say that it would play a factor in whatever it is the military adopts next.

Oh I think it does. The purpose of necking down is twofold. First, to increase the volume of the propellant chamber without increasing the length of the projectile. Second, to reduce the diameter of the projectile relative to the diameter of the propellant chamber.

Sabot provides the same effect without needing to swage the case down and anneal in steps.

First pic related. Slight taper, slight shoulder, but nearly constant diameter walls. It fires a long and very thin projectile, near perfect ballistic coefficient, and gets the majority of the necking effect from a sabot.

Second pic is a model of a scramjet. This type of model is best tested by filling the barrel with the needed air-fuel mix and shooting it down the barrel. It could be packed with fuel in the hollow interior and fired normally, leveling the pressure curve and maintaining acceleration until the fuel is exhausted. Even a burn time of 2 seconds could add hundreds of feet per second.

Attached: scramjet.jpg (740x530 25.77 KB, 63.86K)

That's the part that I don't believe sabots do well, if at all.
Saging because we're devolving into he-said-she-said territory by this point.

You know there is fifteen years of combat precedent in the middle east that proves you wrong, you can't just ignore tha- oh wait you can.

...

There is more to it than plinking at long range.
One of the benefits of 7.62x39mm over other intermediate cartridges is that it can go through the wall of a commieblock, and that also means you need more than a bit of dirt or a fallen tree if you want effective cover. Do I need to tell how useful is that in a city or a forest? 7.62x39 weights around 15-16g, about as much as that 6.5mm CT cartridge they developed for the LSAT. And if starving Viet Cong can carry enough ammo to fight in a jungle, then I don't see how that cartridge would be too heavy.
7.62x51mm and 7.62x54mmR have quite similar ballistics. Now, I can't speak for all ex-Warsaw pact countries, but I do know that in the average Hungarian squad there is still 2 RPKs today, with 600-800 rounds each. That is quite a lot of firepower, but it takes two people to carry both the weapon and the ammo. A Hungarian squad back in the day was 10 man with an IFV, and the three crew members were counted as squad members. So in practice 4 out of 7 men has to deal with the machine guns. Can you see the benefits of switching to a cartridge that is as good as 7.62x54 but weights only as much as 7.62x39?
Effectively the combination of the previous two points. A single rifleman without adequate training won't be a sniper, even if he has a general purpose cartridge, that is true. But two GPMGs with bipods and scopes firing a more effective cartridge (that is lighter but the projectile still carries more energy at greater ranges) could lay down some very effective suppressive fire.
Russians still keep 7.62x39 for their special forces only because it's easier to suppress that cartridge. Now, I'm not a fan of suppressors in general, but I can see how they could be useful in certain situations. With a general purpose cartridge, instead of keeping two completely different cartridges in production you'd only need a different load to be used with suppressors.

In conclusion: you burgers love your .22 varmint cartridge way too much. Meanwhile PKMs with scopes are one of the most popular weapons in Syria.

But the assault rifle was designed to replace both BRs and SMGs by using an intermediate cartridge, and they did so effectively. But you said that "It's always better to specialize into a coherent role".

That's only the first step, but even that would result in 7.62mm NATO machine guns (or battle rifles) being present at fireteam levels, which is everything you're against here
Remember the only reason anyone ever defends the 6.5mm is because by the time you hit about 400m it has a flatter trajectory than a 7.62 NATO. The effective range of 6.5mm is superior to a medium machine gun round.

The problem is unreasonable addition of other equipment, a vietcong didn't carry 80lb backpack in addition to 15-30lb of gun and ammo.

Attached: 6-5-grendel-vs-6-8-ballistics_313316.jpg (775x540, 64.64K)

The most common and popular weapon in Syria, by far, is the AKM bought by the US, UK, and France, and distributed to ISIS and others.

Attached: netanyahu-2.jpg (820x547, 50.16K)

A small but important correction: I meant PKMs, not RPKs.

So spergook really was right all along…

I never said that PKMs are the most popular. Still, that might some weight to my argument that 7.62x39 isn't that heavy.

It is. They just go into battle with almost nothing, only a couple of extra magazines, and expect to die and go to their version of heaven. Also, they take the weapons they can get, mostly Eastern Bloc via US, UK, and France, and Russia. Russia had been supplying both sides to keep the war going as long as possible and make the Syrian government more dependent. Chinese Type 81s have also shown up in the conflict, though they're quite a bit rarer.

Spergook was wrong in saying we should completely abandon things like med packs. But having five of them per pack might be going overboard…

You're right I did, and in retrospect maybe that was a little disingenuous. At risk of sounding like a cheeky cunt, the "coherent role" of a general infantry squad is to be generalist, which is to say be equipped in such a way that they can handle ~90% of what you throw at them. The assault rifle is good for this because an assault rifle can do almost everything within that ~90%. A battle rifle is less effective because of diminishing returns; the better range and higher energy projectile extends that ~90% by a couple percentage points, but the extra weight and reduced capacity means that everything else that's closer in than those couple percentage points is done with less effectiveness. As a result, the infantry squad loses its "coherent role" as a generalist, because they're now only mediocre ~93% of the time instead of great ~90% of the time.

I don't think I've ever stated I'm against larger cartridges where they're necessary, like GPMGs. I do think it's a bit redundant to put them in place at the fireteam level, however. We've already got them at the platoon level, and squads aren't meant to be truly independent from the greater platoon.

And to that end, chambering a MMG in some kind of 6.5 cartridge would be an excellent idea.

Fucking why?

simpler times

...

Done.

Don't bother arguing with Nathan, he'll just keep throwing out strawmen and pretending that having one useful weapon in a 40-man platoon is a perfectly acceptable solution.

Holy shit, they really did advertise this with stripper clips that were holding 15 rounds each. Expect that you couldn't even load them directly into the magazine without first taking it out of the gun.

Attached: 0a8001003ee6c766b7f00ecfab5999720800c78da7640fd7ba518890c28d8b10.gif (280x358, 2.17M)

What are all these pdfs?

I don't think you understand how fast you can load those things into the magazine, you don't need a spoon like AR/AK magazines. I mean they perfected the stripper clip.

G11 Armorers manuals.

Attached: japanese gun porn.webm (320x232, 4.58M)

Ah, explains why there's so many of them

this is amazing

...

The MHS had been in development hell for something like 15 years before congress told the Army "pick something or we'll pick it for you."

Weren't the pistols beat to shit though?

The Tom Cats were falling apart and they used vacuum tubes. At some point you need to replace equipment.

So what's wrong with this gun and why was it never picked up by the various Burger fast food services?

it does the thinking for you

It's plastic shit. Looks pretty nice though.

The M9s were, the MHS examples were all prototypes. The Army refused to adopt Glocks because then the program would end and they couldn't beg for more money.

It was actually a very good G36 clone. It did have some problems with heat on the furniture but that was fixable. The real problem was that it didn't do anything that the M16 didn't do better already. It had just 2 advantages: a scope (which can be added to any rifle no problem) and it lacked a buffer tube. But the standard configuration didn't take advantage of that.

Ultimately it was just a stylized inferior alternative.

Should the glocks be chambered in something like 5.7?

No. You don't get it. The whole reason why the fire arm industry when modular as it did is because of that rifle.

youtu.be/8z1wSamsXLs?t=1164

Attached: BYn4iLs.jpg (900x1200, 281.81K)