(05-13-2025, 10:28 PM)727Sky Wrote: When the rifle first came out there were glowing propaganda reports about what a fine weapon it was... This latest report reminds me of the M-16 issued to the troops in Vietnam which at first was also a POS that got our troops killed. It is a heavy weapon which means it is slow on target and the suppressor after a few 100 rounds washes out your night vision goggles due to heat glow.
While I believe most of the criticisms presented are deadly accurate, with the emphasis on deadly - as in it'll get a lot of troops needlessly killed - I think Cappy made a slight error on his accuracy calculations. 4 MOA is not "accuracy" at all. It's what we used to call "slop shots".
If the Army is only requiring 4 MOA in it's weapons now, it needs to correspondingly increase the body bag orders.
1 MOA is about an inch at 100 yards. That's an angular measurement from the point of aim, not accounting for the direction the shot flies. so a 1 MOA rifle should drop around 90-95% of it's shots into a two inch circle - 1 inch radius from the point of aim in any direction. Therefore, a 4 MOA rifle would drop it's shots into an EIGHT inch circle (4" radius from point of aim in all directions), not a 4 inch circle as Cappy said. I'm sure that was just an oversight on his part.
A 4 MOA accuracy will have a 48 inch circle of hit probability at 600 yards (24 inch radius - 4 MOA X 600 yards). That translates into a lot of misses on a man-sized target, typically about 18-24 inches wide. 600 meters is about 660 yards, so that circle will increase correspondingly for 600 meters, to about 53 inches.
The increase in caliber necessitates a decrease in ammo carrying capacity, because bigger ammo weighs more. The doctrinal standard combat load for 5.56 was 210 rounds - 7 30 round magazines full. I usually carried 340 rounds (10 30 round magazines + 1 40 round magazine), which was a lot of damned ammo weight, but less likelihood of running out of ammo in an extended firefight. Long range patrols usually carried from 400 to 600 rounds, because you were farther out from help, and out there longer. a 140 round combat load wouldn't even get you outside the perimeter, which - along with the weight of the rifle itself - was one of the main gripes against the M-14.
Speaking of rifle weight, there is only so much that one man can carry. a 13 1/2 pound rifle means that you can carry a lot less ammo for it. Just sayin'... That's roughly 5 or 6 pounds less ammo you can carry over a reasonably weighted rifle. and 13 1/2 pounds is WAY too damned much weight for a rifle with a stubby little tiny 13 inch barrel. With a barrel that short, no wonder the can on the end is getting so overheated - practically the whole damned fireball is being used to heat the suppressor rather than throw the bullet! There is no logical physics explanation for why a cartridge that big would be matched to a barrel that short.
Might as well just issue the troops fire hoses and call them "water cannons" to knock the enemy on their ass with.
Then there is the physics of that 2 piece casing. what a waste! Common sense of the physics variety dictates that with a two piece casing, there is more to go wrong, and there has to be an inherent weak spot at the case joint. Not something someone sensible would care to bet their life on, I would think.
They can issue all the elephant guns they like. My money will stay with a AR in 5.56 or an AK in 5.45, both of which have sub 2 MOA accuracies. They're not sniper rifles by any means, but close enough for government work when lives depend on hits. Also, I don't care to have American soldiers betting their lives on foreign weapons, like Sigs or FN's. Those are very fine rifles for mercenary contracts, but American soldiers ought by rights to be carrying weapons made by American companies. How is America supposed to get great again by thowing all it's money overseas on foreign weapons? Buy American!
But that's just my thinking. Apparently other folks' mileage will vary.