- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,737
- 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
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
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 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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 (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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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:
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?