Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by HiTechRedneck, Nov 20, 2008.
Well, it hasn't kept metal out of the ocean either. It's all trash, and brass is considered a pollutant by most standards. Most brass cases are 30% zinc, which is bad.
The difference is that with a highly biodegradable compound, missed rounds can be left. With brass, 99% must come home. Ever policed 99% of your brass after a 20k round day on a range with a firing line over a quarter of a mile long? But it doesn't stop there. Brass required its own recycling/salvage program. That alone is massive hours and even requires dedicated employees. Plastic cases can integrate into programs that already exist. They Army, for instance, actually sells its recyclables. However, brass was mostly sold for use in its existing form. Big difference in programs.
Nevertheless, the big savings comes in weight and heat. True Velocity's 6.8 is a larger, more lethal round than 5.56, and it weighs less. So not only do we get a better round, we can carry more of it and still weigh less. Plus, the poly casing is a better insulator than brass, meaning weapons stay cooler. That is particularly important on the squad automatic weapon.
M&P shield in 40 s&w. A great carry gun!
I don't think the guberment really cares if it is reloadable.
Really and I hate to be on the down side of this.....I really doubt it.....and think about it.
How much is the cost.....they just changed side arms.....that is pretty expensive, and while I do think the beretta had its issues, how much is it going to cost to make that change.....guns, mags, parts, training....now you want to change rifles.....really, and just try to find someone that says the AR is an old outdated platform that has out lived its usefulness.....but be careful defend that AR too strongly and you don't get your new rifle. If the costs on a hand gun make your eyes water imagine the standard rifle......sorry I just don't see it. We have been shown time and time again that the AR is an I can do everything rifle....why not just plop new parts on it and get your new cartridge....that has to give you a cost savings over everything new.
I just don't see the new kid on the block bringing enough to the table to kick the 50 year old man to the old folks home.....take the new cartridge out of it and what does the new rifle do that the old dog flat COULD NOT DO.
And I am pretty far from an AR fanboi....so there is really no bias there.....just looking at it from dollars and sense (yes I intended to do that)
But you're missing a key point in here. Yes, we're trying to buy new rifles. But we're always buying new rifles. So at some point, you have to stop spending money on buying old technology. We've been getting outgunned with the 5.56 for decades. It isn't a round for modern warfare. Sure, it'll kill people, but those people are coming to the fight better armed and better protected these days. So it isn't as adept on the modern battlefield as it was the battlefield of years ago.
Twice now we've done a study showing that re-chambering the current fleet of M4's would be cost prohibitive. You're better off spending on new weapons. We were already going down this road with the XM8 project 15 years ago, and DC killed it. So this isn't just a good idea fairy. This has been a 20+ year push.
And the money is there. I don't want to get too much into CSM, but our budget from a certain administration came with strings attached. Those strings were immense scrutiny on spending. Discretionary funds, unit budgets, and even travel funds are being controlled tighter than I have ever seen in my career. I couldn't launch a guy TDY at my last unit without a GO approval for funds. All funds were held at the GO level, and only distributed down on a case-by-case basis. About the only thing I got money for was maintenance, and even that didn't make the cut sometimes. The reason this is being done is that our budget came with the stipulation that we modernize the force. Better beans, better bullets, better boomsticks, better everything. Less spending on anything that didn't contribute to that. It has been a complete culture shift in the Navy and Army. The Air Force still hasn't figured out how to play, but they're coming around to frugality.
I completely agree. We are talking war fighting here. This isn't about the environment, or any other factor (beyond reliability and accuracy), beyond the weight of the components on our fighters. Most of them, even if they don't do a full 20-years, have knees and ankles that are worn out (by middle-age) from the loads they carried. More ammo, or less weight, either can make a more effective pipe-hitter.
Anybody want to see a picture of a Glock Polymer80? LOL
I understand that the new cartridge they're touting will be a 3500fps round pushing a heavier bullet. I would think the rifle will have to be pretty heavy to protect the soldier from some serious recoil.
As far as the lower weight of the round itself, I doubt the soldier will see any weight benefit, they'll just increase the number of rounds he or she will carry to the same previous battle load weight. More rounds, which of course is a plus, but probably same weight.
I get where you are coming from, and I know the money is more....controlled I guess I will say, but at least you have money now.....Living next door to Whitman I can tell a difference in the sounds I hear above my back yard......several years ago all you could hear is crickets.
I thought they did a bunch of work on 556 bullets, different cores, powders all kinds of stuff..... I don't remember.
It seems that armies equip themselves for the last war, Reading on the Boer War and how the british army got its ass handed to it....so they changed everything just in time for WWI and most those lessons from the 1000+ yard battlefields of the plains of africa did not really apply well to trenches a few hundred yards apart and armies got bled white.
I really think there is not one answer for all instances....and I think the military does as well, special units get special stuffs, and I can see that as a logistical nightmare.
I don't disagree with anything you say.....but there needs to be real thought put into what future conflicts could look like, and then what a way out in left field conflict might look like....will we be setup for that....are the decisions we make now good for down the road.....be future proof as possible.....and I am not sure a bullpup is the answer....off the top of my head the bullpup was not the answer it was thought to be...it has drawbacks as well.
I don't think the bullpup design will win the bid. My money is on Sig.
Something to consider is the rest of the NATO members. Are they going to be willing to wholesale change rounds?
To some degree, despite them not admitting it, many countries still get aid of all types from the USA (I have to guess ammo drops/shipments/just-plain-access-to-secret-stashes might be part of that), so... I bet they'll plan for it for at least some battalions.
I agree that the bullpup designs won't get a nod. If Sig gets it, I'm going to have some serious questions about our spec'ing and procurement processes for them to win both the side-arm and the main armament.
You shoot many canned goods? What game is more plentiful and requires no long term storage: deer or squirrels and rabbits?
The losers always cry....going way back to the Krag.....however it will be insane if they get both.
It is an interesting point about NATO.....I remember reading on the FAL/M14/7.62 deal....no way was the US not going to go with a non US made rifle....just not going to happen....and we are not going to go with a itty bitty 280.....nope we did force everyone to 308......and then we force everyone to a 22....now we swing back the other way to catch it some place in the middle.
Kinda makes you think....would we be doing this now if we had originally gone with 280 for the post WWII rifle cartridge....it really came down to politics no other way to put it.
I hope this is not too CS&M....but you really can't talk this stuff without going down this road.....I don't think it is, it is history, and it is not questioned....everyone admits this is the way it happened.
Now don't anyone go into the YB49 B36 deal or I will really go on a rant.
Politics and procurement are nearly always, if not always, connected.
The reasons I heard for going with the Italian-designed M9 Beretta was nuclear sites, or incoming-nuclear-watching-sites (I cannot recall now), in Italy in trade for us giving them the profits of a side-arm contract.
Or, it could have been that it was just a lot cheaper than the Sig P226.
WTF!? My choice of a combo gun or a drilling answered the very question you ask. Like what you like and move the fuck on.
Engineers were playing with 7mm intermediate cartridges before ww2. Iirc Garand designed the M1 to use 276 (.284 actual) pederson. The Gov told him they wanted 3006 so he scaled it up.
I went into a local pawn shop this morning to pick up a S&W model 622 that I had on layaway...
.....and found this Llama 'baby 1911' .380. I had owned one of these many years ago, and was always keeping my eye out for another....so....I ended up walking out with an unexpected bonus...
I took both guns directly to the range, even though both could have used a cleaning. The S&W .22 functioned flawlessly, while the Llama would fail to reliably eject the empty casing several times in every magazine.
I'll give the Llama a good cleaning and lube tomorrow, then head back to the range and see if it works better.
Military insisted on 30-06 for the M-1 because they already had millions of rounds of it, how much 5.56 would you guess they have?