« 11th Circuit upholds restrictions on 18-21 yr olds | Main | Decision striking down MO 2A sanctuary law »
Army's next generation rifle program...
...appears to be sunk. I don't agree with everything said (I like piston driven guns), but it makes sense. The ammunition seems like no one thought thru its cost or the fact that it requires tungsten from China. I'd add--the entire reason we and everyone else went to assault rifles was because rifles of full military power were uncontrollable in full auto fire. But if you dropped the power by half (from about 2600 ft-lbs to about 1300) it would be controllable. The new cartridge has a muzzle energy of 2200-2600 ft-lbs, so I doubt it would be controllable.
Add a two part cartridge case (head made of steel to withstand the higher pressure) and a projectile that requires tungsten... did anyone reflect that military ammo has to be made in incredible quantities, even in peacetime, let alone if war breaks out?
5 Comments | Leave a comment
USA has the tungsten. There are rich tungsten mines in the USA which could be safely reopened, but USA labor costs make buying from China cheaper.
Throw it into the military-industrial-congressional-complex dumpster along with SPIW, OICWS, ACR, and sundry other small arms boondoggles.
Senator Cornyn suggested 10 years ago that US Army convert to either 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8mm SPC, at a fraction of the cost of the XM5. The private sector developed those cartridges at no cost to the US.
A hardened steel penetrator round could have been developed too.
...who is this guy, and why should his opinion on this subject carry any more weight than, say, my own? didn't we just get through noting how even highly ranked marine corps officers might be stating complete nonsense about guns on the record --- how is this fellow any better qualified?
and if he's so distrustful of piston-driven guns, how does he explain the military records of the several such designs that have served in various nations over the decades?
While the conclusion may ultimately jold up, there are a lot of things wrong with this article:
1) Tungsten isn’t required. The supposed bullet design is the same as the M80A1, copper and hardened steel.
2) a lead core bullet in 6.5 creedmoor is not similar to a steel core bullet with respect to armor penetration. Again, look at M80A1
3) rubbing mud in a rifle chamber isn’t a sane test. Its not sane, period.
4) A rifle design isn’t sunk because some talking head said so. The dude has no more legitimacy than I do — which is to say none whatsoever.