• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than a rifle: How a new 6.8mm round, advanced optics will make soldiers, Marines a lot deadlier

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,150
Reaction score
82,407
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More than a rifle: How a new 6.8mm round, advanced optics will make soldiers, Marines a lot deadlier

4UNAKK2F6VEJPH5XI3WLN54VKY.jpg

Troopers assigned to 2nd Squadron, 14th Calvary Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division

Article looks at the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW), 6.8mm caliber rounds, and the Family of Weapons Sights-Individual (FWSI) optics.

Related: New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56
 
More than a rifle: How a new 6.8mm round, advanced optics will make soldiers, Marines a lot deadlier

4UNAKK2F6VEJPH5XI3WLN54VKY.jpg

Troopers assigned to 2nd Squadron, 14th Calvary Regiment, 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division

Article looks at the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW), 6.8mm caliber rounds, and the Family of Weapons Sights-Individual (FWSI) optics.

Related: New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56

interesting-the concept of an exploding round has been around for a while-the concept being that troopers could engage targets behind cover by firing an exploding round say over the wall that the enemy is concealed behind or so forth. right now, the military fires thousands of rounds to produce a single enemy casualty. range finding or compensating sights are an area that could yield better ratios-for example, there is the technology that would cause the sight-once a target is spotted, to adjust the scope to compensate for projectile drop at the range needed
 
Not only that, think what it will do for Mall shooters!
 
Not only that, think what it will do for Mall shooters!

When was the last time a mall shooter actually stopped to aim? Oh right...nevermind, just the normal anti-gun liberal that sees something scary and wants to get rid of it. Why do I even bother? :roll:
 
Not only that, think what it will do for Mall shooters!

when was the last time an active shooter used a military issued rifle?
 
when was the last time an active shooter used a military issued rifle?

AR-15's are part of the M-16 class of weapons, and just about as deadly. Only difference with an AR-15 is that it works by impingement.
 
AR-15's are part of the M-16 class of weapons, and just about as deadly.

M16 rifles have full auto selector switches. there are over 30 different rifles on the US civilian market that work exactly the same as the AR 15 and like the AR 15, have never been issued to our military save for the MI carbine (I bought several from the US GOVERNMENT) and the MI Garand (again, I bought several from the US Government). those include

AR 70-Beretta
Ruger Mini 14
FN-FAL
Springfield Armory-MIAI
Arsenal series of AK pattern Rifles
HK 91 and 93
CETME
Steyr Aug
Microtech copy of the AUG
Valmet 76 and related rifles
CZ 58
Gallil
HK SL-8
AR-180 and copies
 
By the way-deadly is a worthless issue because it depends on the scenario. A 12 Gauge pump shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot is "deadly" when deployed against unarmed massed individuals at close range. Its pretty worthless against targets behind cover over 80 yards away. A bolt action 300 WM scoped rifle is deadly out to about 1000 Meters and will blow right through most exterior home structures. Is not very effective in a small room though.
 
M16 rifles have full auto selector switches. there are over 30 different rifles on the US civilian market that work exactly the same as the AR 15 and like the AR 15, have never been issued to our military save for the MI carbine (I bought several from the US GOVERNMENT) and the MI Garand (again, I bought several from the US Government). those include

AR 70-Beretta
Ruger Mini 14
FN-FAL
Springfield Armory-MIAI
Arsenal series of AK pattern Rifles
HK 91 and 93
CETME
Steyr Aug
Microtech copy of the AUG
Valmet 76 and related rifles
CZ 58
Gallil
HK SL-8
AR-180 and copies

You missed my point. The AR-15 was not used by the military, but it is still part of the same class (M-16) of weapons. It doesn't make one bit of difference if a mall shooter uses an AR-15 or an M-16. The result is exactly the same if a bump stock is used on the AR-15, which it has in many of the worst mass shootings. Throwing semantics into the argument does not change it. The AR-15 is still officially listed as a military grade weapon.
 
You missed my point. The AR-15 was not used by the military, but it is still part of the same class of weapons. So are those others you listed. It doesn't make one bit of difference if a mall shooter uses an AR-15 or an M-16. The result is exactly the same. Throwing semantics into the argument does not change it.

so why are M16s banned for sale (post May 19, 1986) while AR 15s are not. and are you saying fully automatic fire is no more deadly than semi auto fire. And what exactly is your point here

a Ruger Mini14 is not part of any military firearm family and works exactly the same as the AR 15 in terms of range, rate of fire, ammunition used, accuracy etc
 
so why are M16s banned for sale (post May 19, 1986) while AR 15s are not. and are you saying fully automatic fire is no more deadly than semi auto fire. And what exactly is your point here

a Ruger Mini14 is not part of any military firearm family and works exactly the same as the AR 15 in terms of range, rate of fire, ammunition used, accuracy etc

I noticed that, which is why I edited my post to state that with a bump stock, an AR-15 is just as deadly, because it has been effectively converted to a class 3 rifle. At this time, bump stocks are still legal, which circumvented the original intent by Colt, the original manufacturer, as well as other manufacturers, to comply with the law.
 
I noticed that, which is why I edited my post to state that with a bump stock, an AR-15 is just as deadly, because it has been effectively converted to a class 3 rifle. At this time, bump stocks are still legal, which circumvented the original intent by Colt, the original manufacturer, as well as other manufacturers, to comply with the law.

you are wrong. except in rare cases-where there a hundreds of people packed in an area that they cannot readily exit and the shooter is firing from cover and concealment so as to prevent carry weapons being effectively used against him, the bump fire stock is not particularly effective

you apparently confuse rate of fire with automatic fire and the bump stock is not nearly as accurate in delivering high rates of fire as a true select fire rifle. THE ONLY REASON WHY BUMP STOCKS were created was because democrats-out of spite-tried to derail a pro gun bill with an improper amendment that was interpreted by the ATF to prevent future registrations of fully automatic firearms (which haven't been used in violent crimes for over 80 years). Bump stocks were created for people who wanted to pretend they had automatics but couldn't come up with 8000 dollars-which is about the cheapest you can buy a legal pre-1986 automatic firearm.

I will tell you something everyone who is expert on the use of rifles will tell you. Given the position Paddock had, he would have been able to kill more with aimed semi auto fire. and if the targets were not packed into a large mass, the bump fire accessory would have DECREASED casualties.
 
AR-15's are part of the M-16 class of weapons, and just about as deadly. Only difference with an AR-15 is that it works by impingement.

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no idea what you are talking about and nothing you say on this topic should be taken seriously.

Please tell us what weapon works by impingement and how the other weapon works. This should be good for a laugh.
 
Last edited:
You missed my point. The AR-15 was not used by the military, but it is still part of the same class (M-16) of weapons. It doesn't make one bit of difference if a mall shooter uses an AR-15 or an M-16. The result is exactly the same if a bump stock is used on the AR-15, which it has in many of the worst mass shootings. Throwing semantics into the argument does not change it. The AR-15 is still officially listed as a military grade weapon.

Would you care to list how many mass shootings a bump stock has been used in. Thank you in advance.
 
You missed my point. The AR-15 was not used by the military, but it is still part of the same class (M-16) of weapons. It doesn't make one bit of difference if a mall shooter uses an AR-15 or an M-16. The result is exactly the same if a bump stock is used on the AR-15, which it has in many of the worst mass shootings. Throwing semantics into the argument does not change it. The AR-15 is still officially listed as a military grade weapon.

Not by the military it isn't. However, some Smith & Wesson .30 caliber revolvers are military grade. Some .30-06 bolt action rifles are military grade. Some pump action shotguns are military grade.
 
I noticed that, which is why I edited my post to state that with a bump stock, an AR-15 is just as deadly, because it has been effectively converted to a class 3 rifle. At this time, bump stocks are still legal, which circumvented the original intent by Colt, the original manufacturer, as well as other manufacturers, to comply with the law.

What law? I can own an M-16.
 
I noticed that, which is why I edited my post to state that with a bump stock, an AR-15 is just as deadly, because it has been effectively converted to a class 3 rifle. At this time, bump stocks are still legal, which circumvented the original intent by Colt, the original manufacturer, as well as other manufacturers, to comply with the law.

Did you know that the Mini-14 holds the record for deaths in a single shooter mass shooting, yet has been exempted by every Democratic "assault weapons ban"?
 
I always thought we messed up when we didn't build an assault rifle around the .280 British (or just adopt the FN FAL) in the 50's. If 7.62 mm was too heavy and 5.56 mm was too light, .280 British seems like it would have been the "Goldilocks" choice. It's ballistics were similar to the Remington 6.8 mm.
 
I always thought we messed up when we didn't build an assault rifle around the .280 British (or just adopt the FN FAL) in the 50's. If 7.62 mm was too heavy and 5.56 mm was too light, .280 British seems like it would have been the "Goldilocks" choice. It's ballistics were similar to the Remington 6.8 mm.

The FN FAL (I own a couple) is superior to the M14 (I have a semi auto only national match version) in most areas save two. The M14 is more accurate at long range due to the rigidity of the receiver and it is far superior as a sniper type weapon since it is far easier to mount heavy telescoping sights to the M14 than the FN FAL. the FAL is ergonomically far superior and points much better. an FN FAL in something like a 6mm or the new Valkerie round would be a real winner=in 762 its a bit light for controlled full auto fire
 
The FN FAL (I own a couple) is superior to the M14 (I have a semi auto only national match version) in most areas save two. The M14 is more accurate at long range due to the rigidity of the receiver and it is far superior as a sniper type weapon since it is far easier to mount heavy telescoping sights to the M14 than the FN FAL. the FAL is ergonomically far superior and points much better. an FN FAL in something like a 6mm or the new Valkerie round would be a real winner=in 762 its a bit light for controlled full auto fire

The FN FAL was originally designed to take the .280 British... that's why I brought it up.
 
The FN FAL was originally designed to take the .280 British... that's why I brought it up.

yeah I know. I don't have any substantial knowledge about that round though. I do have about 10K rounds of 762 NATO fired through FN FALs including about 500 rounds of full auto (short of a bipod and a sling, not something I would recommend if hits were one's desired goals)
 
The FN FAL was originally designed to take the .280 British... that's why I brought it up.

BTW have you ever shot an FAL? what do you think of its recoil impulse compared to say the M14or the G3 (The HK 91)
 
BTW have you ever shot an FAL? what do you think of its recoil impulse compared to say the M14or the G3 (The HK 91)

Sure did. We had a few kicking around for OPFOR. Made me wonder why we weren't using them instead of the plastic piece of crap M-16s they actually issued us. I never had a problem with the kick... but I grew up shooting .348 Winchester, so it's all relative, I guess.
 
When was the last time a mall shooter actually stopped to aim? Oh right...nevermind, just the normal anti-gun liberal that sees something scary and wants to get rid of it. Why do I even bother? :roll:

I was taken aback by the "Slightly liberal" lean...????
 
Back
Top Bottom