>Old heads complain about being overmatched
Makes a battle rifle
>Old heads talk about needed fire superiority
Rifle has superiority by Overmatching any modern military
>Old heads talk about rifle to heavy
USMC carries the same rifle weight and the MK18 a fucking 10" AR15 weighs almost the same as a M7
>People don't like it because it's Sig
this is the only take I can understand

It's too big and heavy and uses ammunition that is too big and heavy (unlike the polymer cases it competed against) and was made to address a problem that doesn't exist
It's also really fucking expensive
Also it's really fucking funny how the other contestants came up with novel ways of hitting performance goals whereas SIG just used overpressure ammunition and now after it was selected apparently the overpressure ammunition doesn't fucking work so they went back to normal pressures and ammunition that isn't as performant as the other contestants ammo LMAO

>>63988517 (OP)
I'm convinced that Sig had to suck dick up to and including the balls in order to get this contract approved.
>new and expensive cartridge that is slightly smaller and does the same fucking thing as the current cartridge
>oh look it's high pressure, and the proprietary ammo is a barrel burner.
>Oh look this 2 piece ammo is military only
>the ballistic calculator designed for it isn't ready yet, which was its only real selling feature
>it weighs just as much as the thing it's meant to replace
>we're not actually replacing the M4, it's going in a DMR role
>clown shoes
>clown nose
>SIG-branded kneepad stocks go roof
>STONKS.jpg

>>63988517 (OP)
>So I don't get the hate for this rifle
- it's ugly as fuck
- it isn't innovative
- it has TWO fucking charging handles (!!!)
- it's worse than the General Dynamics entry in every way

somebody previously had posted in a previous thread some months ago that this program was really about the machine gun.
the M249 shoots the 5.56 and is heavy as fuck. The enemy in the sandbox was using PKMs, which in 7.62x54r would out range our machine guns. M240, while on par, was too heavy to be humped up and down mountains. In order to get funding from Congress, they combined a bunch of programs together to "save money". Kind of like when your wife says "guess how much money I saved!" while holding credit card receipts. The M250 is dope. M7 might be a replacement for the M14, which was being broken out of the armories for use in Afghanistan.
https://www.thearmorylife.com/m14-and-the-war-on-terror-one-veterans-experience/
If we find ourselves in desert mountains again, the M7 will be useful. Until then, it will probably collect dust.
Personally, I think it has a place with Marines that are attached to aircraft carriers. When defending against small boats using swarm tactics, you will have 600-800 yard shots over open water and the weight isn't an issue because you are just carrying it from below decks to the flight deck. I know it will never happen.

>>63988517 (OP)
>Makes a battle rifle
Already covered by superior rifles like the FN Scar 17 and any AR10 like the ones Marky Larue makes.
>Rifle has superiority by Overmatching any modern military
At the coast of being a mule weighing more than an M14 with an over priced unreliable meme optic. Also 'over matching' is quite the over statement for a rifle that shits barrels out after less than 1K rounds and has a flimsy hand guard that can't hold zero making mounting lasers to it a pointless fools errand.
>this is the only take I can understand
That's all you need to know in order to determine what is and isn't trash and scrap metal.

Anyway nice low quality bait OP, here's your (You) faggot.

>>63988636
>it's somehow worse than a fucking bullpup
Grim

>>63988517 (OP)
>folding stock for no apparent reason
>tiny little buttstock thats meant for pdw length ARs in a halfassed attempt to save weight
>qd swivel socket in the worst position possible that nobody uses or advocates using
>qd socket smack dab in the middle of the most critical load supporting junction of the stoner pattern lower receiver
>qd sling sockets are not issued by big army and never will because they are expensive and get lost/stolen
>ambi features nobody actually needs
>piston system because uh just because we say so, we need a folding stock because uh because we say so
>fuckhueg rail, even taller than a 416, forced to use a vertical grip
>btw an mlok vertical grip isnt part of the acquisition

I don't even care about the cartridge, the rifle is fucking stupid and ugly and probably the least ergonomically designed rifle ever fielded by a major military, it's definitely worse than the L85 or famas. They put zero thought into the fact that soldiers have to eat, sleep, shit and crawl with their rifles. They made no effort whatsoever to make it snag proof or mildly capable of carrying it at right shoulder arms. Disgusting rifle

>>63988517 (OP)
>the MK18 a fucking 10" AR15 weighs almost the same as a M7
I'm not certain the MK18 can manage to get as chunky as the M7 when including all the doodads.

>>63988517 (OP)
>>Old heads talk about needed fire superiority
>Rifle has superiority by Overmatching any modern military

Here's where your logic goes wrong. Fire superiority means putting more bullets down range, not outranging the enemy. Big heavy bullets reduce your effetive fire rate due to recoil as well as your combat load. That, and the fact that NOBODY engages at 600m, making the powerful bullet useless. The only case where it would work would be in Afghanistan... which we are out of.

>>63988631

>>63988913
>The only case where it would work would be in Afghanistan
Even there the designated marksman was arguably sufficent. Long range engagements were shit like a towel head with a pkm spraying an area.

>>63988915
Is that the guy who gargled the marbles?

>>63988517 (OP)
The M250 was an even bigger mistake. It has a fixed barrel that will overheat and fail in an intense firefight.

Army just put out a contract for more M240L because they know they fucked up.

>>63988517 (OP)
The individual's service rifle has always been the least meaningful means of gaining fire superiority. Folks just don't understand this.

The M250 is hot fucking garbage and I'm tired of the losers who pretent otherwise - it's ripping off rims, brass is getting stuck under then behind the bolt.
Runaway guns are a common occurrence on some guns, on others the feeder de-linker doesn't have the strength to reliably feed the belt into the gun at inverted angles/sideways.
It's a fucking JOKE and it makes the M17/M18/P320 look tame in comparison

>>63988517 (OP)
>we want to outrange the enemy and also defeat armor with a faster heavier bullet
>oh also suppressors for everybody so 13 inch barrel so we dont exceed OAL, load it with bubba's pissing hot .227 Fury™
>training too expensive lets just make it AR shaped
>so what if its sub 4 MOA, and carries only 20 rounds, our soldiers' training will compensate!

>>63988586
Really the problem is the sheer scale of the whole thing. It’s otherwise an excellent rifle if you scaled the cartridge down by 2x and scaled the rifle down appropriately. They want overmatch and armor pen? Both are functions of the bullet’s sectional energy and bullet construction - not caliber. An 80kpsi .224 with the same sectional energy as 6.8 could do everything the 6.8x51 can do while having no weight penalty over 5.56 (lighter if NAS3 cases were used). And it would still retain its usefulness of full auto. The m7 went full retard, abandoning the assault rifle and intermediate cartridge entirely.

Excellent replacement for the 308, but an awful standard issue cartridge. Nothing wrong with the rifle at all from what I gather (except size and weight obv). It’s kinda just a bigger AR18 in a body kit.

>>63988517 (OP)
The M7 is like 8.5lbs naked. The mk18 is more like 6lbs. Besides, the mk18 uses much lighter ammunition in lighter, higher capacity magazines and with a larger combat load. They are not comparable at all.

>>63989010
>>63989061
Agreed and agreed. But I’ll add, People praise the machinegun for some reason, extolling it as a great m249 successor, but conveniently forget the fuckhuge cartridge it chambers. You think anyone’s gonna carry 800 rounds of linked 6.8x51? That’s like 40 pounds.

>>63989010
If any of the top guys there have any brains, they will approach KAC for some AMGs in 6.8x51 with quick change barrels.

>>63988631
>high pressure cartridge burns barrels

I’d argue that 80kpsi was the most useful thing to come out of NGSW. Good on sig for doing that. Now federal is doing it too with a one-piece case, and shell shock is (sorta) doing it (70k is fine in their cases). You understand that an increase in pressure is tantamount to an increase in energy density, right? It has the same effect in mass and volume as shrinking some cartridge’s case without degrading its ballistics at all.

>barrel burner
Depends how much propellant you’re cramming through the bore. 6.8x51 would have still been a barrel burner even at 60kpsi. But still, small price to pay for the benefits of higher energy.

>”it weighs just as much as the thing it’s made to replace”
Did anyone seriously claim this? Fucking kek, if they did. FOURTEEN FUCKING POUNDS. And that’s before you include 6 spare mags.

99.99% of this board would hate having to carry it for a living compared to an ak or ar15 tho

>>63989010
At least the M250 could be fixed relatively easily with a future improved version implementing a QDB. The rifle is a shitshow from start to finish.

niggas would say barrel burner but then recommend fucking 6mm arc or some shit that has even worst barrel life

>>63989458
Should have just gone with 5.56 rifles with a real barrel length. Everyone wanting to larp as special forces with short barrel rifles is what fucked over the effectiveness of 5.56
>but muh cqb!
you will never be a real operator

>>63988631
>we're not actually replacing the M4, it's going in a DMR role
And it's still qualitatively worse as a DMR than either the M110A1 or original M110 too. The peak of comedy would be if the M7A1 and M250A1 were adopted in .308.

>>63989503
> The peak of comedy would be if the M7A1 and M250A1 were adopted in .308.

Fucking kek. Yes it would be peak comedy.

>>63989487
This is what I concluded as well (re. Barrel length). If SBRs are desired, then SBR cartridges must be developed for it. It’s ludicrous to nerf 5.56 and 6.8 with 14.5/10.3” and 13” barrels.

The 6.8 would mog out of a 20” barrel. And if its ballistics are fine from a 13” barrel, then the same can be achieved from a 20” with a smaller and lighter case with less propellant. I know SBRs are the coolest thing ever but there is hardly a worthy substitute for barrel length.

>>63989487
A free floated 20 inch "m16a5" with their new vortex optic and M855A1 would probably do everything they're asking of the M7.

>>63989596
>If SBRs are desired, then SBR cartridges must be developed for it. It’s ludicrous to nerf 5.56 and 6.8 with 14.5/10.3” and 13” barrels.
The 6.8 Common Cartridge was developed specifically for the XM7. What exactly do you imagine an SBR cartridge would look like if not that?

>>63989010
The reason the XM250 doesn't have a quick change barrel is because the Army is only intending to field them in the AR role, not the GPMG role. Not one M240 will be replaced by the XM250. In the AR role, the quick change barrel isn't important for the XM250, because a squad simply can't carry enough spare ammo for it to necessitate a barrel change.

>>63989646
>6.8 was developed for an SBR

it was designed to have x amount of performance out of a short barrel. An SBR cartridge would be something with a lower overbore ratio whos appropriate barrel length is a short one. So this would look like using light for caliber bullets with a very long ogive with a relatively small powder charge. Like 5.56 FABRL or 7.62/7.92 CETME. Or even just 300 blackout.

They should’ve just stuck an 18 inch barrel in the M7 and gained 200-250fps, or alternately just used a smaller case for the same performance. But I guess there were OAL constraints. The m7 and 6.8x51 is what you get when you want to have your cake and eat it too. You get a big and heavy cartridge, nerfed from a short barrel.

>>63989663
Hah. “The extremely heavy ammo is a feature, not a bug. You can’t possibly carry enough ammo to overheat the barrel!”

Anyone know if they’re still gonna keep 308 guns around after switching out their 5.56 guns for 6.8?

>>63989610
What could have been. Time is a flat circle. The same retards that were in the ordinance department during the NATO service rifle trials have reincarnated and once again regained positions of authority within procurement.

>>63989665
>They should’ve just stuck an 18 inch barrel in the M7
How much extra blast are they getting anyways with slicing off 5 inches of barrel for the sake of a suppressor?

>>63989409
just find a 5' tall filipino dude, he'll carry 1600 rounds and smile while doing it, plotting to murder you in your sleep.

>>63989757
Does the 5 foot tall slave come with the gun?

>>63988586
I’ve heard that reliability wise even with the over pressure ammo is still decent, which hopefully they’ll figure out the manufacturing problems with and get right soon

>>63989434
it's basically 7mm-08 but 20k psi higher

>>63989665
>You get a big and heavy cartridge, nerfed from a short barrel.
It's still basically up in the air if the cartridge is actually nerfed or not though. The army seems happy with the full power hybrid case version. Like you mentioned they designed it for a predetermined terminal effect at a specific barrel length.

The same is true of 5.56. Stoner was told specifically to design a cartridge that would yield blank effects from a 20 inch barrel, every prototype was 20 inches, every production rifle until the 605 in ~1964 was 20 inches.

If we really wanted a caliber that had good ballistics from a 10" barrel we should have started from scratch with the same projectile.

>>63988636
I'm still mad they haven't brought that to the civilian market yet, it's been years since they announced it and not a word since then

>>63989596
it would have been cheaper to redesign it for .308 or even 7mm-08 which is just a redesigned .308 than to tool up for a brand new meme cartridge that does the exact-same-fucking-thing-but-worse

>>63989821
no, you give the 4'8 Guatemalan the gun

>>63989671
>Hah. “The extremely heavy ammo is a feature, not a bug. You can’t possibly carry enough ammo to overheat the barrel!”
You don't understand. The XM250 was designed with a quick change barrel, and it still has one, the latch is just hidden under the handguard. It was originally exposed and had a handle for the barrel, but the Army told them to get rid of it because they wouldn't be issuing spare barrels. An automatic rifleman's combat load already increased by over 5 pounds with the XM250 as is, despite carrying half the ammo. Everyone else went up by a pound despite carrying two-thirds of the ammo. A spare barrel weighs 3 or 4 pounds with the suppressor, and you'd need at least two more 100-round belts at nearly 7 pounds apiece to really get any mileage out of the spare barrel.

>Anyone know if they’re still gonna keep 308 guns around after switching out their 5.56 guns for 6.8?
The .308 guns will be eventually be replaced with .300 Norma Magnum in the DMRs and .388 Norma Magnum in the machine guns.

>>63989646
Well for starters, not having 80k psi and not needing to be effective at 800+ meters. 300blk while by no means being the end all be all of sbr calibers, is a pretty good baseline for what it should do

>>63989846
it probably won't happen. afaik it's absurdly, absurdly loud without a silencer

>>63988765
Nate Fick was actually based lmao.

>>63989909
Is that just because of the design, or the case they made for it? Because I'd be happy if they just made it for .308, if it worked reliably

>>63989878
It's not 80k anymore, Sig reduced the pressure to just over 70k to "increase accuracy" (read: reduce recoil). It's also not intended to be effective at 800m. It shoots 2.5-3 MOA brand new with *match ammo* that the Army will not be purchasing. It'll be close to 4 MOA with bulk EPR ammo and a thousand rounds through it. Also the Army has stated that they have no intention to begin training soldiers to shoot past 300 yards.

The purpose of 6.8 sigger is to give .308-like effects at the same ranges the M4 is currently used at, and mount a suppressor while remaining short enough for door kicking.

>>63988636
The GD entry was not better. It was such a steaming pile of shit that it actually managed to the sig saar shitpile in a fair contest. The Textron entry was clearly superior to both, but in the end it turns out that Textron had no interest in selling guns.

>>63989844
>it’s up in the air if the cartridge is actaulyl nerfed or not .

Well by nerfed, I mean “performing at a level far below the cartridge’s potential”. Like shooting a 50BMG out of a 7” barrel, making maybe 3000ft*lbs. and in that way, yes 6.8x51 is nerfed. Picrel. Peep the (in)efficiency on the bottom right corner. I only estimated a 1.2” bullet length. Same bullet from a 20” barrel goes 266fps faster and with 480ft*lbs more energy. Yeah I’d say that’s pretty nerfed. That’s ~20% more energy over a mere 7 inch barrel length increase.

>>63989871
Hey I wasn’t making fun of you in the part of my post you greentexted. I’m making fun of sig and the army.

>300 AND 338 Norma magnum guns

Both?

>>63988517 (OP)
I was listing all the criticisms ITT from the start of the NGSW program and you retarded fucking faggots gave me endless shit for it. You bought every fucking lie the military fed you, like in that stupid powerpoint about muh overmatch. And only AFTER they've spent billions to get a rifle functionally equivalent to the M14 do you even start to question its utility. It'll end up being used only with "training" rounds, basically matching 7.62 in performance. It recoils too much for practical full auto. The smart scope you niggers have shilled since it was announced has been functionally copied by Magpul for a fraction the price. This program is an unmitigated disaster from top to bottom and represents everything wrong with our corrupt and bloated MIC.

>>63989954
Both. They share the brass but there's basically no time that you'll ever use match ammo in an MG or linked ammo in a DMR so it's not really a problem that they're not interchangeable.

>>63989851
Anon, I think you're expecting way too much from Sig. They didn't design a new cartridge, they just necked down .308 with a 30* shoulder. It's not like it would take any less time to design a .284 EPR bullet than a .277 EPR bullet.

>>63988517 (OP)
Why do you think the Army has spent billions on next-generation thermal and night optics for light infantry units like the 101st, 10th mtn, and 82nd airborne?
All that is going to matter in the next conflict is the amount, quality, and redundancy of information provided to an infantry soldier.
Following that, the ability to effectively engage at the distances at which squad or platoon-level elements are able to generate that actionable information (visual confirmation, location, direction, composition, disposition, etc, which is now 1000s of meters for even an average squad equipped with current-generation magnified thermals and night optics) is a necessity.
The M4 is not capable of doing that. This rifle and accompanying SAW are. That's the explanation, that's all you need to know.
There's never an ill word spoken of SOCOM on this board and what are they doing?
The only american troops you have seen in combat in the past 5 years are SOCOM and all they do is direct action hitman missions. This is giving everyone a completely skewed perspective as to the doctrine and mission of the regular army, which does not correlate with SOCOM units whatsoever.

>>63989985
>There's never an ill word spoken of SOCOM on this board and what are they doing?
using AR-15s with 11.5" barrels.

>>63989985
>The Marines are talking about how much they like their M27s and the way that its sub-MOA accuracy turns every rifleman into a marksman in a pinch
>Meanwhile, the Army is trying to adopt a modern M14 with the accuracy to match and retards are acting like it exists to make 800 yard shots with 4 MOA accuracy and an 8x scope

>>63989992
Yes, as well as attaching a JTAC, drone operator, and marksman with 100k in optics to every unit, and issuing the latest thermal and night optics they can possibly get their hands on.
In an actual conflict not COIN, the mission of SOCOM is to generate intelligence and carry out direct action on soft and hard targets in extreme close proximity to enemy elements, not to create fortified positions along battle lines with hulled-down vehicles and direct artillery support.
The American army is juiced to the gills with magnified multispectrum optics issued at a fireteam level, satellite and aerial reconnaissance, squad and platoon level unmanned aerial vehicles, and software-defined digitally encrypted data communications. There is literally no reason a battalion of 101st airborne troops or light infantry should be engaging in a peer-peer land battle in which they are fighting fair, and the only engagement where that is possible exists within 500 meters.
>>63990038
"Sub-MOA" means literally nothing when you are talking about a magnum .22
Great, you can effectively engage point targets within 300m, a distance at which no army infantry unit will likely find themselves from an enemy force considering all of the above.

>>63990046
there is no such thing as an actual conflict

>>63990046
Fortunately, 6.8 sigger is so powerful it can still blow a dude's arm off even when it misses by a foot and a half because of its 4 MOA accuracy.

>>63989487
>i am forgotten

>>63990269
>am forgotten
you never even was to begin with, pretty hard to be remembered for anything.

>>63988517 (OP)
>superiority by Overmatching any modern military
Does it? Because part of fire superiority, likely the most important part, is suppressing fire and the M7 does not have the ammo to do so.
>Weight
This thing does not have "overmatch" without the 2 lb optic on it. That puts this bitch at 9.5 lbs empty with an optic on it, and that's without a suppressor...or a bipod.

The entire concept of battle rifles has been disproven over and over. Small arms engagements happen at 300m or less in nearly all scenarios. In the age of squad level drones, it's even more obsolete. Rifles should be getting lighter, not heavier. If a jihadi was taking potshots at you now, you send a drone to scout them and drop a mortar on their head or pepper the tower he's shooting from with a machine gun. Fucking stupid ass brass need to make up stupid concepts to justify their existence.

>>63990386
>The entire concept of battle rifles has been disproven over and over. Small arms engagements happen at 300m or less in nearly all scenarios.
Can you please tell me what study you're quoting, and what the distribution of ranges it found was?

You're not, you know, just repeating something you heard from someone else and pretending to be smart, are you?

>>63990269
The LICC gun was for US and Canadian SOF, so completely unrelated to NGSW, and I doubt we would ever hear explicitly whether it had succeeded or not. If FN hadn't shown it off as SHOT, we probably wouldn't know it existed at all. So it could be dead, or it might already be being fielded. Look at the MRGG trials for how transparent Socom are about documenting their acquisitions; nobody knew shit about who was involved and who won for like a year after it was over.

>>63990481
>>63990386
Here's a figure from the study you're misquoting (without knowing you're even trying to quote it). This was the level of marksmanship that their soldiers had when they asked them "How often in each of these range bands did you fire your rifle in combat with the expectation that you'd be able to hit something other than by chance?" and still came up with a figure that more than 20% of the useful shots were at more than 300 yards in most circumstances relevant to our current conversation.

People like (You) should be forced to read the studies you like to pretend to be quoting and answer some questions about them before being allowed to use the internet.

>>63990526
>>63990481
>>63990386
"We should replace our rifles with shorter range ones optimised for engagement at less than 300 yards, because our studies show that our soldiers are ineffective with long range rifles at a range of 300 yards anyway."
>pic related, the marksmanship of their soldiers at 300 yards on a flat range and known distance

Yep, those studies definitely show that arming infantry with weapons that are effective up to, let alone past, 300 yards in 2025 is a complete waste of time, because soldiers these days hit less than 13% of the shots they take at 300 yards on the range, and can't even see most man-sized targets at those kind of ranges...........

>>63990386
>>63990481
>>63990526
>>63990536
Ah but those were probably just retarded riflement. What about the experts in those tests?
>pic related, the results for expert marksmen in those tests

As you can see, we should take rifles off our soldiers, and instead issue them with waterguns, since even experts can't hit shit at 300 yards. While we're at it, take the optics off them as well, since they don't need those except at long range.

Thank goodness we proved that battle rifles are a waste of time with this watertight study that is very relevant to infantry combat in 2025. We should ponder the recommendations while we're at it. What did they recommend in addition to SCHV (ie the 5.56 round you keep creaming yourself over)?

Toxic bullets (lol, we dune nao)
Multiple projectiles (yeahhhh let's go SALVO!!!)
Full auto at range (nice)

Again, you faggots should be forced to read this shit that you like to vaguely paraphase because you've vaguely heard something about it 20th hand from someone else on the internet. But please, start arguing that we need to abandon optics and embrace poison bullets and meme hyperburst G11 shit because that's what was endorsed based on the fairly flimsy evidence that you like to misquote.

>>63990542
>>63990536
>>63990526
>>63990481
>>63990386
Oh no, but I insist. Since you're going to losely refer to the study, tell us all why they recommended SCHV rifles and insisted they'd be adequately lethal compared to battle rifle cartridges. It wasn't just that riflemen couldn't hit shit in 1950 because they had minute-of-barn rifles, could barely see what they were shooting at, and had terrible individual marksmanship. No, it's because 220 and 223 were more effective than 30 cal rounds with the TOXIC BULLETS they were going to introduce to compensate for the lack of lethality.
>picrel, the weapons of the future-past, that you all keep defending

>>63990559
>>63990542
>>63990536
>>63990526
>>63990386
And so, in summary, fuck all of you. The studies where "The entire concept of battle rifles [was] disproven over and over again" actually found that 1950s riflemen could only hit 13% of their shots at 300 yards and that despite not being able to even hit targets on a range at 300 yards, they were still making more than 1 in 5 of their kills in war at more than 300 yards without optics. They sure as fuck didn't recommend adopting anemic carbine-length M4s and MK18s in 223.

What they recommended was:
A G11 or duplex* 223 meme gun.
Firing bullets filled with nerve toxins.
On full auto at all ranges.

*(actually quintex, but that never got off the ground IRL because like everything else in this study it's fucking retarded)

>>63990569
In a final coda to these posts, someone asked in another thread why I don't post in NGSW threads even though I'm a legit battle-rifle belieber. Well here you go. This is why. Because the entire topic is a monumental waste of time, since everyone has made up their mind based on hearsay, imagined evidence and imagined scenarios.

The real reasons BRs were replaced by ARs was because the M14 sucked in the hands of Vietnam-era conscripts fighting in a jungle even worse than the M1 sucked in the hands of WWII conscripts fighting in Europe.

The main justification for doing it, when you dig all the way back, was that BRs were going to be replaced by ultra-high-velocity guns that would fire 5 nerve-toxin submunitions in a single salvo per trigger pull. That way, the itty bitty bullets would be sufficiently lethal at all combat ranges to be useful, since even the studies with the biggest raging hard ons for SCHV still figures that more than 20% of casualty producing engagements between infantry in most wars, even without optics, would happen at more than 300 yards and they knew that even with insanely optimistic estimates for increased pH from single SCHV bullets the overall pK would decline hugely.

So yeah, a fucking waste of time for all involved. If I wanted to argue with versions of reality based entirely on people's feverish imagination, then I'd just find a local crack den and argue about lizard people.

>>63989663
>XM250, because a squad simply can't carry enough spare ammo for it to necessitate a barrel change.

This is just not true

expensive
heavy
gay
diarrhea shit brown
still just a ar15 with a ar18 pishtun
kept the retarded top charging handle besides the superior master race side charger
thin rail that keeps getting bent and damaged
will probably discharge randomly

its literally a retarded cope version of the psa jakl. ar15 lower with ar18 upper

>>63988517 (OP)
This is almost certainly bait but I'll bite for fun. I'll start by saying volume of fire is the #1 factor in winning an infantry gunfight, period. This is not debatable, every data point from every war in recorded human history backs this up, it even applies to things that are not guns such as arrows, javelins, and slings. For any given hit rate you want to put as many rounds down range as possible. Battle rifles such as the NGSW (all of them, not just the SIG), AR-10, etc. are fundamentally opposed to this very simple fact with bulkier, harsher-recoiling ammunition that you can't carry as much of, and can't dispense as much of in a given time frame. The M7 and M250 are both total non-starters for this reason.

>But muh Bumfuckistan mountainand desert warfare
>>63989487
>>63989610
Basically this. If you really need more than what a gucci free-floated 20" AR-15 in 5.56 can do, the way forward from there is NOT a battle rifle, provided you're okay with procuring something as new and radical as the M7 - it's a gucci free-floated 20"-24" AR-15 in something like .224 Valkyrie or 6mm AR. Yes, total intermediate action supremacy.
>But muh barrel life
Such a rifle is by definition serving an edge case, so it doesn't really matter. Most likely the only correct assessment in the entire NGSW program.
Not a machinist but I have a sneaking suspicion you could recycle shot-out 5.56 barrels into 6mm barrels too by boring them out. The cartridge is physically larger so the chamber would be cut into fresh steel too. Don't quote me on that though.

On the machine gun side, belt-fed AR-15 uppers like the ARES Shrike and FightLite MCR have proven that the AR-15 can be turned into a VERY light LMG at least in principle. I believe both were piston-op but the original DI system is usable at LMG-tier volume of fire if you bulk up the gas tube a bit and make it out of something like inconel. So the machine gun side of NGSW is totally barking up the wrong tree, too.

>>63990708
>I'll start by saying volume of fire is the #1 factor in winning an infantry gunfight, period. This is not debatable, every data point from every war in recorded human history backs this up
Please provide some of these data points for us, because it's monumental bullshit and you won't be able to.

>>63989610
The M16A4 should have incorporated things everyone goddamn wanted and needed by 2001 like a folding front post, a collapsible stock and a full auto trigger. It was stupidly conservative then and the fact that no A5 ever came about and instead a literal carbine meant for special purposes became the line infantry main weapon is proof the Army was just fucking with people angry they couldnt get stupid shit like XM-8s.

The A5 NOW should be an URG-I style upper but 20 in, collapsible stock, full auto, and a good LPVO standardized on every rifle. Fuck the weird computer sight on the NGSW.

>>63988517 (OP)

The caliber is stupid. They should have just applied the reinforced casing idea to 7.62 NATO and chambered it in that instead of creating an entirely new retard caliber.

>>63990753
The caliber is the best thing about it.

>>63990753
The bullet being 0.031 inches too small is not the cause of the XM7's problems.

>>63990542
I don't understand your argument.
>Soldiers are unskilled at shooting at ranges past 300 yards so we should give them weapons with more recoil and worse accuracy and that will make them more effective at long range

>>63989975
Those were probably bots/englin shills you were talking to

>>63990753
7.62 NATO is fine.
5.56 is too weak, they should have made high pressure ammo and an AR-15 upper that can shoot it.

>>63993276
>5.56 is too weak
lol

>>63989610
I've been thinking about this and managed to have a couple thoughts, here's (roughly) how I'd do it:
>Barrel: 20", lighter than government/SOCOM profile, stepped or tapered profile similar to Faxon gunner profile.
>Handguard: slim aluminum M-LOK handguard with full top rail.
>Lightweight bufferless BCG similar to Evolution Weapon Systems, with low-friction coating. Would need to do some testing, in theory if a sufficiently low-friction coating is used lubrication won't be necessary, good for sand/convoy dust and deep winter.
>Side-folding stock, adjustable LOP. Probably attach with picatinny. Will be lighter than a buffer tube + M4 stock. Make sure it doesn't block any controls so you can shoot folded. Good for riding around in vehicles.
>Sights: I consider optics a separate issue so just talking about irons. Gotta be folding irons, front and rear. Could go with a folding triangle front sight or just put a pic rail on the gas block. Ideally should be a circle-in-circle sight like the Ultradyne C4. Not putting the front sight on the handguard cuz of free-float handguard deflection.
>Upper receiver: long-lever gas buster ambi charging handle, no forward assist.
>Lower receiver: enlarged full ambi controls, as close to perfectly mirrored as possible for muscle memory. Anti-walk/anti-rotation trigger pins. Big magwell flare.
>Trigger: disconnector-less two-stage sealed trigger w/ hammer-agnostic safety, similar to KE Arms SLT. Full fuckin' auto, no burst-your-dick-and-balls-fire.

Cont'd (character limit)

>>63993561

Optional extras:
>Suppressor: reflex can that mates to the gas block and uses the barrel as the inner wall for the reflex portion for maximum internal volume and reduced muzzle extension. Two-piece with the reflex section and baffle stack as separate parts, adaptable to different barrel configs. Might reduce the barrel length to 18" if length is still too long. Might also build it as an integrated suppressor.
>Side-charging upper, deleted top charging handle track. Could be reciprocating or non. Right-side recip would be lighter and simpler. Would want to mount the handle at or past the forward edge of the ejection port so a dust cover can still be used.
>Skeletonized magwell, might be dismissed out of pocket since removing material is considered sacrilege on duty guns but most of the magwell is not structural and does not provide ingress protection. Good for deep winter since less surface area and more ventilation stops mags from freezing in the gun via condensation. Make it as a forged part and then mill it out, billet is too heavy. Might also be possible to thin parts of the wall around the trigger group as well without any structural concerns.
>Lightweight material for handguard, magnesium alloy or carbon fiber. Would need to fix splintering problem for CF, test if there's a magnesium alloy strong enough for serious use. Whatever alloy Roam Rifles uses (they don't say) is supposedly good, but can't confirm.
>Handguard-integrated bipod, BLK LBL-style. No idea whether giving everyone a bipod is a good idea or not but this would be the best way of doing it. Can prolly make it lighter than a BLK LBL too if desired.

>>63993561
I was with you until the stock part. Side folding stocks are gay. Toobs collapse just fine without making the gun’s footprint extra fat.
>B-but shooting while folded
Fuck off, nobody does that, that is literal nigger drive-by logic.

>>63993566
Cont'd
So there's your space M16. Would do 1 MOA groups or close to it. Lighter and more dakka than the NGSW with plenty of range, and I'll bet it would cost less too. Make Mk. 262 or similar 70grn+ loading standard-issue for maximum effect, even the gucciest 5.56 ever is prolly still cheaper than .277 Fury/6.8x51. Or go with tungsten or DU-core AP if you're feeling evil.
Also /brg/ is the gayest general in /k/.

>>63993575
Shooting folded is there as an "oh shit oh fuck" option, unfolding is always preferred but in practice you don't want your gun to be out of commission just cuz it's folded. The folding itself is so that you can shorten the gun up in vehicles, a full 20" barrel can be awkward there. Could go with an in-line collapsible "PDW"-like stock or an underfolder but those usually aren't as good for getting a cheek weld and actually shooting with. I could see procuring both and just letting the soldier pick if it's picatinny-attached.

>>63992819
The argument is that (nearly all of) the premises that the original adoption of assault rifles were based on are totally irrelevant to the discussion of NGSW and that if anyone was familiar with arguments they're repeating then they wouldn't be repeating them.

One of those premises is that soldiers have extremely low hit probability against targets at even 250-300 yards.

That premise was drawn from tests of conscripted, poorly trained and profoundly disinterested soldiers in the 1950s using M1 Garands over iron sights who, amongst other things, managed 40% accuracy at 110 yards and 12.5% accuracy at 310 yards. Expert qualified shooters didn't do much better.

This premise is false in 2025, because soldiers are much better motivated and trained, and because optics now exist. Those soldiers, without additional training, would not even pass rifle qualification today, including a majority of the expert qualified firers. Conversely, if you did exactly the same test that they did then but with infantrymen today equipped with either NGSW rifle or M4s, you would get very high pH at all ranges and you'd very strong data to support the conclusion that infantry can reliably engage targets well beyond 300 yards.

The way people invoke that premise and the ones related to engagement range in discussion is also super false because they say things like "Small arms engagements happen at 300m or less in nearly all scenarios." which isn't what the study found at all: It found that, depending on the relevant tactical task, as few as 10% of lethal engagements but generally more than 20% of lethal engagements with rifles were at over 300 yards. The caveat being that the raw average was way lower because of situations that are totally irrelevant to any conversation today: Night engagements when infantry had no night vision.

>>63993698
>>63992819
And then like, more generally, that the studies they want to invoke to say ARs are the logical successor to BRs never proposed anything like what they think of when they talk about ARs, because all of the other premises and arguments actually panned out IRL:
That the replacements would be 3500fps at the muzzle.
That they'd fire a salvo of 5 controlled-dispersion projectiles per round.
That the projectiles would contain nerve toxins.
That there were no mechanisms other than higher velocity rounds that could increase the ability of soldiers to detect targets or their probability of hitting them - ie no optics.

Pretty much the only true and relevant premise in the entire thing is ammunition/weapons load. The problem with this, that you can never get a straight answer out of anyone who absolutely luuuurves their ARs about is where the line should be drawn on trading off ammo load for lethality. Every single time they want to pretend that a penetrating hit with a bullet is a hit with a bullet from a lethality perspective because they don't want to admit there are any advantages to rounds more powerful than 5.56, but if they really believed it then they wouldn't disagree with adopting true PDWs in 4.6x30mm, yet they always actually do. The problem is that subsequent real life (and plenty more studies) has shown that there are big differences in both suppression and lethality between different types and powers of round and at different ranges - but admitting any of that would make it too hard for them to make their "Volume of fire" arguments, so they want to try to have their cake and eat it too, and a conversation is impossible.

(There's also some pretty dicey stuff in some charts around flat of pK given a hit irrespective of what was already known about terminal ballistics at the time, as well as pH and pK with multiple vs single projectiles, but they're peripheral to the core issue and they're just shonky salesmanship tactics in the charts).

>>63989949
>mere 7" length increase
Have you ever actually held a rifle.

>>63993763
Many years of claiming that something far shorter is really 7 inches has damaged my ability to differentiate, so I agree with him and not you.

>>63988843
The MK18 thing by OP is a weird claim. Naked the M7 is about on par with other rifles (eg M16A2) but obviously heavier than carbines (eg M4), let alone subcarbines like the MK18.

>>63993763
SBRtards are so mind broken that anything over 14" is too long, absolutely disgusting

>>63993900
Try and effectively manipulate your 20" rifle in any space/situation that isn't a prone position in an open field like say, a vehicle or a building

>>63993719
> The problem with this, that you can never get a straight answer out of anyone who absolutely luuuurves their ARs about is where the line should be drawn on trading off ammo load for lethality
What a crock of historically illiterate shit. The invention of SCHV is where the golden mean was found. That's why everyone is butthurt about abandoning it!

Indeed, you can go back to Vietnam War era tests of 7.62 NATO vs 5.56 and watch the boomers of the day marvel over how 7.62 had good enough stoppan power - and then turn around and admit M193 or M855 did more physical damage than M80 FMJ, and count up the cubic centimeters of wrecked flesh from an averaged selection of wounds demonstrating it.

>>63993912
>What a crock of historically illiterate shit. The invention of SCHV is where the golden mean was found.
Show me your 3500fps SCHV "golden mean" rifle before you utter one more word fuddlore or accuse anyone but yourself of historical illiteracy.

>>63993951
You're out here strawmanning white room R&D while I'm talking about factual history of the M16. We're not the same.

>>63993960
Haha, no. That's historically illiterate and seems to deliberately ignore where 6.8 and the NGSW program began life. Don't you recall the ten years of battlefield experience and reports from Iraq and Afghanistan where hajjis didn't drop and returned fire after multiple center-torso hits from M855?

And that shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone, and indeed wasn't when people started checking, because SCHV having acceptable and reliable terminal effects for battlefield use was predicated, from the very start, on velocities that were never fielded to begin with and then continuously declined until they were almost the same velocity at the muzzle as the battle rifle ammunition they were supposed to replace.

So no, I'm not strawmanning white room R&D, and you're ignoring the factual history of M4. We are not the same.

>>63993561
>Lightweight bufferless BCG similar to Evolution Weapon Systems
You fail in the very beginning. Anything that light is only for competition / gamer gun / range toy use. Bolt carrier needs mass for reliability.

>>63993601
>Shooting folded is there as an "oh shit oh fuck" option
Folding stocks on AR's is a meme, just keep a good SMG in each car or armored personnel carrier.

>>63994042
This is a myth perpetuated by people who don't know how to build or tune an AR. If you change the BCG weight you (in most case) also have change one or several of: gas flow, buffer weight, buffer spring, depending on how much lighter your BCG is. Long as you do that and get it dialed in correctly it will be no less reliable than a full mass BCG. Unless it's made out of aluminum like that dumbshit JP one, but that's a matsci problem, not a weight problem.

>>63993905
in a real war you'll clear every room with a grenade. The rifle being unweildy is irrelevant as it will not be used to shoot live human beings that shoot back.

>>63993561
>enlarged full ambi controls,
Lefty here, I hate ambi controls on AR's. Clearly you have no idea what it's like constantly picking up mags dropping out of your rifle when it's slung over your body. It sucks and 90% of the time tacticool reloads are a meme unless door kicking is all you do for a living.

lmao at the guy vomiting thousands of words describing a fragile gamer gun and trying to pass it off as a service rifle. Quite possibly even funnier than the guy vomiting thousands of words about battle rifles or some other shit no one will ever read.

>>63994090
That's what they said about the M16 in the '60s and the '70s, and they couldn't have been more wrong. Called it a Mattel toy, if memory serves. Do you think you can do any better?

>>63994075
No you fucking retard by lowering the BCG weight you significantly reduce the window in of operating parameters where the gun will function reliably.
One of the reasons for this is the significantly increased bolt velocity.

Sometimes the window of operating parameters is reduced to such a degree that no amount of tinkering will make the gun function reliably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuJszcH_R-M

>>63994100
The ARIC is a piece of shit, no argument there. The EWC is better which shows this type of modification can be reliable with sufficient development i.e. not just a novelty cash grab.

>>63994114
At 6 oz it's 2-3 times lighter than a normal BCG + buffer, therefore to get the same BCG momentum you'd need 2-3 times higher bolt velocity.
It's an unreliable piece of shit only suitable for range toys.

>>63994090
>Quite possibly even funnier than the guy vomiting thousands of words about battle rifles or some other shit no one will ever read.
You're completely right which is why I don't post in NGSW threads, except some cunt in an unrelated thread goaded me into it. Legit thanks for affirming my views, peace out.

>>63993601
In vehicles, your folded rifle being slightly shorter is balanced by it being fucking thicc now. That is as dumb as people who cry that you can’t clear rooms with a 20in AR. You can, literally a skill issue.

>>63994097
Not him, but yeah, I could.
>Adopt the fucking SCAR 17 or a nice 16in AR-10
Wow there you fucking go, same effectiveness as your shitty Jew rifle, but actually well-made.

>>63988586
Between this and the P320 I think SIG just greased some palms. A lot of other manufacturers deserved the contracts over SIG, and I even like SIG for most of their catalog.

>>63989909
Suppressors are now tax free and only a few days wait instead of months so they're gonna get more popular.

>>63988797
Bullpups are the future one day. As soon as we get can get an average marine with an IQ high enough to be able to change mags in less than 10 seconds and without shooting himself in the neck.

>>63994246
and fix the barrel harmonics and trigger and make them have equivalent railspace to a normal rifle and make them automatically eject on whatever side your face doesn't currently occupy and when we somehow make them less horrible to clear malfunctions on.

Any day now really. Surely.

>>63988517 (OP)
I think it's a cool platform. The modularity, interoperability (in theory), and the ergos make it a great platform.
It's a lovely new 308 rifle that i would want to buy/shoot if it hits the civvie market, provided it gets popular enough for it to likely stick around.

But the millions of millions of .308 ammo won't disappear so the army will realize this gun is mainly for that. IMO the 5.56 will still remain king, ultimately.

Why didn't they just use the fightlite MCR to replace the m249?

>>63994266
I'm convinced bullpups are spearheaded and beloved by people who shoot less than 100 rounds a year on avg

>>63994303
Because it's a toy.

>>63994334
If you just pick one up in a gunstore, they seem super cool. The balance is really nice. On paper the idea of longer barrel shorter length sounds like a no brainer.

Then you actually use it, and everything sucks.

>>63990542
This study was an enlightening read for me. Lethality is an afterthought for the military (they don't even use expanding bullets ffs) and they abandoned the concept of stopping power ages ago. For military purposes, the perp wounded is as good as dead. They also operate within large structures of support heavy fire etc.
This is a completely different approach than that of a civilian hunter, civilian self-defender or a prepper or even law enforcement folks for which the stopping power is of paramount importance.
The bottom line is that what those niggers in the army are doing shouldn't concern us here. Above all, they funneling taxpayers money into their own pockets in the first place anyway. It's politics dummies.

>>63988517 (OP)
>Makes a battle rifle
If it's a Battle Rifle then let it replace 7.62 and not 5.56. Reasons like this are why many compare it to the M14.

>>63988517 (OP)
Reminder https://www.mediafire.com/file/91xl8q839hn28uj/Trent_NGSW-EWS_Fellowship_Project_%2528Final%2529.pdf/file
>While it has some impressive terminal ballistic potential, the adoption of the XM7 represents a significant downgrade to the ability of Soldiers to fight and win the next peer on peer war. From World War I to the battlefields of the Russia-Ukraine War, a huge majority of infantry engagements have occurred within 300 meters. The lesson learned in blood from these conflicts is that fire superiority--not long range, aimed fire--is what wins firefights. This monograph seeks to re-examine the lessons of the past in combination with unclassified technical and tactical data to make a compelling argument against the continued adoption of the XM7. It will also examine the programs which led to the creation of the XM7, reports from units currently equipped with the XM7, and potential alternatives for consideration.

>>63988915
Just a cohencidence Anon.

>>63988517 (OP)
>Rifle has superiority by Overmatching any modern military
The gun couldn't even match the M4 (and by extension other intermediate rifles) in exercises due to the poor ammo carrying capacity from the cartridge's weight/volume. Arguably that's due to flaws in Army doctrine and tactics but still something to be considered.
>USMC carries the same rifle weight and the MK18 a fucking 10" AR15 weighs almost the same as a M7
Both the M27 and Mk18 (already overweight ARs) when fully kitted out still aren't quite on the level of the M7. It really is a monstrously heavy gun.
There's plenty of reasons to hate on the gun but the one that matters the most and cannot be fixed is the cartridge. The concept was already flawed to begin with and Sig's execution was certainly the worst attempt.
>>63994266
>Any day now really. Surely.
Yes, actually. None of these problems except the last are inherent to bullpups and all of them have been solved in some capacity by at least one modern bullpup. It wouldn't take much to put those elements together to make a perfect rifle.
>and make them have equivalent railspace to a normal rifle
I've never heard of this complaint before Hop's video, this just makes you sound like you're making shit up as you go when firearm designers and manufacturers actually fix real issues with bullpup design. The loss in rail space inherent to the bullpup as a concept is negligible and inadequate top rail space (the only one that matters) is more often than not due to poor handguard design rather than fault of the rifle. Just look at the RM277 prototype as an example, it has ample space for an optic + magnifier, backup irons, and a laser which is everything either a military or civilian shooter would realistically need.
>>63994344
Speak for yourself. For me there's no practical difference in the handling of an RDB or MDR vs an AR except that the balance is better.

>>63988517 (OP)

>>63990526
>>63990536
>>63990542
Holy shit. I never realized how much marksmanship standards have improved over the years.

>>63994589
and...it doesn't do anything better than 7.62x51mm.

if they wanted something actually new and useful, they could have simply necked up 5.56x45mm to 6x45mm, and used the same m4 platform for it.

>>63989434
Fun fact: SIG wanted to do a full stainless steel case but Shell Shock already had the patent. Hence the two piece cope “innovation” we see today. Shell Shock have actually been doing high pressured rounds longer than SIG have and might actually replace SIG’s ammo contract in the long run, thanks to the full stainless steel case being easier to manufacture and Shell Shock finishing up some trials to potentially have their ammo replace a good chunk of the US militaries current production.
Siggers can’t stop losing and I love to see it.

>>63995025
>Patent nonsense stifles yet another perfectly good innovation.

>>63994266
>barrel harmonics
Not a problem on most pups
>trigger
Move the FCG to in front of the magazine or just have a better designed transfer bar
>equivalent railspace
Full length aluminum handguard with a top rail on a 20'' pup is pretty much the same as an M4
>make them automatically eject on whatever side your face doesn't currently occupy
This is pretty difficult, swapping sides by disassembling and turning the bolt around is pretty easy but yeah a better solution would be nice and I haven't really seen a satisfactory solution emerge yet.
>less horrible to clear malfunctions on
AKS-74U style dust cover in the back (made out of plastic so your face doesn't suffer) would result in easy disassembly and clearing of any possible malfunctions.

The only real problem I see with bullpups is the weight balance being so rear heavy means that the gun is not as stable which hurts accuracy and recoil management. This should be addressed with a 20'' barrel (maybe govt profile) + suppressor + making the rear, ie. receiver etc. as lightweight as possible and using a BCG with most of the mass in the op rod.
>>63994627
>problems except the last
It is also very solvable with an AK/AKS style dust cover.

>>63995025
FUCK patents.

>>63995280
>IP lawyers could be anywhere he thought, taking a swig of $3.50 armory CLP to wash away his (founded) fear of backpaying royalties.

>>63995301
ANYTHING fucking lawyers get their sleazy little mitts on becomes completely retarded and only serves to enhance their own position of power at the expense of society. You pretty much can't do any fucking business without hiring a legal team/lawyer and then those litigious bastards make themselves seem useful by suing other companies creating employment and necessity for their fucking legal teams what a retarded fucking system.

Patents are one of the most egregious cases of lawyer bullshit, so many things that were already invented years ago suddenly have a recent patent that is used to bash competition jesus christ.

Hang all lawyers

>>63989936
>Sig reduced the pressure to just over 70k to "increase accuracy" (read: reduce recoil)
Actually powder charge and pressure can change your accuracy. Ask autists on snipershide if you want to know about that.

>>63988517 (OP)
>Big fucking stonking rifle
Largely incongruent with the current statement and methods of the US military.
>Fury/Hybrid round
Cool and all but incongruent with the principle of having things that won't blow up in your fucking face if you don't service them in-theater
>Beating IV armor
Basically no peer military on the planet even distributes armor widely and those who do/did are practically stuck on III or whatever strange-ass standard they're using now, plus a ludicrously low amount of kills are made by infantry anyway.
>Fire superiority
Stupid when you're overall carrying less ammo and can't do suppressive fire because the perceived recoil is enough to evidently make Rangers not really like shooting it.
>Auto-adjusting sight and shit
Cool and all but useless for your standard infantryman whos entire job, conceptually, is to make the enemy keep their head down until CAS or artillery takes care of the situation.

It's a cool rifle but everything neat about it can equally be applied to a 14" AR that has more ammo and is lighter, while also already being in the inventory. The US military doesn't really need a new rifle, there's no reason for us doing it given what we currently know about our enemies and what we've trained our soldiers for since Vietnam.
Shits kinda just useless and stupid.

>muh 300+m engagement and supah scope
>4 MOA
Lol. Lmao.

>>63988517 (OP)
"Let's give everyone a DMR because there was this time I felt stupid on patrol in Afghanistan when a durka took potshots at me with a PKM from 1200m away and I couldn't do anything about it" is a retarded doctrine.

if they were so obsessed with effective range they should have selected a bullpup so they got a real barrel length. now they have to make sigger's bubba m4 work.

>>63989985
>We’re DEFINITELY gonna have people shooting out to kilometers THIS time!
Yeh sure lmao. Add a staircase sight too while you’re at it

>>63990589
words words words words

A lot of cope for why I now have to carry less ammo for no actual reason

>>63995567
>All combat happens within 300 meters because I said so and because I misunderstand studies that I haven't read but instead saw someone loosely reference in a 4chan post
>The past 35 years of infantry technology advancements are meaningless because nothing changes ever at all not ever and the very best rifle that exists is a magnum .22 with an effective range of 500m on a day with zero wind if we make it 4 feet long.

>>63995657
Anon your neo-M14 isn't any more accurate than a fucking M4. The last thing you want to do is plink away at a target that's under cover a fucking quarter mile out with your whopping 140 rounds that are landing in a two foot POI. It's over.

I don't think anyone here who thinks slapping an LPVO on a glorified battle rifle makes every grunt into an effective distance shooter has
A) actually experienced what goes into distance shooting
B) ever interacted with an 11B and seen how they shoot in a controlled environment, much less in a combat situation

>>63995706
It's the marksman's fallacy. Civilians who like shooting and center their whole personalities around it tend to believe shooting is 50% of soldiering instead of 1%.

>>63995657
The better sensors and weapons get, the shorter infantry combat ranges get when in a real war.

Would you stand in the middle of a field and risk getting shot?
Maybe if it's a musket.
Advance to the rifle and nah.
Advance further to beltfeds and now you're going to stay in cover as long as possible.
Advance yet more to radios and mortars and now you're not even going to risk long-range shots unless you're a dedicated sniper. You'lre going to stay behind and under cover at all times except an actual assault out of a Bradley; as other weapons systems' effects influence you and your enemy.

>>63995657
>EPR bullets and standard optics
There, two actually applied advancements of the past 35 years.
>lightweight ammo and constant recoil
There, two more actual advancements which have yet to be applied. There's a lot of improvement we can do in firearms and most of it is readily available to be implemented, that's why Sig makes me seethe. Sig is not only stopping advancement it's regressing nearly a century of the white man's effort into bribed slop.

>>63995366
lmao this is gonna be my headcanon as to why the XM7 was created

>>63995657
>no, you don't understand, you're supposed to plink away at someone 300m away and reveal your position and that you know they're there
>calling in fire support through all the advancements in networking to blow them up and actually solve the problem is cheating

Hold up, if you're supposed to be shooting this piece of shit at maximum range, further away than you ever shoot an M16 or M4, and it NEEDS the velocity and extra energy to make the trip, through open terrain,


Why the fuck is it so short?

>>63995321
Yes, but they didn't change the pressure of their Hybrid Match ammo, which is still 80k psi. The implication is that the accuracy improvement is specific to the XM7 weapon system, which probably means that it's increased accuracy *in automatic fire* which implies reduced recoil.

>>63988517 (OP)
Half the ammo twice trhe weight. Everything else is details. Whoever has more bullets wins the firefight.
QED

>>63994073
On an M4 length rifle sure, I agree. But a folding stock does make sense in the context of an 18-20" barrel rifle. I think the capability to shoot with a stock folded is generally a luxury feature outside of executive protection roles. On a service rifle, it's an administrative feature that makes getting in and out of vehicles with what would otherwise be a relatively cumbersome weapon easier. The amount of situations where a soldier would have to fire that rifle with the stock folded would likely be extremely minimal.

>>63996046
The tragedy is it wasn't the GWOT generation who actually pushed the XM7. It was a gravelbelly project (originally the ICSR) to smuggle 7.62 NATO back into service rifles with a series of changing justifications, from "stopping power for CQB" in Iraq to range in Afghanistan to piercing plates after China's rise. They were all in service to getting a bigger diameter bullet. It's that stupid. XM7 was the boomers' final grasp from the retirement home and it just barely slipped through the various gates by sheer bureaucratic inertia.

did you know that 5.56 is literally smaller than .22? What a joke of a bullet

>>63996663
Yeah I know right? Such an anemic bullet

>>63995583
>A lot of cope for why I now have to carry less ammo for no actual reason
Why would I cope because you have to hump more? I don't have to carry shit anymore. What you are doing is known as seething.
>>63996604
>from "stopping power for CQB" in Iraq to range in Afghanistan to piercing plates after China's rise
You're telling me there are at least three iron clad reasons that we should already have replaced intermediates with battle rifles? Based.

>>63996604
>originally the ICSR
Also you need to go 10 years further back than that to get to the start. It started at Crane as the SPC program.

>>63989010
The M250 actually does have a qc barrel and the Army recently put out an RFI for an M240 replacement.

https://sam.gov/opp/e5ca9c10f9584075a42794e577ebca28/view

>>63995048
No, fuck sig. shell shock created gold and they ought to reap the rewards of it.

Anybody know the max pressure a NAS3 case can withstand? I know some bubba loaded 9mm to 70kpsi without issue, so maybe higher than that?

>>63997120
https://www.twz.com/land/m240-medium-machine-gun-successor-now-being-sought-by-u-s-army

>>63989434
>I’d argue that 80kpsi was the most useful thing to come out of NGSW

80k psi but used to make 5.56 in a smaller package would be ideal.

>>63994985
>neck up 5.56 to 6mm

No. Why would this be desireable over 5.56? The 5.56 ogive length isn’t abysmal enough for you? You want less sectional energy? A worse trajectory? A lower BC?

There is nothing wrong with the .224 caliber. It’s just a way of delivering energy from your gun to the target. No need to make it bigger. The successor to 5.56 ought to be 5.56 FABRL at 80kpsi and with 70+gr bullets. Superior in every metric and still comes in lighter than 5.56. Feed it from quad stacks into a constant recoil action. Give everyone a 300+ round combat load.

>>63997141
Yes it would. It’s impressive how stupid the industry is that they’re making fuckhuge short action and magnum cartridges in 80kpsi instead of doing the obvious thing and introducing new intermediate cartridges. Nobody gives a shit how big or heavy their hunting cartridge is when they only carry, idk, 5 rounds during a hunt. But cartridge mass and volume are both at a premium for a fighting rifle/cartridge, where you’re expected to carry hundreds of rounds, and this is where 80kpsi shines.

>>63989936
>Sig reduced the pressure to just over 70k to "increase accuracy"

Look at SIG's patents for their homebrew EPR, the flat base of the steel penetrator in the Army projectile can deform the copper under it in such a way that the penetrator is no longer pointing in the direction the rest of the projectile is. Lowering the acceleration mitigates this.

Small arms are literally the least important of any military weapon system, why spend so much time getting mad about this?

>>63990753
7.62x51 is a ballistic potato, 6.8 might be a terrible replacement for 5.56 but it is better than 7.62x51 in every way.

>>63990589
>>63990569
>>63990559
>>63990542
>>63990536
>>63990526
This is some dedicated schizo posting so here's a (you) I only skimmed a few of your posts, I dunno wtf you're talking about with nerve toxins and shit, but the reality is the m7 is too heavy for Cpl Hernandez and Sgt Aguilar. I don't know why people get their titties in such a twist when military procurement fucks up as usual. Bring back the XM25!

>>63997162
>It’s impressive how stupid the industry is that they’re making fuckhuge short action and magnum cartridges in 80kpsi instead of

The Army told industry to make the Army provided 6.8 projectile go X velocity in a Y sized rifle.

>>63988517 (OP)
>fire superiority
>by ensuring everyone has less ammunition

Lmfao

>>63995657
Being able to fire accurate shots beyond 400 - 500 meters was just as big an advancement before WW1 as a rifle scope is now and it didn’t make much of a difference. Fundamentally the rifle can only reasonably be used in three ways but in all of these cases it still has huge errors and design choices that don’t make sense

1. The government knows something we don’t and the think tanks and R&D have good reason to believe body armor will advance significantly in the next decade or two that will alter the current warfare meta. However, by all the information at our disposal this rifle and 6.8 isn’t going to be able to perform against body armor any better than .308. If you want anti armor you need velocity and the most sensible way to get large amounts of velocity is to increase barrel length (not make bubba’s super hot extra special load) - and the smartest way to do that was to make some kind of Halo AR style bullpup that has like a FAL sized barrel. Then you undertake the much more reasonable task of designing an armor piercing round fired from a 27 inch barrel or whatever.

2. The army wants a new DMR. This is probably what the rifle will end up slated for if any meaningful amounts of it are adopted. But of course the issue with this why the hell does a DMR have a 13 inch barrel that shoots at 4 - 5 MOA? Obviously that isn’t un-useable but is just silly in the big 25 (not bussin). Going with a Soviet style SVD loadout is a perfectly acceptable, smart way of doing things. But there’s zero reasons this couldn’t have been done with existing AR10 options out there.

3. The thing really was a big excuse to get the MG, in which case it’s still retarded because the MG is mediocre. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me with all the advancements in recent years it seems a bad time to lock down any particular new rifle cartridge when you’ve had so much advancement in cartridge tech lately and much more on the way.

all the "we want battle rifles!" people changed their tune the instant sig's rifle won.

>>63997194
Yes, all zero people.

>>63997180
I know, but then federal went and made a magnum action length cartridge in 80kpsi, and really nobody except for boutique loaders are making high pressure stuff in the 2.26” action length.

>>63997175
>7.62 is a ballistic potato

Seriously. About the only thing it has over 5.56, external ballistics wise, is the capacity to accept slightly longer bullets. But ofcourse this will come at a velocity penalty. I don’t understand why people think of 308 as a long range cartridge. It’s basically just 5.56 with about twice the energy at all ranges. But drop and drift are more or less gonna be the same.

>>63997168
That’s a bullet design problem though. Lowering the pressure is like cutting off your head to prevent brain cancer.

>>63997191
You forgot option 4. Ron Cohen spent millions on hookers and blow for the NGSW decisionmakers and he expects a return on his investment

>>63997178
>dunno wtf you're talking about with nerve toxins and shit,
Part of the justification for shitcanning battle rifles was that high velocity intermediate cartridges would be more effective with the nerve toxin bullets they were going to issue with them. The other justifications were that it would be 3500fps and fire 5 subcal bullets per cartridge.

Not schizoposting, that's just what the Army wrote at the time. Excerpt from the paper about it above.

>>63997194
Are you saying that only racists say they want battle rifles?

>>63993561
Too much finicky unnecessary stuff imo. What you would really want is an 18 inch Hanson/Core profile chf chrome with a 15 inch handguard, adjustable stock, standard lower, 10x capable scope with as wide an fov as possible. Weighing less than 6.5 lbs naked and empty. If we are splurging get an NP3 coated bcg.

Grunts can't have too much exposed barrel, especially not if it's a really thin profile. They will fuck it up/burn their shins t. Seen it happen

>>63997276
>Grunts can't have too much exposed barrel, especially not if it's a really thin profile. They will fuck it up/burn their shins t. Seen it happen
Please tell me this is a joke. How do you think grunts in AUG user countries have survived this long?

>>63994266
Barrel harmonica affects all guns
Bullpups have good triggers
Extra railspace will go unused anyways
Lefties are the spawn of Satan anyways
Clean your gun

Any more questions?

>>63997178
Who’s the slut?

>>63994334
>>63994344
Don't make me tap the sign
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25029894/

>but yeah a better solution would be nice and I haven't really seen a satisfactory solution emerge yet
Downward eject, case retention a la RDB, or extreme forward eject

>>63997261
You know that makes me think...what small arm has killed the most people of every race?

Blacks: Glocks/Mauser 98?
Whites: M1919 Browning perhaps? Mauser 98? Kalashnikov? Depends on if you think of Russians as white.
Asians: Kalashnikov?
Jews: Luger, Kar98?
Injuns: Brown Bess? Winchester 1873?
Jeets: Brown Bess?
Arabs: Kalashnikov?
Abbos: Brown Bess?

>>63997299
>Lefties are the spawn of Satan anyways
It's not about lefties, it's about being able to fire from cover on your right side without leaning your whole body out.

>>63997240
I was trying to be charitable

>>63997295
>How do you think grunts in AUG user countries have survived this long

By being irrelevant heyoo! I can't find online how heavy an Aug barrel is so I don't know. It looks about equivalent to a tapered profile tho so I wouldn't expect them to be that thin. And I know you can change an Aug barrel in like 10 seconds flat soo I don't think it would be an issue. Thin profiles are great but don't think they can take years of retard gorilla abuse.

>>63997256
As a battleriflestan, why do you think every military force these days standardizes on intermediate cartridge rifles?
>>63997315
>https://www.tiktok.com/@shleembeam_world/video/7235669204509134126

Guys sig holds the sole license to use ARMAD in the US. The only barrel material that can do 80% of ARMAD's barrel life is steyr's. Not even FN hybrid 4150 can hold a candle. Without ARMAD barrels, barrel extension and Bolts the M7 would be a 1,000 gun like every other 6mm arc barrel on the market.

>>63997377
>Thin profiles are great but don't think they can take years of retard gorilla abuse.
Training/discipline + culture issue desu
But super thin barrels have other problems of course

>>63997331
>blacks: Glocks

lol

>>63997324
no thanks I'll stick with a standard rifle since it's better

>>63990744
>Collapsible stock
You mean telescoping stock, collapsible stock on an ar15/m16 wouldn't be useful because of the buffer tube.

1/3
>>63997400
>As a battleriflestan, why do you think every military force these days standardizes on intermediate cartridge rifles?
1. NATO standardisation to 5.56 (1980). Other NATO countries were on-board with this, to a very large extent, because of the report quoted above (along with another than says the same things but doesn't have diagrams showing the absolute state of marksmanship like above). Small arms people in other important NATO countries found the accuracy stuff compelling - if none of your riflemen can hit at 300 yards anyway, then why issue powerful rifles? Additionally, despite not being a NATO round, the US replaced all its 7.62mm rifles in Europe with 5.56mm ones in 1970, so it was kind of a sticking point for NATO and forced the issue. If you look at the timeline for adoption NATO standardisation is the driving reason (see dates below).
2. Submachineguns. People always forget that a lot of the draw of ARs was that they would replace SMGs as well as BRs. Like, it's in the name but people ignore it. ARs are generally better than BRs for assaulting, and probably roughly as good at SMGs at it in most cases. If you accept that your riflemen can't hit anything past 300y anyway, then it's awfully convenient to have a weapon you can adopt that apparently has zero downsides over the weapons you were already using. The US actually wanted to replace SMGs with the M14 as well (unlike most other western BR nations who kept SMGs) which probably helps to explain just how badly the M14 went for them.

The NATO standardisation happened because America adopted M16 in Vietnam. America adopted M16 in Vietnam for a variety of real reasons, but they basically boil down to problems with the M14, and the hand-wavey justifications that sat over the top of those reasons were stuff reports like the ones we were talking about.

2/3
>>63997400
>>63997860
But.
1. NATO never standardized to M193, like the US used in Vietnam for shooting unarmored enemies, it standardized to SS109/M855 because soldiers often wear armor and helmets. But M193 couldn't meet pen requirements. Unfortunately, there wasn't a properly defined lethality requirement, because if there was SS109 would have failed it. So the thing starts out life as the promise of 5x3500fps nerve toxin flechettes that are going to kill the fuck out of everything, scrapes into service as a 3200fps monolithic excuse to get away from the M14 but which can't pen armor, and then morphs into a 2900fps projectile with a penetrator that's really pretty shit at killing things but actually gets standardized on.
2. Most countries adopted ARs much later than is commonly perceived; nearly all did it in the absence of experience amongst decision makers of infantry combat and right before the end of the Cold War (so the long peace, little-to no infantry combat to reveal the deficiencies, declining defence budgets to conduct further small arms replacements). If they were in the habit of shooting people with their rifles, they would have cared a lot more about the results of doing it.
3. As soon as they actually tried to use the ARs in infantry combat again (GWOT, although the writing was on the wall earlier with Gothic Serpent), they ran into (a variety of) lethality and range problems and you see units taking M14s to Iraq, multiple DMR programs, multiple programs to introduce new calibers that are more lethal, multiple programs to remediate M855, SF and the USMC using totally different non-service and non-penetrating rounds. And then the whole issue gets made even worse by swapping to a 14.5in barrel for the service rifle (although M4 gets a lot better as rifle as a result). Oh yeah, and everyone got issued night vision and optics and were much better trained, so the whole "not seeing or hitting past 300y" thing was absolutely bogus.

3/3
>>63997400
>>63997860
>>63997868
Those adoption dates:
USA (1964)
(20 years pass)
Canada: 1984
UK: 1985
Spain: 1987
Australia: 1988
Italy: 1990
Germany: 1997
(Non-NATO but Euro, so basically the point where the writing was 100% on the wall that 5.56 would be the round of Western Europe one way or another:
France: 1978
Austria: 1978)

So the endstate for all the back and forth was replacing SMGs+BRs with ARs+DMRs in squads (and even pushing 7.62mm LMGs back into platoons and squads). Intermediate rounds never actually got standardised on (platoons went from being issued .45, 7.62mm loose and 7.62mm link to being issued 9mm, 5.56mm loose, 5.56mm link, 7.62 match and often 7.62mm link) and there were 3 different competing 5.56mm rifle rounds in concurrent service as a GP service round (M855, MK318, MK262). The bright spark out of all of this is EPR, the "final form" for M855 remediation attempts, which is not perfect, but pretty good, but it comes at a cost, which is trashing the guns that shoot it because it's overpressure.

But yeah. People who think that NGSW and 6.8 "came out of nowhere" are absolutely myopic. It's kind of amazing that SCHV didn't get found out as hokey salesmanship that was overpromising kind of a bit sooner. When something seems too good to be true - it probably is, there's no such thing as a free lunch etc etc

>>63997860
>>63997868
>>63997877
Explain 7.62x39, 5.45x39 & 5.8x42

>>63997324
>Downward eject
Not satisfactory, it's unreliable
>extreme forward eject
Complicated, unreliable, might be the best solution but I don't think the designs so far have been sufficiently elegant/simple.

>>63997148
holster mk18 guy, how would you perfect the pinnacle of creation, the 11.5 in PSA?

>>63990559
Stupid nigger.
The first sentence says that lethality of present weapons cannot be improved by increasing "hitting power", so battle rifles are a bigger waste of time than regular assault rifles, forget all about poison bullets. If soldiers couldn't hit shit with assault rifles then they won't hit shit with battle rifles either, all while carrying heavier, hard recoiling guns with less ammo to boot.

>>63990569
Stupid nigger.
>despite not being able to even hit targets on a range at 300 yards, they were still making more than 1 in 5 of their kills in war at more than 300 yards without optics
Which means about 80% of kills they made were under 300 yards, which means that is the majority of engagements. Battle rifles didn't do so hot up close against VC with AKs now did it?

>what they recommended was:
>A G11 or duplex* 223 meme gun.
>Firing bullets filled with nerve toxins.
>On full auto at all ranges.
That sure as fuck don't sound like a battle rifle, not even close. The m16 won, keep seething.

>>63997923
>Explain 7.62x39
SMG replacement thing. The USSR had SMG companies, SMG battalions etc in WWII. If decadent wectern "expert" marksmanship in 1950 with a Garand looked like >>63990542 then imagine what 1945 Soviet conscript marksmanship with PPSHs, Mosins and SVTs looked like. Russia didn't want rifles pretty much period, I mean fuck, they could nearly have standardised on 7.62x25mm, they wanted a mechanized SMG army with no marksmanship training. For all other 7.62x39 users, it's because the USSR (Russia) was giving out x39 guns, tooling and ammo like candy to try to destabilise the world and fuck over capitalists.
>5.45x39
FOMO from 5.56 (anything you can do we can do better). Also, like, actually does the HV part of SCHV so it was a logical place to go anyway from 7.62x39 which is just kind of bad in every possible way. But the rounds lowkey (highkey) don't work. They fail to stabilize out of most AKs most of the time and have absolutely shitful terminals even compared to less performant 5.56. They keyhole like you wouldn't fucking believe. There's even footage out there from Kalashnikov Concern showing off how cool and great their 5.45 rifles are and the fucking things are keyholing the paper at 5m with service ammo. It's unreal that acknowledgement of the problems with 5.45 isn't more widespread.
>5.8x42
Allegedly to prevent theft and resale of x39 by corrupt commanders, and standardizing to 5.56x45 wouldn't improve things on that front, but I really don't know enough about the topic to comment on whether or not that's accurate or if it was a factor at all. Maybe the Chinese did some studies and determined this was optimum for something or other, idk. Also, see above about training levels and doctrinal ideas about infantry (and brushing with standardizing on pistol cartridges like 7.62x25 kekw).

>>63997860
>>63997868
>>63997877
Nice cope. Too bad the cool awesome kino battle rifle will never be relevant again :)

>>63995321
It can change your precision, accuracy ends up being a function of velocity and barrel.

>>63997966
>The first sentence says that lethality of present weapons cannot be improved by increasing "hitting power", so battle rifles are a bigger waste of time than regular assault rifles, forget all about poison bullets. If soldiers couldn't hit shit with assault rifles then they won't hit shit with battle rifles either, all while carrying heavier, hard recoiling guns with less ammo to boot.
Yeah, and it's a lie on multiple counts.
>Which means about 80% of kills they made were under 300 yards, which means that is the majority of engagements.
Yeah lol: In WWII, with no optics at all and soldiers who couldn't shoot straight. What do you think the proportions would be with accurate modern rifles, optics and decent training? Did you know that in Afghanistan the majority of lethal small arms engagements were past 300 yards?
>Battle rifles didn't do so hot up close against VC with AKs now did it?
They did fine when it wasn't McNamara's morons using them. Picrel. Also, did you know that the M16 was already in service _before_ the VC had AKs in Vietnam? The M14 vs AK thing is mostly an anachronism.
>The m16 won, keep seething.
Are they even in service anymore? M7 is replacing your carbine. Keep seething.

>>63990542
>>63990559
>>63990569
Despite your premise being inherently gay and stupid (and incoherent, learn to condense your point), the issues with marksmanship standards in ye olde days were almost certainly a result of inherently poor quality bulk government ammo and inherently poor quality shooters. The standards that anyone was held to were retarded because the standard of precision of a rack grade rifle of any kind was inherently poor. Gov should have just invested in better CAS directing communications gear and issued everyone a grease gun.

>>63993566
>>63993592
you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded. lighter than gov profile barrel? are you fucking dumb?
>make it a forged part and then mill it out, billet is too heavy
you don't know what those words mean. Jesus christ get the fuck off of /k/ you teenaged noguns retard

>>63993698
>That premise was drawn from tests of conscripted, poorly trained and profoundly disinterested soldiers
>Expert qualified shooters didn't do much better
So enlisted, highly trained, and profoundly interested shooters didn't do better than the apathetic retards? Got it. If it didn't help in 1950 what difference will it make now? I'm sure when todays troops can't hit shit using a boat anchor 4MOA+ M7, you'll just blame the weather.

>"Small arms engagements happen at 300m or less in nearly all scenarios." which isn't what the study found at all: It found that, depending on the relevant tactical task, as few as 10% of lethal engagements but generally more than 20% of lethal engagements with rifles were at over 300 yards.
What range did less than 80% of lethal engagements with rifles happen at? Fill in the blanks for me.

>>63993719
The study you mentioned, says that you cannot improve lethality by increasing "hitting power". Because your liver can only explode once. That's why they advocated for poison bullets to affect the entire body beyond the hit area. But you know what else works? Spraying the fucker with more lead. Which is why they advocated for a hail of bullets fired from a full auto capable gun. That doesn't sound very much like a battle rifle my melanated friend!

>>63998046
>So enlisted, highly trained, and profoundly interested shooters didn't do better than the apathetic retards? Got it. If it didn't help in 1950 what difference will it make now? I'm sure when todays troops can't hit shit using a boat anchor 4MOA+ M7, you'll just blame the weather.
Are you having a stroke? It appears you've lost command of the language.
>What range did less than 80% of lethal engagements with rifles happen at? Fill in the blanks for me.
With ironsights and conscripts who only had 40% accuracy against a man sized-target on a flat range at 100 yards? Fill in the blanks for me.
>The study you mentioned, says that you cannot improve lethality by increasing "hitting power"... That's why they advocated for poison bullets to affect the entire body beyond the hit area.
Which is a lie. They knew it was a lie because they caveated it by assuming that their itty bitty bullets would be travelling at 3500fps - they knew full well that SCHV bullets were not as lethal as full caliber rifle bullets at practicable engagement speeds, and that's the reason why they were shilling nerve toxin bullets fired 5 per cartridge.
>But you know what else works? Spraying the fucker with more lead. Which is why they advocated for a hail of bullets fired from a full auto capable gun.
You're advocating for SALVO now? Let's fucking ggooooooo. How did that project turn out for you?

>>63997860
>>63997868
>>63997868
I appreciate your effortposting but I am more interested in zeroing in on the actual usage of the weapons rather than the history of the SCHV concept.

>Most countries adopted ARs much later than is commonly perceived; nearly all did it in the absence of experience amongst decision makers of infantry combat and right before the end of the Cold War

But these countries have been using 5.56 for 40-50 years now and seem satisfied. So what is the modern use case for rifle cartridges in semi autos? The Army thinks it's outranging the Chinese and penning L4 plates, but modern peer infantry combat is totally theoretical at this point because we haven't had a peer war in a long time. Ukraine is the closest to a peer war and most of the kills I've seen (by infantry) were grunts surprising each other in the trenches or outhouse and mag dumping until it's over or someone getting picked off by a drone. I just don't see the use for the M7 or battle rifles in general. They're heavy as shit, at least the M7 is, and the power and recoil makes you shoot slower especially at range.

I agree that 5.56 lacks terminal ballistic performance in military loadings, though non-Geneva convention compliant bullets offer way more performance. Earlier you wrote that all the criteria for adoption of ARs was bogus because modern soldier and optics make shooting past 300 yards much easier for the modern grunt. That doesn't wash though, because these scenarios don't happen anymore and when they do a drone and suppressive fire would handle it a lot better, and wouldn't be so unwieldy/reduce volume of fire/burn barrels/require two different ammos. So what is the point of a battle rifle? Barrier penetration is the best argument I can think of but a machinegun would handle that better and provide more tactical flexibility.

>>63993719
>>63993719
>but if they really believed it then they wouldn't disagree with adopting true PDWs in 4.6x30mm, yet they always actually do.
Assault rifles and PDWs have more in common with each other than they do battle rifles. They both fire tiny light bullets at high speeds and at high volume in a controllable manner. All of which battle rifles fail to do. And if you advocate for adopting PDWs then assault rifles are a more powerful version of that. But battle rifles are not a more powerful version of an assault rifle.

>>63993994
>Don't you recall the ten years of battlefield experience and reports from Iraq and Afghanistan where hajjis didn't drop and returned fire after multiple center-torso hits from M855?
Hmmm, maybe because the 20" M16 barrel was cut down to 14.5" for an M4 Carbine resulting in a significant loss of velocity causing 5.56 to suffer from less reliable and abundant fragmentation and wounding potential? Couldn't be, that wouldn't fit your narrative!

>>63998030
>lighter than gov profile barrel?
Yeah, gov profile is heavier than it needs to be, and was adopted for the wrong reason - they thought barrels were warping, it was actually fouling that the gauges were getting hung up on. I'm not about to suggest a pencil barrel but this is a service rifle we're talking about, not a DMR, LMG, or sniper rifle.
>you don't know what those words mean
>He doesn't know the difference between forged and billet parts
I made the distinction because I'm pretty sure all the skeletonized receivers you can buy right now are billet, which defeats the point cuz billet is physically weaker and thus needs to be thicker and heavier to be sufficiently strong. Most of them are not lighter than the equivalent forged part and some are actually notably heavier.

>>63998066
>Which is a lie. They knew it was a lie because they caveated it by assuming that their itty bitty bullets would be travelling at 3500fps - they knew full well that SCHV bullets were not as lethal as full caliber rifle bullets at practicable engagement speeds, and that's the reason why they were shilling nerve toxin bullets fired 5 per cartridge.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Nta but he is arguing for volume of fire. Muzzle energy doesn't have much to do with terminal ballistics, the bullet, it's speed, and the medium is what determines that but we aren't arguing about bullet construction. The weakness of battle rifles is that they are slower on target, slower to recover, and usually result in a soldier carrying half as much ammo while not offering a comparative increase in terminal ballistic performance. Forget 5.56 this is true for 7.62x39 and every other intermediate cartridge outside of the SCHV concept.

>With ironsights and conscripts who only had 40% accuracy against a man sized-target on a flat range at 100 yards? Fill in the blanks for me
Right but modern rifleman would benefit even more from a lighter recoiling cartridge like 5.56 if the objective is putting rounds on target. Where are the 600 yard firefights in which rifle ballistics really matter?

>>63993698
So where is the evidence that engagements occur at extreme ranges apart from the occasional potshot in the mountains? If your goal is to engage a target 800 yards away, you should be maneuvering into a more advantageous position, not hunkering down and taking a few low probability shots. You guys love to point out that 4 MOA is good enough to hit a man sized target at 800 yards, forgetting all of the caveats that come with it:
>Provided he's facing directly at you
>Provided he doesn't move during the several seconds of bullet travel
>Provided he's not partially obscured
>Provided he's not wearing body armor
>Provided you can kill him before he can call in a drone or artillery strike against your position
>Provided you don't exhaust your heavy and limited ammunition supply
>Provided the enemy force doesn't deploy units to flank you while you're tunneled down your scope
The alternative of "we'll just go around the back and shoot them all" is actually much simpler.

>>63993561
>>63993566
You watched too much WWSD my friend.>>63998014
>Yeah lol: In WWII, with no optics at all and soldiers who couldn't shoot straight. What do you think the proportions would be with accurate modern rifles, optics and decent training? Did you know that in Afghanistan the majority of lethal small arms engagements were past 300 yards?

Also this is a fallacious assumption. In a modern battlefield being exposed is death so infantry engagements are happening closer and closer. You are overdosing on BRfag copium my dude. I think they are cool too, they don't have to be useful on the modern battlefield.

>>63994090
>b-b-b-b-b-b-but muh boutique paper lite AR with a 22lr conversion kit and fluted pencil barrel and a skeletonized lower receiver, annnnnddddddd feather-lite trigger that will go off if you breath on it is EXACTLY what the MIC needs grunts carrying!!!!!!!
Yeah I dunno what he's going off about either, I stopped reading half way to prevent further brain damage as I'm already retarded enough as is. There are better ways of reducing the burden of weight soldiers have to bear that aren't fucking meme's like making those fancy carbon fiber hand guards BCM makes more common place for dudes who need to hike around with their rifles, shrinking IR lasers and radios down, and reminding everyone once again that the ACOG is still a fine optic even in the Current Year +11.

>>63996147
The infernal loop

>need short barrel to account for OAL limits
>use pissing hot barrel burner round to compensate for velocity drop
>it blinds and deafens it's users so a suppressor is mandatory
>it exceeds OAL limits so barrels need to be shortened
>repeat as necessary

>>63994246
>Bullpups are the future one day.
Almost fell for your bait but then common sense got the best of me because they're ancient as still as antiquated as ever. Here's your (You) for the effort though.

>>63998121
>You watched too much WWSD my friend.
Guilty as charged, I did binge the whole playlist some years back. Ian and Karl are fags but they did have a couple good ideas. That plastic lower was a fucking meme and a half however.
>>63998129
>>>b-b-b-b-b-b-but muh boutique paper lite AR with a 22lr conversion kit and fluted pencil barrel and a skeletonized lower receiver, annnnnddddddd feather-lite trigger that will go off if you breath on it is EXACTLY what the MIC needs grunts carrying!!!!!!!
Not even close to anything I said.
>B-but the skeletonized lower anon!
Feds don't want you to know this but you can mutilate magwells without consequence.

>>63998071
>But these countries have been using 5.56 for 40-50 years now and seem satisfied.
They haven't shot people with them. Those that have have mixed feelings about them. Definitely not fully satisfied.
>So what is the modern use case for rifle cartridges in semi autos? <snip>
People dying reliably and promptly when they're shot, including in non-ideal circumstances. (Eg hit in cold weather, hit with worn barrel, hit on non-vital, hit on plates, hit at range, hit through barrier etc etc)
>They're heavy as shit, at least the M7 is, and the power and recoil makes you shoot slower especially at range.
The M7 is no where near as heavy as people make out. The extra weight that people sperg about isn't coming from the gun, it's coming from the scope and the suppressor (and they're being added independently of the gun to offer new and different capabilities, that presumably you'd have to factor differently if comparing a different). The gun itself is 3.8kg which is much lighter than any BR and pretty not much more than most ARs (eg AK47 - 3.4kg, AK74M - 3.4kg, M16A2 - 3.4kg, AUGA3 4.4kg (what the actual fuck?), G36 - 3.6kg, M27 - 3.6kg). BRs are heavier (FAL - 4.25kg, M14 4.2kg). Now compared to carbines or guns too light to be durable or guns with no rails, yeah, it's considerably heavier, sure.
>I agree that 5.56 lacks terminal ballistic performance in military loadings, though non-Geneva convention compliant bullets offer way more performance.
Those bullets (you're talking about 262 and 318) don't really penetrate any armor at all.
1/2

>>63996987
Indeed, the people who recommend equipment never use it themselves. So they'll never know how fucking retarded their suggestions are firsthand thanks for proving the point. There's a problem with those reasons, because they were all unfounded bullshit post hoc reasons to justify a meme round/gun/platform.
Assault rifles fare better up close, existing dmrs work at Afghanistan tier ranges if you're stupid enough to use a rifle for it, and the M7 can't even pierce armor, let alone chinese armor without AP ammo that existing guns can already shoot. Make like a battle rifle and go extinct

>>63998157
>>63998071
>Earlier you wrote that all the criteria for adoption of ARs was bogus because modern soldier and optics make shooting past 300 yards much easier for the modern grunt. That doesn't wash though, because these scenarios don't happen anymore and when they do a drone and suppressive fire would handle it a lot better, and wouldn't be so unwieldy/reduce volume of fire/burn barrels/require two different ammos.
They'll happen, but whatever who knows. There's a very real prospect that the kinds of (fairly low speed, command operated) drones you see in the Ukraine won't pan out in the middle term. There are some increasingly very good and surprisingly small and portable automatic optical acquire and track anti-drone laser systems that have been floating around below the threshold for adoption (eg https://www.aimdefence.com/).

I'm not really clear what you mean about two different ammos or burning barrels. I don't think these are considerations in a TIC, and certainly not limiting ones. I'm also just unclear at all on what you mean by two ammos.

>>63998072
>Assault rifles and PDWs have more in common with each other than they do battle rifles. They both fire tiny light bullets at high speeds and at high volume in a controllable manner. All of which battle rifles fail to do. And if you advocate for adopting PDWs then assault rifles are a more powerful version of that. But battle rifles are not a more powerful version of an assault rifle.
What the fuck is this mental contortion? Literally what the fuck are you talking about? None of what you wrote makes a shred of sense.
>Hmmm, maybe because the 20" M16 barrel was cut down to 14.5" for an M4 Carbine resulting in a significant loss of velocity causing 5.56 to suffer from less reliable and abundant fragmentation and wounding potential? Couldn't be, that wouldn't fit your narrative!
M855 icepicking happened (happens) independently of velocity. Reduced velocity made the myriad of problems worse, but it wasn't the only root cause. M855 has problems related to bullet construction, CoG, dynamic stability that impedes its terminals. EPR improved them massively, but some of them are baked into SCHV with a penetrator. You need to pull your head out and go read some shit instead of convincing yourself that you know what you're talking about because you watched some vetbro guntoober shit or something.

>>63998090
You probably need to actually read the studies. Lethal engagements past 300 yards made up 20% of engagements in WWII even without optics. In Afghanistan is was more than half. This is all well documented. The low averages you sometimes see talked about are misleading bullshit because they include things like infantry vs infantry fights at night with no night vision. Light recoil, especially for long range shooting, is not nearly as important as you seem to be making out. Full power rifles don't generate enough recoil to disturb your position when shooting at range supported, and regaining sight picture doesn't take that much longer between shots (a difference exists but it's not what you're trying to make it out to be). Now at closer range unsupported, yeah, it does make a bigger difference, but that's not the fight you're trying to pick here.

>>63998102
>So where is the evidence that engagements occur at extreme ranges apart from the occasional potshot in the mountains? If your goal is to engage a target 800 yards away, you should be maneuvering into a more advantageous position, not hunkering down and taking a few low probability shots. You guys love to point out that 4 MOA is good enough to hit a man sized target at 800 yards, forgetting all of the caveats that come with it:
I've never spoken to you about this before. I don't post in NGSW threads. 4 MOA is kind of shit. The program should improve that. Having said that, it is acceptable, because you're bizarrely assuming a single bullet is going to be fired. 4 MOA ES still works out to something like 1.5 MOA CEP in most circumstances, and even a 4 MOA uniform random distribution against an occluded half silhouette target at 800m converges towards a pH of 1 reasonably quickly once you roll the dice a few more times.

>>63998121
>Also this is a fallacious assumption. In a modern battlefield being exposed is death so infantry engagements are happening closer and closer. You are overdosing on BRfag copium my dude. I think they are cool too, they don't have to be useful on the modern battlefield.
You're actually at odds with reality on this one, since it's been measured and studied pretty well. Don't conflate the (real, observed and studied) relationship between lethality and dispersion with the alleged (actually just imagined, though possibly observed in one single conflict, certainly not well documented or studied) inverse relationship between lethality and engagement distance.

lol this fag is still sperging hard and making giant schizo rants about muh battel rifles

>>63997723
That's what every test subject said, but they still did better with bullpups than they thought. Many such cases!

>>63997860
>if none of your riflemen can hit at 300 yards anyway, then why issue powerful rifles?
Couldn't say it better myself.

>>63998014
>Yeah, and it's a lie on multiple counts.
No u. I like how you hyperficate on POISON BULLETS but then say everything else was a lie, no questions asked. I can't tell if you're baiting or retarded but who'd wanna write text walls for bait?

>Yeah lol: In WWII, with no optics at all and soldiers who couldn't shoot straight
Are you blaming the tool or the user? Both? Nothing will satisfy you. I think they will still shoot like shit even with modern guns and gear and training. Did you know that in Vietnam the majority of lethal small arms engagements were under 300 yards? The very conflict that saw battle rifles get shitcanned in the first place? Way to fight the last war, like the dumbasses behind the M7.

>They did fine when it wasn't McNamara's morons using them
You seem to be a holdout then. How many soldiers with m16s abandoned it for m14s? Those early adopters of m16s would now have more reason to keep them once AKs were introduced.

>Are they even in service anymore?
Of course, in the rest of the military, forget the rest of the world. Stoner won, keep seething.

>>63998161
>Indeed, the people who recommend equipment never use it themselves. So they'll never know how fucking retarded their suggestions are firsthand thanks for proving the point. There's a problem with those reasons, because they were all unfounded bullshit post hoc reasons to justify a meme round/gun/platform.
>Assault rifles fare better up close, existing dmrs work at Afghanistan tier ranges if you're stupid enough to use a rifle for it, and the M7 can't even pierce armor, let alone chinese armor without AP ammo that existing guns can already shoot. Make like a battle rifle and go extinct
Buddy, have you never been issued a fucking SAW or an M240 in your life? A DMR? A rifle with a UGL? All of these are heavier than the 3.8kg rifle you're crying about right now. Their fucking combat load, even including the meme scope and silencer, is also heavier. 3 out of 4 people in every fireteam are already carrying a heavier weapon than the M7 that you fucking sulk about every day on the internet. I'd go back to carrying a GPMG or heavy ass rifle tomorrow if it were still my job to, and God only knows how much I'd prefer that to whatever bullshit it is I do now. Dry your eyes, clean the sand out of your vagina, locate or regrow your testicles and lift some weights instead of projecting your victimhood through the internet onto me because you want to carry a 2.8kg carbine for the rest of your life while moaning about how big and mean Uncle Sam is for making you carry heavy things. Fucking hell.

>>63998220
>How many soldiers with m16s abandoned it for m14s?
Actually fucking heaps. Like, most of them, the vast majority to start out with, in regular forces at least. It contributed to a senate inquiry being held into the whole SARP. Some of the reasons they did it were because of fuckery, but plenty of them were real problems or tradeoffs inherent to the design which is why there were still dudes drawing M14s from unit armories in the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00's and then taking them to places like Somalia and Iraq. M16 didn't even start to rehabilitate its reputation until A1, but really later than that in A2 for the most part.

Why the fuck am I bothering to reply to you when you have actually no fucking clue at all what you're talking about even on a very basic factual level?

>>63998230
>M16 didn't even start to rehabilitate its reputation until A1, but really later than that in A2 for the most part.
Not him but wasn't that mostly Colts fault for employing monkeys with wrenches basically and building rifles with shit tolerances and out of spec parts hence why a million new AR companies sprung up to do what Colt was doing for MIC and civilian contracts better and cheaper and almost permanently sent their ass to deadnigger storage for good had the Czechs not saved them from the shadow realm so they could just make Python revolvers till the end of time basically?

>>63997969
5.8 is heavier than our current loads of 5.56, and is only getting heavier
>DBP-87 started at 62gr
>Upped to 71gr in 2010
>Sniper loads topping out at 86.2gr

>>63998252
>Not him but wasn't that mostly Colts fault for employing monkeys with wrenches basically and building rifles with shit tolerances and out of spec parts hence why a million new AR companies sprung up to do what Colt was doing for MIC and civilian contracts better and cheaper and almost permanently sent their ass to deadnigger storage for good had the Czechs not saved them from the shadow realm so they could just make Python revolvers till the end of time basically?
It was a bunch of reasons, they were some of them, as well as the powder shit, cleaning kits and instructions. But some were plenty of dudes who were just not bothered the heavier weight and size, and preferred a bigger round. Trees and logs are cover from M193, but they're concealment from M80, and M193 can deflect and destabilize off heavy and wet vegetation, but M80 doesn't. There are also plenty of firsthand claims even then about M193 not being as lethal as either 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 even at jungle fighting distances.

The much more interesting side to look at is Australian experiences with the M16 and FAL in Vietnam, because they didn't have all the M14 problems and decided to use both at the same time, and liked both of them a lot but for different reasons, mostly replacing F1 SMGs with M16s for people like platoon scouts, platoon commanders and radiomen, but kept using FALs for their riflemen. They kept both in service in infantry platoons like that all the way up to 1988 when they replaced both at the same time with the AUG.

>>63998066
>Are you having a stroke? It appears you've lost command of the language.
You definitely had a stroke since you can't recognize your own point. Expert shooters didn't do better than retarded conscripted at shooting. So the individual shooter made no difference.

>With ironsights and conscripts who only had 40% accuracy against a man sized-target on a flat range at 100 yards? Fill in the blanks for me.
Here's the answer: <300 yards. A range where assault rifles excel at and where battle rifles flounder. Now shut the fuck up.

>Which is a lie.
Only when it's inconvenient for you. You're so keen on cherrypicking the parts that you do agree on yet handwave everything else you hate as a "lie", while accusing the army for handwaving battle rifles over m16s.

>they knew full well that SCHV bullets were not as lethal as full caliber rifle bullets at practicable engagement speeds
Says who? You Big Retard

>and that's the reason why they were shilling nerve toxin bullets fired 5 per cartridge.
No, because the first sentence of that image you provided says that increasing "hitting power" doesn't improve lethality. And thats why shit smeared bullets will hurt the whole body through infection from just a scratch. Or maybe shooting the enemy in the guts more with bullet hoses. Read your own fucking source and weep.

>You're advocating for SALVO now? Let's fucking ggooooooo. How did that project turn out for you?
Pretty good I'll say, especially when they dabbed on your shit takes too before your mother shat you out. Your next words are "that's a lie".

>>63998286
>You definitely had a stroke since you can't recognize your own point. Expert shooters didn't do better than retarded conscripted at shooting. So the individual shooter made no difference.
The expert shooters were conscripts you fucking retard, and they did do better than the other group, just no where near as well as anyone does today. Expert is a fucking level of qualification you illiterate dipshit.
>Here's the answer: <300 yards. A range where assault rifles excel at and where battle rifles flounder. Now shut the fuck up.
What would it be with optics and night vision? Do you flounder with a BR at 100 or 200 yards? Do you have parkinsons or something?
>Only when it's inconvenient for you. You're so keen on cherrypicking the parts that you do agree on yet handwave everything else you hate as a "lie", while accusing the army for handwaving battle rifles over m16s.
>No, because the first sentence of that image you provided says that increasing "hitting power" doesn't improve lethality. And thats why shit smeared bullets will hurt the whole body through infection from just a scratch. Or maybe shooting the enemy in the guts more with bullet hoses. Read your own fucking source and weep.
If you actually read the goddamned study that you're vaguely quoting around, you will discover that they predicated the similar or better lethality of SCHV rounds vs full power rifle rounds on the SCHV rounds having an unrealistic velocity of 3500 FPS. The improved terminal ballistics of larger rounds in a wider variety of circumstances are extremely well documented; better meplat, retained velocity and cross section result in far more reliable wounding potential in a far wider variety of circumstances, because they're far less reliant on circumstantially unreliable effects like yaw and neck fragmentation.

>>63998281
>Australians in Nam
Also helps that Nam was more or less EXACTLY the kind of terrain and fighting they trained for. It's kind of crazy how fucking hard the Aussies smoked everyone else in that theater. Arguably their best performance in a war. I don't believe they ran a draft which also helps, unwilling conscripts always make terrible soldiers.

>>63998184
>All well documented
>no documents given1
Theres a lot of misleading bullshit you conveniently fail to bring up. Like how often rifle engagements happen in Afghanistan at all versus dying from an IED. I can say that Vietnam was the polar opposite and just as easily recommend assault rifles.

>Now at closer range unsupported, yeah, it does make a bigger difference, but that's not the fight you're trying to pick here.
And assuming you are true about half of engagements happening at long range that means half happen up close, where battle rifles fucking fail. If someone is very far from me then I can't hit them with an assault rifle well, but neither can they hit me. The answer therefore is not to use rifles at all but other assets like artillery.

If someone is up close and I have a battle rifle, I can't overwhelm them with battle rifle fire but they can overwhelm me with assault rifle fire. They won't be dumb enough to follow your doctrine, let's be real. Literally Vietnam in the sandbox all over again.

>>63998192
>xe's now a fan of volume of fire
All roads lead to Stoner
You'll have to roll the dice on the enemy remaining a sitting duck, too.

>>63998197
>it's true because I say so
>it's a lie because I say so
>it's been measured and studied pretty well
>trust me bro
I say fuck ya mudda

>>63997331
>Blacks

Has to be some kind of Kalashnikov in 7.62x39 because every single African continent conflict has a gorillion killed every 5 years

>>63998286
>Or maybe shooting the enemy in the guts more with bullet hoses. Read your own fucking source and weep.
>SALVO
And let's talk about that for just a second. Can you please go and read some fucking SALVO and SPIW documentation, because I don't think you have the faintest clue that SALVO isn't an M4 or an M16 or anything like it. It's inane to try to say it's more like a battle rifle than an assault rifle or whatever, because frankly it really doesn't have much in common with any of them (yet another reason why I wish you faggots would at least be aware of what you're actually arguing for when you do try to invoke their shit).

SALVO wasn't going for anything lighter than NGSW M7, it was going for something about 2lb heavier. It also wasn't going for anything that had lighter ammunition than 7.62mm in the sense you think, either, it was going for stuff like what's in the picture. The weight per shot that they're talking about is the weight per bullet, not the weight per round. The weight per round was the same or higher, but each round was going to fire many bullets for a lower weight per round. The number of rounds, of this mostly-imaginary 3500FPS controlled dispersion nerve-toxin ammunition that they're boasting about boosting lethality with, that a soldier would carry would almost certainly be less than 6.8x51, but the number of bullets would be higher.

>>63998322
>I don't believe they ran a draft which also helps, unwilling conscripts always make terrible soldiers.
They ran a draft. They had a referendum about it after the Vietnam and got rid of it.

>>63998157
>They haven't shot people with them. Those that have have mixed feelings about them. Definitely not fully satisfied.
[Citation needed]

>People dying reliably and promptly when they're shot
So choose a gun that let's you make many shots in as little time. You will not have a second chance.

>The M7 is no where near as heavy as people make out.
Bait used to be believable. Since the suppressor is mandatory because the rifle blinds and deafens it's users the real weight is near 10 lbs.

>>63998171
>What the fuck is this mental contortion?
Can't even follow your own arguments. You asked here >>63993719 about "where the line should be drawn on trading off ammo load for lethality" then say that those who believe "that a penetrating hit with a bullet is a hit with a bullet from a lethality perspective", "wouldn't disagree with adopting true PDWs in 4.6x30mm". But why would they adopt PDWs when assault rifles do the same job they do but better? Even you think your opinions are forgettable

>M855 icepicking happened (happens) independently of velocity
Stupid nigger, pic rel

>You need to pull your head out and go read some shit instead of convincing yourself that you know what you're talking about because you watched some vetbro guntoober shit or something
Says the faggot watching WWSD but couldn't be arsed to read the wiki page on 5.56. I now firmly believe you are baiting for bumps or to slide the thread, you can't possibly be genuinely retarded and self-unaware. You must be an AI language model

>>63998230
>Actually fucking heaps.
Well they must have picked them right back up when the commies came running.

Why the fuck am I bothering to reply to you when you have actually no fucking clue at all what you're talking about even on a very basic factual level? And the things you do have a clue about you call a lie. And the claims you make go unproven which is no better than lies.

>>63998221
Buddy, have you never been issued a fucking SAW or an M240 in your life yourself? A DMR? A rifle with a UGL? Because if you have then you would know how secondary they are to the M4. Nice to see you list guns and their combat loads that are all heavier than the M4 service rifle. Which is why they are not and will never be a replacement for it.

Dumb cunts like you fail to realize the more needlessly heavy your guns are the less ammo you can carry for the same weight which means less kills achieved in combat with what little rounds you do have. Nothing wrong with getting strong, your low-t response sure tells me you need to. But you're carrying the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Like a cock up your ass, it should be in your mouth instead so I don't have to hear your shit takes. You can carry that boat anchor all day long, it'll help you fall harder when you hang yourself.

>>63998400
>Dumb cunts like you fail to realize the more needlessly heavy your guns are the less ammo you can carry for the same weight
Retards who don't know anything about warfare forget it's a numbers game. More=better.
If you can shave a couple of magazines-worth of weight from your gun, that's fucking amazing.
It's why crazy shit like the G11 could've actually worked really well, carrying approximately 2x as much ammo for the same weight, even if each bullet is a bit less likely to hit, makes for a far more effective loadout.

>>63998483
>ywn own a G11

>>63998307
You reject them for being conscripts one sentence then call them experts the next. Pick a lane nigger. And the experts still had a majority of their shots miss. So why would arming them with battle rifles that lack in volume of fire help? They won't be hitting more shit in less time with a gun that hits less shit in more time, you inconsistent dipshit.

>What would it be with optics and night vision?
I think they'd be more accurate with it, yes. A gun that let's them carry lots of lightweight ammo to make accurate shots up close with is best, which is why I recommend assault rifles. I don't need to flounder with BRs at all, because I won't be fool enough to use them, when assault rifles do better.

>they predicated the similar or better lethality of SCHV rounds vs full power rifle rounds on the SCHV rounds having an unrealistic velocity of 3500 FPS
Not at all, try this on for size. And thats just sticking to 5.56 as a SCHV round. This is a Barnes Varmint Grenade, it qvaporizes varmints. On an unrelated reason I'd like to use this on your thick skull. For science.

>>63998520
>Being able to carry 150 fucking rounds on the gun while it weighs no more than the rifle of the time
UNF

>>63998334
>SALVO isn't an M4 or an M16 or anything like it
Of course SALVO isn't a gun, never said it was. Because the very line I cropped out of the pic I posted says: "SALVO mainly studied weapons and ammunition as opposed to developing them". You are mixing up my points together then calling me stupid. The only comparison I made was PDWs to assault rifles. I never advocated for "SALVO" or whatever when I talked about spraying people with lead, you did. Nor did I compare it to an M4 or M16. I'm just explaining how your own suggestion undermines your own claims.

But the underlying principles behind the assault rifle and the SALVO findings are the same. Can you please go and read some fucking SALVO and SPIW documentation, like the screenshot I posted that started your bitchfit? Say it with me:
>higher velocity projectiles
>smaller than .308 (7.62 mm)
>had equal or greater lethality
>with less weight
>The conclusion of Project SALVO was to adopt the Armalite AR-15, which became the M16 rifle.
Thanks for unwittingly directing me to the rationale behind SCHV's. If only your brain was bigger than your ego, you'd get it.

Why go through all that when you could just manufacture a lot of WC warheads for 5.56 ammo ? Fucking retarded, the AR15 platform will still be in service in a century

>>63998072
>picrel
Honestly, with what a 5.56 can do when loaded properly and fired from an appropriate weapon within frag range, it might as well be a nerve toxin bullet. Blows my mind that people think it doesn't have enough stoppin powah. Stop being cheap and stockpile actual good ammo i.e. full power M193, Mk. 262, and Mk. 318 (I don't know if the M855A1 situation is unfucked enough to recommend).

>>63988517 (OP)
>So I don't get the hate for this rifle
It all goes back to Jim Schatz presentation slides about a "horrible future" for future conflicts that the US might get involved in back in 2015-16. The idea is essentially
>VDV/Spetsnaz squads in europe are gona outrange our infantry squad in a pure infantry fight
>Even ISIS super death squads are gona do it in the middle east
As for the penetrate armor at 600 meter reason
>Fast forward a few years
>level 3 armor is getting cheaper and cheaper
>Insurgent/ ISIS infantry squads might be ballistically immune to 5.56 at extended range but maybe not 7.62x51 nato.
>VDV goons probabally have level 4 armor, 7.62x51 nato wont pen that at 600 meters.
>We need something for the infantry that can pen both and kill the wearer at range.

So you get the M7 rifle that is supposed to solve all these problems. It has the range and power to kill the hypothetical insurgent with level 3 and the vdv trooper with level 4 at 600 meters. Please ignore the faulty and questionable logic behind the prensentations tho.

>>63998579
i'm having a blast reading through all that shit. Of course level 3 are fucking easy to do, even if it's heavy, AR500 and such are easy to manufacture.
And the thought of PKPs and SVDS range overmatching US gear with PSOs and iron sights is hilarious, a basic M4 carbine is about as accurate as an svdm.
Also last time i checked 51 AP performance wasn't that much worse than 54R AP performance, but i could be wrong.

>>63997956
What is “the 11.5 in PSA?”

>>63998579
this chart is bullshit, pretty sure M80A1 performs better than 57-N-323S (had to google it again) in term of penetration. These chart are dumb

>>63998221
>3.8kg rifle
stop lying you sigger shill, this piece of shit is
1. useless without it's meme optics
>4 MOA
>4 MOA
>4 MOA
2. will send it's operator to the VA in no time if he's not using it's suppressor
with suppressor(AND WITHOUT THE OPTICS) alone it's weight is 4.46 kg
NIGGER

>>63998612
>>63998699

B-but bro, in a-afghanistan coalition troops were taking harasing fire from taliban PKM or DSHK 900 meters away in prepared ambush position. Coaltion troops could do nothing but take cover and do nothing with the tiny 556 plinker bro.

Let's just ignore that the harrasing fire was either to support another taliban squad to manouver into a better position or withdraw from a succesful close range ambush where the primary weapon was the RPG-7, everything else in that squad was to support said RPG-7.

If all the afghanistan brain rot generals actually wanted to win infantry fire fights in another afghanistan sandbox adventure they would be arguing for a light weight carl gustav, equiped with a thermal sight+ laser rangefinder firing smart time fuzed thermobaric rounds with maybe laser guidance so someone else could paint the target and the round strikes it dead on.
>Some durka is firing doing harrasing fire with a pkm 1000 meters away.
>He gets spotted
>Gets painted by a laser
>carl gustav gunner see the taliban pkm gunner glowing head behind all those rocks with the thermal sight, press one button and he get range and elevation thanks to laser rangefinder.
>fire one round
>Smacks the pkm gunner on the forehead with 1 kilo of thermobaric fuck you explosive.

There, tactical situation solved and 100% kill chance 1000 meters away even when entrenched behind big fucking rocks. Saab and Raytheon is even devloping such a round IRL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_Multipurpose_Munition

>>63998727
>light weight carl gustav
or just buy 51 mm french mortars

>>63998679
PSA upper, 11.5 inch barrel, the ar15 perfected

>>63998759
I’ve concluded that super short barrels are a meme for anything not explicitly designed for short barreled efficiency,. An extra couple inches adds an invaluable amount of velocity. 16” minimum. So what would I do? I’d extend the barrel length to 16” and chamber it in the cartridge I described in my previous post, lol.

>holsterable mk18 guy
Alright so you know my name, but what do I call you? We bump into eachother like once a month. You’re not that 6.5BMG guy, are you?

>>63998727
isn't that the role of a DMR ? Never knew why people havn't tried a deferred sight on DMRs to snipe a loud machinegun pinning down a squad.

>>63998820
because you need to train your DMRs
the big army just wants to buy it's way out of it

>>63988517 (OP)

>gucci AR for gear queers
>proprietary everything

i mean you can dig into either of those points as much as you like, logistics, familiarity, trust, comfort, budget, maintenance and so on and on.

america only fights wars against ragheads and peasant farmers for the last 70 years. the only reason to procure a new rifle for its armed forces is to pad wallets

>>63998820
Yes, that is one valid way of dealing with harasing fire from machinegunners.

In the context of afghanistan it was usually multiple PK gunners from long range in well prepared positions with dhsks usually even further back. The moment they start taking accurate counter fire they either relocate to a new position or just leave the battlefield since they have done their job which is to pin coalition troops down and grab their attention away from other taliban fighters that are trying to manouver.

Unless you score a one round kill on them they are gona keep doing it again and again.

But with laser guided explosive or time fuzed explosive
>mohammed is blazing away with his PK
>he is doing a really good job pinning down the infidels from the US
>No accurate counter fire yet so im good
>dont hear any jets or helis
>no warning on the radio about coaltion vehicles moving about
>have not heard any 155mm shells landing yet
>...... gets delted by a time fuzed HE round fired from US squad

Infact the XM25 kinda did this and it was really good at it when it worked. Before that the Javelin was used to pop machine gun positions and it also was really good but very expensive per round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE
>First contact was on 3 December 2010. As of February 2011, the weapon had been fired 55 times in nine engagements by two units in different locations. It had disrupted two insurgent attacks on observation posts, destroyed two PKM machine gun positions, and destroyed four ambush sites. In one engagement, an enemy machine gunner was wounded by, or so frightened of, the XM25 that he dropped his weapon and ran away. The units with the XM25s had no casualties during the nine engagement

But no lets replace the 556 and turn every rifleman into a super marksman with a fancy computer scope.

>>63998890
>But with laser guided explosive or time fuzed explosive

Or a drone. Honnestly the more we think about the more the ridiculous niche that the M7 was supposed to fill could be filled so much more effectively by just a completely different approach

>>63988517 (OP)
Let's reinvent .270 Winchester Short Magnum, but worse! And we'll make it a proprietary round! And we'll make it +P++ unnecissarily! And we'll do absolutely nothing innovative! In fact, everything we do will be worse than an already existing option! In order to address problems that don't exist in a scenario that isn't going to happen with a weapon that isn't important in an age where battles are going to be won by artillery and drones.

Might be why everyone has a hate boner for it.

>>63998908
for real, why the fuck would I want to shoot at someone 500m away when I can just put a dozen different varieties of explosives on them instead

>>63998890
Where would we be now if we'd canceled exactly one, ONE, (1), a single, singular, sole F-35 airframe and instead devoted it to fully spinning up and adopting xm-25 procurement into mass issue?

>>63998086
Gov profile is heavy because "hey shithead" heavier barrels perform better from an precision and longevity standpoint. It's a 7.5 lb rifle. a heavier barrel is the only thing it has going for it.
>skeletonized receivers
another horrific, bad idea for any use case. you are dumb.

>>63988517 (OP)
1) not a fully closed system like the AR and thus jams in mud

2)a lp round for training and hp round for penetration thus complicating logistics, making the training pointless due to the difference in recoil, and making it a pain in the ass to use in general with the hp round

3)if concerns about cheap chink vests was really an issue then a 22" 5.56 would have solved the problem just as well

4) clear sigger graft due to adopting a frankly underperforming machine gun

5) the suppressor is a dumb ie when they should instead be investing in headsets for the troops to prevent both hearing loss from all sorts of sources and increase communication between elements of the squad

6) integrated suppressor doesn't even work right

>>63998890
>>63999167
Unfortunately the XM-25 is considered a war crime by... I think the Hague conventions? Because apparently, 25mm grenades are "explosive bullets". Somehow.
40mm Pike (picrel) could've given this kind of capability to everyone with a 40mm, with longer range too because the thing is actually guided. But they picked the absolute worst option to support this type of munition (M320, when a Steyr GL 40 would've given the same capability while weighing 3/4 of a pound less than a 203) and then didn't buy them anyways. Allegedly Canadian special forces has them though, which is kinda neat.

>>63999512
>XM-25 is considered a war crime by... I think the Hague conventions?
It's not considered a warcrime by any international agreement, that is just a meme.
The Hague conventions don't concern themselves with anything like it, afaik they only specified limitations on expanding bullets.

What we do have is the St. Petersburg declaration on exploding bullet but even that one doesn't matter.
This declaration was enacted by russia after they developed an explosive musket ball that triggered when hitting soft tissue. Which immediately made them want to ban those because they weren't better at killing people just more gruesome and painful, funny how times change.
The treaty banned all munitions with an explosive or incendiary filler below 400 grams. Iirc at that time it was the smallest size at which artillery shells could still feasible injure multiple targets. Something which does confer a objective advantage and thus isn't "needles suffering".
40x46mm HE grenades for example weigh around 230 grams and have ca. 32 grams of explosive filler, far below the treaty and using those isn't considered a warcrime.

There is of course also the fact that the US wasn't a major power at that time and didn't sign the St. Petersburg declaration either.

>>63999780
Forgot to mention but anything I can find suggest that the 25x40mm of the XM25 weigh around 260 gram so heavier than our 40mm nades.

>>63999780
>What we do have is the St. Petersburg declaration on exploding bullet but even that one doesn't matter.
That's what I was thinking of, yeah. I remember now, it was less that it's outright a war crime and more that prospective operators were afraid it'd get construed or otherwise declared as one if they ended up being fielded in large numbers. At least, that was my understanding. I agree that it's incredibly stupid.

>>64000180
That concern is also completely unreasonable, assuming that was really a hindrance, as I said 40mm grenades aren't an issue despite similar weight. The XM25 would have conferred a military advantage too which excludes it form the treaty and the US doesn't have to care anyway.

Real shame it got killed due to retardation.

https://soldiersystems.net/2025/07/18/sig-sauer-celebrates-major-milestone-100-million-round-annual-6-8mm-ammunition-capacity/
>SIG SAUER, a leading U.S. defense manufacturer and proud ammunition partner to the U.S. military, achieved the milestone of 100 million 6.8mm round annual capacity at its state-of-the-art facilities in Jacksonville, Arkansas. SIG SAUER is invested in continual increases to overall capacity, paving the way to double output over the next few years. This achievement solidifies SIG SAUER’s pivotal role in supporting the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) Program, delivering transformational 6.8mm ammunition to equip America’s warfighters with unmatched velocity and lethality.

Whatever issues you might have with the M7 rifle, 6.8 is here to stay.

>>64000252
Despite the reputation of the Marines, I'm convinced the Army are true retards. At least the Marines figured out you can feed your men on crayons. The army just spends billions of dollars on a multi year evaluation to decide if crayons should replace MREs, concludes a decade later that the result in inconclusive, and then quietly cancels the program, only to restart it from scratch 5 years later.

>>64000252
>Real shame it got killed due to retardation.

Don't remember well, but wasn't it killed because the 25mm was not enough playload (among other things)?
They ran a new program later and Barret was recently selected.

https://soldiersystems.net/2025/06/09/barrett-and-mars-inc-team-win-u-s-army-xtech-soldier-lethality-competition-with-revolutionary-30mm-precision-grenadier-system/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdrKjlDAGKk

>>64000952
The XM25 got killed because HK was afraid of German laywers.

>>64000952
It was killed because of how long it was taking and some HK fuckery over the St. Petersburg declaration. The people say that 25mm wasn't enough are transplanting one of the failures of the OICWs 20mm onto the XM25. Also I don't think that Barrett won an actual procurement program just some tech demo program.

>>64001036
>over the St. Petersburg declaration.
why would that even be an issue if the US never signed it?

>>64000952
Neato.
Will be cool when we get more details. I wonder how the SRSS and the SSW40 will stack up against each other with the different calibers and mag sizes.

>>64001086
Because HK is/was a German company.

>>63998816
dang that's a good question. Unlike you idk if i have a genius weapon concept in my head and i definitely don't have your above average knowledge on the science and technologies behind weapons. My contribution to the scifi weapons thread was high capacity stuff -- quattro mag rifles, side and top P90 mag concept guns (i remember making a terrible Paint sketch lol), 1000 rpm, 400 round capacity assault machine gun style concept (like a Helldivers Stalwart irl). Something about the idea really appeals to me. Call me the Volume of Fire Guy (tm)(c)(r).

>>64001383
>sci-fi weapons thread

Was this thread Entitled “future rifles” or something like that?

>>63989923
fuck of glownigger

>>63998384
>Says the faggot watching WWSD but couldn't be arsed to read the wiki page on 5.56.
Jesus I'm getting wikipedia quoted at me. Guess I'd better regress to grade school. Also I'm not the WWSD poster. Peace out faggot. I'm going on a vacation.

>>64001476
Why are you so mad that Nate's recon platoon caught that guy fucking a sheep in 4k on thermals? Is he your uncle or something?

>>64001629
The sheep might be

>>64000911
>Trusting Sigslop ammo
I’d rather run Winchester white box than that shit lmao.

>>64001777
Checked trips.
Sig's ammo is hot garbage. On the plus side, reloaders now have access to piles of hybrid cases from ammo that that failed QC checks and got pulled down. There's also tons of 6.8mm FMJ if you have some use for that. I know some guys are resizing the cases to make pissin' hot .308 loads.
https://americanreloading.com/products/277-fury-6-8x51mm-sig-primed-hybrid-case-100ct

>>64001588
>>63998384
Wait, what the fuck, I just checked the Wikipedia article so I could go back later and add references for the non-velocity related M855 yaw problems and they're already fucking there immediately below the shit you screenshotted.

Are you just trolling? Fuck it, I'm out anyway. Enjoy your NGSW threads.

>>63988517 (OP)
Program was sabotaged by institutionalized retardation. They've been fucking around with the magic bullet to replace all bullets instead of just sucking it up and realizing they need to maximize the abilities of two optimized calibers. You simply cannot do it all with one caliber nor should you.

>>64001452
it was multiple threads because it got popular. IIRC it was something like scifi weapons thread but i deleted my search history (i think?) so i cant find it

>>64001648
wakeng up

It's a trench rifle.
Battle rifle for front line troops who don't do much shooting, don't do combat patrol, but need the capacity to assault enemy trenches and take out armoured enemies. As far as battle rifles go, it's not great, but it's a good fit for the users.

Personally I think it's overkill, too expensive, but hey uncle Sam is paying

>>63990569
why shouldnt our soldiers carry double barrel automatic-only ar-15s with nerve gas bullets

>>64003000
Dual barrel squeeze bore hyperburst rifles feeding duplex neurotoxin coated explosive flechettes from quadstacks are the future.

>>64003000
Checked and dangerously based opinion. Because they will complain if you tell them to carry anything heavier than a 2.8kg handbag, and then whinge about it on social media until their lobotomised senator starts causing problems about it in some committee.

There should just be different rifles for different environments, this is obviously the conclusion so long as everyone insists that bullpups are so stupid and impractical and shouldn't ever be attempted but using a 12" inch barrel with .223 as a one-size-fits-all-rifle is actually fine.

>>63994266
>Any day now, really
Yeah, that day was in the late nineties. The bullpup has been solved, the only things holding it back are cost cutting measures and baby duck syndrome

>>63994266
I can tell I am amongst a rare group on /k/ for actually having fired and handled both an AR and a bullpup before because you guys say such silly things

>>64001476
>hasnt seen generation kill

POH LEESE THAT MOO STASH

>>64001476
>fuck of

brown. you are brown.

>>63993601
>picatinny-attached folding stock

nigga WHAT

>>64004105
it's solved and yet people keep dropping them for standard rifles. Because they are bad.
>>64004162
You just have shit taste, and are terminally contrarian, it's ok

mfw i read this board

>>63988797
Bullpups are what I don't get the hate for

>>64004162
Nope, and I'll take an AR any day.

>>63994266
>barrel harmonics and trigger
Oh yeah major militaries really give a shit about this, I forgot.

I don't even care if you like or dislike bullpups, but I get tired of this same conversation where it's
>I want a rifle that can shoot out and be lethal to at least 400m
>but it needs to be compact enough to also do CQB operator shit
>and it can't be too heavy, so no full-size cartridges or battle rifles
Your option for those conditions is a bullpup. But you and every other retard (most of whom haven't shot bullpups) are always complaining about how they suck and shouldn't ever even be attempted as if most militaries have even ever given a bullpup a real, honest try. And no, the multiple meme gun competitions that the DoD only sets up in order to justify their salaries when they have no intention of switching away from the AR-15 don't count.

Either that, or militaries need to stop trying to make universal rifles for 99% of the infantry to use and start just preparing for weapon diversification depending on the operation being proposed.

>>64005416
>Your option for those conditions is a bullpup
An M4 will do better thanks to the bullpups terrible ergonomics and useless shape making it unable to be braced for support, along with the subpar accuracy.

>>64005435
>I want a rifle that can shoot out and *be lethal* to at least X amount of meters

Also have any of you people ever heard of a clamp grip? Works great on ARs, too!

>>64005440
"Nah I'd survive that"

>>64005449
Barrel length on that test? Are you stupid or just disingenous?

>>63994238
>I think
They did, no doubt. I don't have the "sources" but I did watch a bunch of videos about the P320 being a POS and some high brass just telling lower ranks to stfu.

>>64005453
>still pretending barrel length matters
oh yeah the 100 fps is totally gonna make a difference lmao

>>64005457
Why are you even in this thread. Your IQ is low, no wonder you have a visceral disgust of the future.

>>64005459
You're.
>future
More like the past. Bullpups peaked decades ago and now everyone is getting rid of the trash things.
>why
Why are you in this thread? Did your illiterate retard ass think this was a bullpup thread? How stupid are you? I know being fucking retarded is a requirement to liking terrible guns like bullpups, but that's extra bad.

>it doesn't do anything better than existing options
>but it's expensive, so it must be good, or something

>>64001876
>You simply cannot do it all with one caliber nor should you.
You can, though. It's entirely possible to make a cartridge with similar weight to 5.56 and similar downrange energy to 7.62. Something like an 80 ksi peak alloy 6mm-.224 Valkyrie, or possibly a cased telescopic equivalent.

>>64005474
Don't you have monkey Putin pictures to post or some shit? Go be a retarded fudd somewhere else.

>>64005522
Curious how you'll do anything but address what I actually said.

>>64005535
Waiting on you to start first.

>>64005540
Start what? All I've done is address what you say.

>>64005474
>You're IQ is low

>>64005779
>took over an hour to take the bait
thank you I didn't think it was going to happen

>>64005522
>The US/Ukraine is gonna defeat Russia in a conventional war with shitty bullpups and glitchy optics all made from questionable out of spec parts sourced from India and poorly assembled by cheap Spic labor which is a far cry from their original Swiss origins
Delusional, no Samir WW3 is gonna be won with Bradley's, Virginia class submarines, F35's, B2 stealth bombers, and of course the time tested and proven M4 carbine. Heck never mind US soldiers ditching their shitty XM7's and P320's whenever they have a chance to their old armory Beretta's and Glocks soldiers in the nation of India ditch their shitty INSAS for Israeli guns whenever possible which is all you need to know about the confidence and craftsmanship that firearms and firearms parts inspires.

Everything made by Nu-Sig is glorified gunsoomer vaporware or outright dangerous to those carrying Sig firearms.

>>64000911
Wow, that's a very deep hole for the army to climb out of

>>64004547
It's because the clients have bad taste. You're talking about armies that would buy shit like the Sig M7 here.

>>64001588
Because you don't know basic fucking facts apparently. Your entire argument falls apart when you Google it. Keep running nigger faggot and take your dated shitrod with you.

>>64001863
Don't care, didn't say.

>>63993905
GWOT had us all kicking doors and room clearing with m16a4s retard. The only people who got m4a1s were weapons platoons.
And this was 05-09 when door kicking was actually happening. You "short change" the rifle over your shoulder if you need the room. Everyone did this and no one complained.

>>64006179
Yes they complained, that's why M4s became standard. because the second anyone learned there was a better way, they wanted it.

>>64004547
>ContrAryanism le bad because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?!?!?!?!
The universal fact of things is that contrarians are often times just right in their criticism which either leads to a product being fixed or declared waste and sent to the scrapyard to be converted into something that isn't junk.

>>64006239
much like bullpups which are being drawn from service and destroyed as junk

>>64006279
Not entirely. The Croats still got theirs and I believe the Kikes do still use Tavors. The SA80, FAMAS, AUG, etc. are unreliable and poorly built - the magazine being in the stock is the least of their problems.

>>64005886
You are so fucking angry over the idea of change that it's funny to me.

>>64004547
>it's solved and yet people keep dropping them for standard rifles
How is it the fault of bullpup makers that most western militaries have been focusing on training legions of hostile browns to shoot white citizens, and that those browns are unable to reload a weapon unless the magazine is directly in front of them because they lack object permanence?

>>64006487
the majority of bullpup users are swarthoids though.

>>64006531
I know you're friends with the troon moderators on this shithole site because you attempt the same tactics they do.

>>64006533
It's ok, I'd be mad if I was wrong all the time too. Get used to it, you're stupid so it'll keep happening.

>>64006540
Sorry, all the whites went to Twitter where we got Trump elected.

>>64006543
That would explain why you're here.

>>64006549
Shouldn't you be crying to your friends at the university right about now about how someone is ruining your wholesome chungus /k/?

>>64006553
No, I come here to yell at stupid people, why would you upset me? You're fulfilling your purpose.

>>64006564
But this isn't a mirror.

>>64006567
of course, I'm not jacking off.

>>64006531
Bullpup users:
>UK
>Slovenia
>Croatia
>Australia
>Austria
>New Zealand
>France

Standard rifle users:
>USA
>Russia
>China
>Mexico
>Nigeria
>India
>Bangladesh
>Brazil

>>64006355
>AUG is poorly built
Holy delusion, MuttMan. You can at least cope about early models of the SA80 and FAMAS, but this is getting concerning

>>64007255
>france
uh oh retard, you're late, move that one to standard rifle
>New Zealand
uh oh retard, you're late, move that one to standard rifle

Now what are you left with? One country that has an actual military, uses standard rifle. Zero countries with an actual military use bullpups.

>every study ever says that volume of fire is most important thing in a gunfight
>army decides to replace rifle that offers greater volume of fire for one that doesn't
>this is retarded
saved a thread for you
herbed

>>64007511
You count volume by energy delivered, not by a number of shells.

>>64007511
volume of fire of M4 at 500 meters is zero.

>>64007595
So maneuver closer. Why sit on your ass and plink at an enemy 500 meters away? Remember, if it's just one or two guys, you've got M110s that are actually accurate enough to hit them at that range. What you're talking about is engaging an enemy unit from many hundreds of meters with small arms, rather than maneuvering to a more advantageous position or calling in a fire mission.

>>64007971
The whole reason the army is even looking at another rifle is because they don't think every single engagement with the enemy should end with a bombing run. Why even have the infantry at that point?