Barrett recently proposed the M468 to rival H&K's bid to replace the M16. So, what do you think?
Here are a couple articles to get you started:
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... 8,,00.html
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 ... 8,,00.html
Barrett M468 vs. H&K XM8
-
CloakAndDagger
- US Army Veteran
- Posts: 377
- Joined: July 19th, 2004, 8:37 pm
-
Creeping Death
- Ranger
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: April 14th, 2003, 10:11 am
I witnessed a demo of the XM8 at the Knob Creek machine gun shoot in KY back in the spring, and was able to handle the weapon briefly. Overall, I didn't like it. Don't get me wrong, there were a couple of things about it I like, but their demo didn't prove most of their claims, IMO. Many of the things that I like about it had to do with its perceived capacity for greater control of fires. However, one must remember that the shooter is a pro who is trained to fire on full auto, and shoots daily for a living. The average soldier is not trained on how to do that. And for that matter, if they were, they could likely control the M-4 in a similar fashion.
In addition, saying that it can take any level of punishment and still be dependable, after simply placing it on the ground and kicking dirt over it, isn't gonna cut it. Give the fucker to a company of Rangers and let 'em put it through its paces, then we'll see. I just don't see the XM8 holding up over the long haul. Plus, the H&K rep there actually made the statement that he personally hopes that the government does not get their hands on it, because they would want to make changes to it, and that he hoped the rifle would stay in the private sector - which kind of suprised me, coming from the mouth of a rep.
I'm a fan of the AR platform. It has been refined to the point of near perfection for a battle rifle, IMO. I'd just like it to have a little more ass behind the round, hence I would definitely support the 6.8mm from Barrett.
In addition, saying that it can take any level of punishment and still be dependable, after simply placing it on the ground and kicking dirt over it, isn't gonna cut it. Give the fucker to a company of Rangers and let 'em put it through its paces, then we'll see. I just don't see the XM8 holding up over the long haul. Plus, the H&K rep there actually made the statement that he personally hopes that the government does not get their hands on it, because they would want to make changes to it, and that he hoped the rifle would stay in the private sector - which kind of suprised me, coming from the mouth of a rep.
I'm a fan of the AR platform. It has been refined to the point of near perfection for a battle rifle, IMO. I'd just like it to have a little more ass behind the round, hence I would definitely support the 6.8mm from Barrett.
A Co 1/75 '94-'97
Class 5-96
Class 5-96
-
Parabellum
- Ranger
- Posts: 3878
- Joined: February 25th, 2004, 5:32 pm
-
1st Ranger
Replace the M4/M16?
The M-4 has a lot going for it. It’s a lightweight, ergonomic weapon suited for almost any situation. The basic design should not be left behind, but there are some improvements that could be, and should be, undertaken. The #1 improvement is to that of the gas system. Why we have stayed with the current gas system I'll never know. I often say that the M16/4 shits where it eats because dirty, fouled gases are dumped right back into the upper receiver. A gas rod system instead of the gas tube system would solve so many operational problems that the m16 series suffers. The G36 is a great example of a design principle that uses this to great benefit, even if the rest of the rifle suffers from its own problems not related to its gas system.
5.56x45 vs 6.8x43 vs 7.62x51:
I’m on the fence about the debate between 5.56 and 6.8. The 5.56 is a capable round in a most situations, such as CQB, but when longer shots are needed (such as can be the case in places like the Ghan and Iraq), the 5.56 falls short. And I am not too sure that the 6.8 would fare any better in this situation, but then again, how often are longer shots required where an M240 or 249 can't do the job. As far as going back to the 7.62 NATO round? Nah, too powerful and heavy for almost 90% of the soldiers out there who would use it (women, REMFs, almost anybody that isn't a Ranger-and even some Rangers). I would never want to clear a building using anything that fired the 7.62 NATO round. Over penetration is too big a problem now, just imagine how much more of a problem it would be with the larger round (7.62).
Designated Marksman:
I absolutely agree that marksmen are needed who are armed with 7.62 NATO weapons. In my opinion, however, that marksman should be placed at the Platoon level, not at the squad or team level. The primary mission of the Ranger squad is to me highly mobile, able to rapidly respond to and acquire targets rapidly. And since marksmen are often armed with a scoped rifle, this would only slow down those soldiers equipped with one. A Ranger squad also needs all of its riflemen to be lightly equipped (he he, the irony hasn't escaped me) who are not bogged down by more heavy weapons. The most effective place for a marksman is the SBF, where they can take advantage of being in a stationary position with clear fields of observation (when possible) and clear fields of fire. There aren’t too many immediate targets that can’t be suppressed by the combined fires from a Ranger squad, and those things that can't, are often the territory of the SBF anyway. What dos this mean for the snipers already in use? They’ll have to adapt or find new roles to play I guess. When I saw footage of 82nd Airborne legs deploying with Platoon based M14 marksman (I am assuming they were PLT based) to Iraq, I was astonished that they have figured this out and put it to use.
Well, that's my opinion, but you knw what they say about those.
The M-4 has a lot going for it. It’s a lightweight, ergonomic weapon suited for almost any situation. The basic design should not be left behind, but there are some improvements that could be, and should be, undertaken. The #1 improvement is to that of the gas system. Why we have stayed with the current gas system I'll never know. I often say that the M16/4 shits where it eats because dirty, fouled gases are dumped right back into the upper receiver. A gas rod system instead of the gas tube system would solve so many operational problems that the m16 series suffers. The G36 is a great example of a design principle that uses this to great benefit, even if the rest of the rifle suffers from its own problems not related to its gas system.
5.56x45 vs 6.8x43 vs 7.62x51:
I’m on the fence about the debate between 5.56 and 6.8. The 5.56 is a capable round in a most situations, such as CQB, but when longer shots are needed (such as can be the case in places like the Ghan and Iraq), the 5.56 falls short. And I am not too sure that the 6.8 would fare any better in this situation, but then again, how often are longer shots required where an M240 or 249 can't do the job. As far as going back to the 7.62 NATO round? Nah, too powerful and heavy for almost 90% of the soldiers out there who would use it (women, REMFs, almost anybody that isn't a Ranger-and even some Rangers). I would never want to clear a building using anything that fired the 7.62 NATO round. Over penetration is too big a problem now, just imagine how much more of a problem it would be with the larger round (7.62).
Designated Marksman:
I absolutely agree that marksmen are needed who are armed with 7.62 NATO weapons. In my opinion, however, that marksman should be placed at the Platoon level, not at the squad or team level. The primary mission of the Ranger squad is to me highly mobile, able to rapidly respond to and acquire targets rapidly. And since marksmen are often armed with a scoped rifle, this would only slow down those soldiers equipped with one. A Ranger squad also needs all of its riflemen to be lightly equipped (he he, the irony hasn't escaped me) who are not bogged down by more heavy weapons. The most effective place for a marksman is the SBF, where they can take advantage of being in a stationary position with clear fields of observation (when possible) and clear fields of fire. There aren’t too many immediate targets that can’t be suppressed by the combined fires from a Ranger squad, and those things that can't, are often the territory of the SBF anyway. What dos this mean for the snipers already in use? They’ll have to adapt or find new roles to play I guess. When I saw footage of 82nd Airborne legs deploying with Platoon based M14 marksman (I am assuming they were PLT based) to Iraq, I was astonished that they have figured this out and put it to use.
Well, that's my opinion, but you knw what they say about those.
-
Horned Toad
- Ranger
- Posts: 3840
- Joined: November 26th, 2003, 1:27 am
Well I like the AR, and if we are going to start using foreign designed rifles why cant they make a modern version of the STG 43 in say a 6.5 short.
Like this one http://www.65grendel.com/
Just from quick looking I would take the 6.5 top on a AR over the 6.8
Like this one http://www.65grendel.com/
Just from quick looking I would take the 6.5 top on a AR over the 6.8
75th RGR RGT 91-94
RS 03-92
RS 03-92