http://www.foxbusiness.com/inv...ext&intcmp=obnetwork

It all sounds good. But if they actually think they're going to get a guaranteed gun that shoots under MOA, (5" groups at 600 yards guaranteed), they're going to be paying a hell of a lot more than $642.00 a gun. They better give Les Baer a call........ And get out their checkbooks.

moa aint hard.., right? anyone can build a moa gas gun for 1100 bucks .. and that's paying more or less retail

the article is poorly written

the writer focuses on "optics" - which aren't a spec in the $642 gun.

look, anyone can build a $642 m4 when ordering 1/2 a million of them...

1 moa, with optional sniper trigger, isn't all guns, its select proof guns...

but an article was written awhile ago on putting a great scope and rest, with lake city ammo, is MOA..

and if you allow for one maker to maker a tighter fit on upper/lower and a "gooder" trigger ...

Better bullets come to mind also. than standard mil spec ones

Pretty certain from experience, that one could swap out a few parts from a stock M4 A1 ( medium bbl profile) and have a MOA gun. Start with adding a free float handguard, add a decent trigger, use carry handle sights and be done with it. Of course, toss the M855/855A1 ball and use a 75/77 BTHP.

Does the average trooper really need a sub minute rifle.

Very few of them have the skills to make use of it.

Most of those here praise the Grand and M14 in their standard issued state they are far from 1MOA guns.

I think the question here should be, how long will the average military carbine STAY MOA while being subjected to the rigors of hard military use? Not how difficult or costly it is, or might be to manufacture it. That's immaterial.

Anyone on this forum could give their most accurate weapon to a serviceman, and how accurate would it remain after being knocked about in a Humvee for a few months? The military is hard on most everything in it's inventory. The ability to stand up to that type of environment is far more of an issue, than how good the rifle can shoot on a test range at the factory, before they box it up and ship it out.

And let's at least be real here. Sierra Matchking's are never going to make it on to the battlefield.

Mark 262 Mod 0 & 1 are 556x45 loaded with 77 grn SMKs @ ~2850 from 14 inch carbines. Just saying- SF and other SF capable units are so equipped-with some stock M4A1s and other boutique weapons.

M855A1 (~69 grain monometal gilding body with tungsten or steel insert) are capable of cleaning the MR (12 inch 10 ring at 600 yards) target as evidenced last year by the USAMU at Camp Perry.

Now, just add a good trigger ( Geissle SSA and a floated handguard-any brand would do)

AFA who needs a MOA rifle in combat? Are you seriously asking that? Everybody- hec, if possible, heat seeking projos guaranteed to hit would be my choice if available.

Waste of money without a change of caliber

Moe;
Caliber change is unlikely in the near to mid future-logistics etc.

Also, I doubt the comparison of shootabilty/potability to lethality is in favor of larger calibers.


The 556 does fine within the window it is designed for (0-400m)- the longer reaching rifles fill in the void out to 1000m+, then indirect/aerial delivery step in.

As a guy who has relied on such gear, I agree that there is a margin of capability that needs to be addressed-and am glad the folks at small arms dev have worked on the ammo aspect- now we just need to focus on the rifle- the M16A4 is the standard issue- but the carbine ( with its much reduced performance envelope) rules in most dismounted fighter roles-which is stupid to me. A 20 inch bbl retains ball frag ranges to 200+m while the 14.5 in barely accomplishes that to 90m. Yes, ball ammo is most effective when it yaws and breaks up-hmm.

M855A1 is a hybrid round that is built like a common softpoint-excepting the core is steel/tungsten and the body is akin to a barnes monometal-it is quite volatile at velocities well down into the 1500 fps range ( 500m)from an m16A4, and 250-300m from a carbine

Anyway,

quote:

Originally posted by billt:
I think the question here should be, how long will the average military carbine STAY MOA while being subjected to the rigors of hard military use? Not how difficult or costly it is, or might be to manufacture it. That's immaterial.

Anyone on this forum could give their most accurate weapon to a serviceman, and how accurate would it remain after being knocked about in a Humvee for a few months? The military is hard on most everything in it's inventory. The ability to stand up to that type of environment is far more of an issue, than how good the rifle can shoot on a test range at the factory, before they box it up and ship it out.

And let's at least be real here. Sierra Matchking's are never going to make it on to the battlefield.

It's not a damn M14, you aren't going to tweak the bedding driving around. So long as the scope holds up and the barrel isn't burned out an M4 will shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by HPMaster:
Moe;
Caliber change is unlikely in the near to mid future-logistics etc.

Also, I doubt the comparison of shootabilty/potability to lethality is in favor of larger calibers.

Any switch to a larger caliber represents a huge decrease in firepower as the ammunition load decreases.

quote:

As a guy who has relied on such gear, I agree that there is a margin of capability that needs to be addressed-and am glad the folks at small arms dev have worked on the ammo aspect- now we just need to focus on the rifle- the M16A4 is the standard issue- but the carbine ( with its much reduced performance envelope) rules in most dismounted fighter roles-which is stupid to me. A 20 inch bbl retains ball frag ranges to 200+m while the 14.5 in barely accomplishes that to 90m. Yes, ball ammo is most effective when it yaws and breaks up-hmm.

The Army only trains to shoot to 300m, with few exceptions, so rifles designed to shoot to twice that are mostly a waste. I'd argue to increase the training program for combat arms MOS's and units to 500m. A 20" rifle is a bear in vehicles and homes, particularly with the new body armor. We ought to be using 16" barrels more though.

quote:

M855A1 is a hybrid round that is built like a common softpoint-excepting the core is steel/tungsten and the body is akin to a barnes monometal-it is quite volatile at velocities well down into the 1500 fps range ( 500m)from an m16A4, and 250-300m from a carbine

Anyway,

They are reducing pressure because as it sits it destroys guns... but the M855A1 projectile is great. I talked to some people who shot some people with it and they are huge fans of it. As a general rule in my conversations and admittedly with notable exceptions the more people someone has shot with 5.56mm the stronger their preference is for that round.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
So long as the scope holds up and the barrel isn't burned out an M4 will shoot.

Yeah, it'll "shoot". But it's not going to continue to shoot MOA, or anywhere near it after being knocked around. No gun will. So what's the point of even having a gun that will, if it's only going to last a couple of days, if that? And a M-14 can take far more abuse than a M-4 can.

Ryan;

I agree- the 566 is rather effective within its design envelope. I had not heard that 855A1 is too hot-if you have a source I would love to check it out. I retired before it was fielded but 262/SOSR was available.

AFA 20 inc bbl being too long, it wasn't for 35 years or thereabouts-my "ideal" is a hybrid- a collapsible buttstock and a 20 in medium wt bbl ( w/ FF HG and G SSA trigger)- so it is about 6 inches longer than an M4- and about 1 lb or so heavier.

quote:

Originally posted by billt:

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
So long as the scope holds up and the barrel isn't burned out an M4 will shoot.

Yeah, it'll "shoot". But it's not going to continue to shoot MOA, or anywhere near it after being knocked around. No gun will. So what's the point of even having a gun that will, if it's only going to last a couple of days, if that? And a M-14 can take far more abuse than a M-4 can.

So what bedding do you think is going to break on an M4? The M4 with RCO is one of the toughest rifles ever fielded. If you don't blow it up or crush it, it will remain accurate until you burn the barrel out. And to accurize it all it needs is a scope, barrel, handguard and trigger.

The M14 comes in two forms. Kind of accurate with extremely fragile bedding, or kind of accurate with a chassis at a weight comparable to that of a belt fed machinegun.

For what it's worth, the most accurate autoloading rifles ever fielded by the US military are the Mk12 and M27. They are half minute guns with AA53.

quote:

Originally posted by HPMaster:
Ryan;

I agree- the 566 is rather effective within its design envelope. I had not heard that 855A1 is too hot-if you have a source I would love to check it out. I retired before it was fielded but 262/SOSR was available.[quote]

http://www.americanrifleman.or...dard-ball-cartridge/

http://www.gunsandammo.com/unc...oldiers-and-marines/

Both article are consistent with what is being reported by armorers and end users that I know. Last powerpoint I saw indicated that chamber pressure was being reduced.

[quote]AFA 20 inc bbl being too long, it wasn't for 35 years or thereabouts-my "ideal" is a hybrid- a collapsible buttstock and a 20 in medium wt bbl ( w/ FF HG and G SSA trigger)- so it is about 6 inches longer than an M4- and about 1 lb or so heavier.

The Canadians did that and I think still do. Frankly I'd just use a 16" barrel. The last four inches only get you 120fps.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
So what bedding do you think is going to break on an M4?

The gun itself is a weaker piece of equipment, period. When the U.S. Military adopted the M-16, they had to get rid of a test all military rifles had to perform up to that point.

The rifle was required to be able to boost a soldier wearing full equipment, over a wall when he used it for a step by standing on it at the action, with a man at the muzzle and the butt. When that was tried with the M-16, the rifle simply broke in half. Never mind "bedding".

The weight of the average soldier and his gear has doubled since the M14 had its aborted run As a service arm and yet the M4 is the most successful service weapon in the history of the capitalist world.

quote:

Originally posted by billt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RyanB:
* * * When the U.S. Military adopted the M-16, they had to get rid of a test all military rifles had to perform up to that point.

The rifle was required to be able to boost a soldier wearing full equipment, over a wall when he used it for a step by standing on it at the action, with a man at the muzzle and the butt. When that was tried with the M-16, the rifle simply broke in half.

Won't happen now.

There's a new "rule" in the armed services that Hillary, or Obummer, imposed ...

Ghey guys dont's lift other ghey guys, so no M16s/M4s get broken, although it's a proven fact that some configurations of the weapon do get heavier because all manner of ghey sh*t gets hung on them ...

...because, well, it's tacticool and all that.