Army equipment that should have seen service

The 7x36 was design for this AR
There is no information in english
DISAkarabin.png

Its a madsen product and it looks functional
 
my vote is for the M8 Buford AGS for the US Airborne to replace the Sheridan
 

Attachments

  • 662A1B03-F0E4-4B2A-BF82-77EBA68D675E.jpeg
    662A1B03-F0E4-4B2A-BF82-77EBA68D675E.jpeg
    51.1 KB · Views: 118
The Madsen LAR is the posh AK whitout a market
Couple of years sonner and it could have become the standard rifle of several countries instead of the G3 or FAL
Even the stgw 57 was sold to south american countries and it was swiss clockwork , probably the only batlle rifle that could fire in full auto whit some control , and that in 7.5x55 swiss
 
They're planning on that anyway:

It won't be nearly as tough as you think, since the Creedmoor is basically a slightly shortened 7.62 NATO case; you can largely just swap out barrels in existing equipment.
Same thing could apply to some degree in per-WW2 conversions, they could shorten the chamber as they did with .30-06 to 7.62 NATO modifications:

Thanks for the info, very interesting. I'm not clear from the articles if their just changing to 6.8mm for the new SAW, or for every riflemen. Is the whole army going to 6.8mm? The Marines are going over to the M-27 Automatic Rifle, but it uses 5.56mm, are they going to convert to? Over all this should be a good move, though I thought the smart money was on the 6.5mm. I understand the ammo load for individual soldiers will only go down about 15%, a 30 round box magazine will now be 26 rounds. Since we don't know what 6.8mm round is going to be the final product, we don't know all it's characteristics, so we don't know if it tumbles, or fragments like the 5.56mm. We just have to wait for more complete data.
 

Deleted member 1487

Thanks for the info, very interesting. I'm not clear from the articles if their just changing to 6.8mm for the new SAW, or for every riflemen. Is the whole army going to 6.8mm? The Marines are going over to the M-27 Automatic Rifle, but it uses 5.56mm, are they going to convert to? Over all this should be a good move, though I thought the smart money was on the 6.5mm. I understand the ammo load for individual soldiers will only go down about 15%, a 30 round box magazine will now be 26 rounds. Since we don't know what 6.8mm round is going to be the final product, we don't know all it's characteristics, so we don't know if it tumbles, or fragments like the 5.56mm. We just have to wait for more complete data.
AFAIK it's 6.8mm for everything, at least so far. Their plan is that thanks to modern optics they can actually use the full range of rifle unlike before when it was limited to about 300m by the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Now thanks to that and the proliferation of body armor a heavier, larger caliber bullet is needed and the 5.56 can be dispensed with. Especially as we don't generally use automatic fire anymore for rifles and have a long service volunteer army, they can focus on training to correct for issues that might come with having less, more powerful ammo that was harder to do with a draftee army.
They went 6.8mm BTW because they was the heaviest caliber that would result in tolerate recoil from a rifle and still achieve the down range performance expected of the new rifles. I think they're using the EPR bullet design.
 
The 6.8mm NGSW ammo is supposed to have better armor penetration than .30-06 M2 AP, primarily by increasing chamber pressure. That's the best comparison. It is definitely not an intermediate cartridge.
 

Deleted member 1487

The 6.8mm NGSW ammo is supposed to have better armor penetration than .30-06 M2 AP, primarily by increasing chamber pressure. That's the best comparison. It is definitely not an intermediate cartridge.
And sectional density.
 
AFAIK it's 6.8mm for everything, at least so far. Their plan is that thanks to modern optics they can actually use the full range of rifle unlike before when it was limited to about 300m by the Mk. 1 Eyeball. Now thanks to that and the proliferation of body armor a heavier, larger caliber bullet is needed and the 5.56 can be dispensed with. Especially as we don't generally use automatic fire anymore for rifles and have a long service volunteer army, they can focus on training to correct for issues that might come with having less, more powerful ammo that was harder to do with a draftee army.
They went 6.8mm BTW because they was the heaviest caliber that would result in tolerate recoil from a rifle and still achieve the down range performance expected of the new rifles. I think they're using the EPR bullet design.

Is this intended to come about with the introduction of the LSAT case telescoped/caseless (not sure which route they decided to go) ammunition?

It is 40%/51% lighter than conventional ammo so the 'increase' in bullet size can be mitigated by the lower weight of the modern ammo.
 

Deleted member 1487

Is this intended to come about with the introduction of the LSAT case telescoped/caseless (not sure which route they decided to go) ammunition?
Doesn't look like, AFAIK Sig's dual part case steel base/brass body ammo is the favored choice.

It is 40%/51% lighter than conventional ammo so the 'increase' in bullet size can be mitigated by the lower weight of the modern ammo.
Sure, but AFAIK they haven't gotten that technology to work right yet.
 
Is this intended to come about with the introduction of the LSAT case telescoped/caseless (not sure which route they decided to go) ammunition?

It is 40%/51% lighter than conventional ammo so the 'increase' in bullet size can be mitigated by the lower weight of the modern ammo.
Basically the entire LSAT program from the 2000s was rendered obsolete when NGSW came out with with the new armor penetration requirements. AFAIK, there are no plans for new rifles and machine guns firing intermediate cartridges. The Textron bid is based on the LSAT gun and the C/T ammo, but GD is going with composite cases and Sig, who's probably going to win at this point, has a brass case with a steel base to withstand the chamber pressure. As far as the rifle is concerned, side chargers on ARs are for race guns, not fighting rifles.
 
This magic machine:
And this:

Politicians. Much awesome tech, we can get, without them, no?

Very clever bit of kit - but from what I understand it was an answer looking for a problem to solve.

The army even sent them to the Middle east where I think they were fired a few dozen times in combat and the results were a bit Meh from what I understand.
 
Very clever bit of kit - but from what I understand it was an answer looking for a problem to solve.

The army even sent them to the Middle east where I think they were fired a few dozen times in combat and the results were a bit Meh from what I understand.
The XM-25 was better than the XM-29.
US troops in Afghanistan called it a gamechanger and they loved it.
Taliban ambushes would have become a thing of the past with it.
 
Basically the entire LSAT program from the 2000s was rendered obsolete when NGSW came out with with the new armor penetration requirements. AFAIK, there are no plans for new rifles and machine guns firing intermediate cartridges. The Textron bid is based on the LSAT gun and the C/T ammo, but GD is going with composite cases and Sig, who's probably going to win at this point, has a brass case with a steel base to withstand the chamber pressure. As far as the rifle is concerned, side chargers on ARs are for race guns, not fighting rifles.

Do you have more information on NGSW?

And what do you mean "side chargers on ARs are for race guns, not fighting rifles"?

Whats a race gun?
 
If you really want to see a soldier that carried a Bar and or had men that did (when he/they had to) but hated the thing. I can introduce you to a Sergeant that spent time on Heartbreak Ridge and elsewhere in Korea and he could not stand the bar. Said it was way to heavy. Had ammo that was to heavy and it was so distinctive sounding that you could tell it was a Bar (and thus an American) from way way way far away. And that would occasionally get you into trouble.
So he and his guys did everything they could to get their hands on carbines to take on patrols, So not everyone liked them.
 

Deleted member 1487

It had a grenade launcher and all the necessary accessories already in the gun, so it's worth it.
And you used kg twice BTW.
The military disagreed.
By the early 2000s, the weapon had settled on a design and was classified as the XM29. The XM29 was based on the HK CAW (Close Assault Weapon) (Cal. 18.5×76mm or 12 Gauge non-conventional). However, the weapon had serious problems: it did not meet weight or cost targets, and the 20 mm High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB) did not seem to be lethal enough in testing. To compound matters, the kinetic-energy component had to be light and short in length. As a result, the 5.56×45mm NATO barrel had a length of only 250 mm (9.8 inches), which is too short to generate enough muzzle velocity to be effective as a standard infantry rifle. It was also too heavy and too large to be operated effectively by a soldier.

 
Top