r/tacticalgear • u/Graywhale12 • May 18 '25
Rhetorical Hyperbole SAY NO TO NGSW WITH ME
307
u/Azuljustinverday May 18 '25
Im sorry m14 fans but this is scar 17 gang time to shine
168
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
*cracks bolt carrier when suppressed*
120
11
u/Pristine_Daikon_4922 May 18 '25
“I told you not to put a suppressor on this modern Battle rifle! Warranty? GTFO”
11
u/SnrkyArkyLibertarian May 19 '25
- Breaks every optic that touches it. *
11
u/Penguixxy May 19 '25
which tells me FN didn't test it enough, it's a clear harmonics issue, really noticeable with a three prong flash hider and letting the bolt go home.
The gun rings like a tuning fork and you can feel it in the upper, even worse than the m14 which has absolutely screwed barrel harmonics.
2
82
u/Graywhale12 May 18 '25
Man get out with yo prostetic leg lookin stock
34
49
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
wobbly front sight, mc donald's plastic stock, proprietary magazines, non reciprocating charging handle, harmonics that break optics, cracking bolt carriers when suppressed, i can keep going but i'd hit the reddit character limit.
the m14 also sucks but for diff reasons, it's saving grace is being cheaper and that's it.
1
1
u/Revolting-Westcoast May 18 '25
The magazine issue can be fixed with a slightly different trigger housing. Is ez fix.
5
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
yes but by the time you fix ALL of the scars issues, you'd have spent as much on parts to fix it as you did the gun itself.
it's just not worth it for a problem filled platform.
0
u/Revolting-Westcoast May 18 '25
The issue discussed isn't all the Scar's issues. Just the magazine. I'm sure we can go digging into the M110A1's folder and find things we'd like to improve.
Got no dog in the fight. Just a point of discussion. I feel like Hk got their foot in the door and it's helping shut out every other mfg. Same issue with sig and their M17/18 -> NGSW.
1
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
the scar is more in line with the ngsw, it needed more time to cook, it really feels like a first draft design, and even now it has issues that have persisted while other platforms have evolved.
IMO FN should just design a completely new upper assembly with an all new bolt carrier, charging handle, and improved harmonics, and redesign the lower to fit SR25 mags and to take AR triggers instead of the absolute insanity of a trigger pack they have in them right now.
1
1
u/Cephus_Calahan_482 May 18 '25
I'd argue that the non-reciprocating charging handle is actually a plus, not a negative.
1
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
as someone that's shot an AR180B quite a bit... no
esspecially not with where the charging handle is placed on the SCAR, it interferes with the support hand, optics, and just generally is a bad design. The only positive is you can use it as a forward assist, which.... is niche to say the least and there are better ways to do that. (like an actual forward assist)
2
u/Cephus_Calahan_482 May 18 '25
To each their own; I personally find the SCAR's ergos to be perfectly adequate; my only real complaints are the irons and the stock.
2
1
0
-1
u/HumaDracobane May 18 '25
Just try not to have your shirt's sleeve near the gun when cycling.
→ More replies (2)
135
u/The_Bane_of_Skill May 18 '25
As someone who carried EBR (modernized M-14), fucccckkk that. Give me an AR-10 platform any day over that. There is a good reason why its use didnt last very long, people looked for alternatives very quickly.
23
u/Z3FR1K May 18 '25
What were the negatives of the EBR? Too heavy/cumbersome? Unreliability?
59
20
11
u/Unicorn187 May 18 '25
Yes. All of that, and the scope mounts made the damn thing stupidly tall becuase it put the scope so hight. It's almost like putting a scope on the rail mounts for the fixed A2/A3 (the first A3s had vixed carry handles, the later ones had the removable) carry handles. Everyone I know who carried on for real only liked the range the round gave. Not so much the gun itself.
→ More replies (4)2
u/EinGuy May 19 '25
Too heavy, still required you to remove your optic to clean the gun properly, and cost a bitch.
All it did for the M14 was bring adjustable LOP and rails.
3
u/akmjolnir May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25
Heavy and needed constant re-zeroing every time it was cleaned. That's what the guys who carried them told me. It was an asset in villages, but too clunky in the builthup areas, and not as effective and needed out in the open.
217
u/ChevTecGroup May 18 '25
You had me at "say not to the NGSW"
You totally lost me at "say yes to a modernized M14"
The M14 sucked and still sucks.
42
9
u/Original_Dankster May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25
XCR-L with a select fire trigger pack and safety.
16" in 5.56 to stay NATO compliant, for your infantry
24" heavy barrel 6 ARC for your DMR. Or 18" 6 ARC if the military really needs every infantryman able to shoot farther...
9" in .300BO as a PDW for vehicle crews, supersonic ammo. For Special ninja stuff, same rifle but use subsonic ammo.
A SAW would need a new upper. It would need a quick(er) change barrel like a lever instead of a bolt. Use reusable quad stack mags instead of disposable linked belts.
Same manual of arms across all platforms. Same receiver set for (almost) every squad level weapon. (Edit: in fact if you replace the barrel retention bolt with a lever barrel change system on every upper, it would literally be the exact same receiver set)
Would make training and logistics simple as hell. American design.
Robinson Arms can't produce enough at scale? Buy a license from them, it's an amazing design not just as an individual rifle but from a logistic and maintenance standpoint it's a J4's dream. Even company level quartermasters could purpose configure rifles to missions.
2
u/EinGuy May 19 '25
As a guy who has busted two XCR-L's, no thanks.
2
u/Original_Dankster May 19 '25
Holy shit - how?
1
u/EinGuy May 19 '25
This was back in 2010;
First one, the bolt release/catch wore out to the point where it could not longer lock to the rear after approximately 2k rounds. The gun also began to FTF, looked like the barrel extension was damaged/worn(???) And i sent it back to the distributor for replacement.
2nd one, the bolt release/catch broke again after about 2.5k rounds, and this time the barrel dimple began to oval... which i don't know how, because i never had a second barrel to ever swap around to, and I think i only removed it once to clean. It was subtle, but if i pulled on it I could feel the barrel shifting ever so slightly fore and aft.
Sold the thing after that. Oh and the brass deflector came loose on one of the guns with the first thousand rounds lol.
23
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
and the scar, it sucks too.
all the US army really needs to do is adopt the HK417 fully, since they already have a contract with HK for the m110a1, it's not like it's a big change and would help standardize between sharpshooter and standard riflemen.
13
u/Godless_Rose May 18 '25
We don’t need a stupid battle rifle. Update the M4 to the URGI and start loading M855A1 into NAS3 casings and ramp up the pressures.
7
4
u/ABUCKET15 May 18 '25
and the HK417, it sucks too.
I’m mostly saying this because I like the scar and m14 and feel like being on the HK-hatewagon right now lol.
Regardless, reject modernity. Return to M16
11
u/KiloClassStardrive May 18 '25
no, it does not suck, it's a great deer rifle, i would not want to lug it around in a war zone though.
-2
u/EinGuy May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25
It does suck. And you'd be better off taking some piece of shit Browning from behind your grandfather's door than take the M14 out for deer.
You want one of the least accurate .308 production rifles ever built for hunting?
2
u/KiloClassStardrive May 19 '25
you use what you have, an M14 or an M1 is good enough for a two hundred yard deer harvest. sure their are better rifles, so what.
1
u/lettelsnek May 19 '25
very heavy semi auto with questionable accuracy is a great deer rifle? idk man
1
u/Exact-Alarm-4735 May 20 '25
I use what I have, do some rifle drills if the gun is too heavy. It'll be good for you in any event.
1
u/lettelsnek May 20 '25
i understand that u should run what u have, but that doesn’t make it “great”
1
u/EinGuy May 19 '25
What you have != Makes a great rifle.
Yeah it's still a gun, but you're claiming it's a great deer rifle?
1
u/KiloClassStardrive May 20 '25
the .308 is a jack of all trades, it'll do everything you want it to do, just not with the effectiveness you require. and .308 is cheap compared to the more effective rounds available to you at 3 times the price.
1
u/EinGuy May 20 '25
I'm not saying the 308 is an issue, I'm saying the M14 is. It's the worst service rifle ever fielded by the US armed forces.
1
u/KiloClassStardrive May 20 '25
i own a civilian version of the M14, it's always performed well, it's just heavy.
1
u/EinGuy May 20 '25
I mean it goes bang when you pull the trigger, but it's so heavy, it is very expensive for what you get, the ergonomics are fairly poor, it's not very modular, and has few if any good options for optic mounting.
I still think it's a interesting rifle, historically (I've owned 3 of them at various points), but they are just not a good rifle. Even in the 1950's / 1960's, the FAL and G3 were both better rifles in every regard.
1
u/KiloClassStardrive May 20 '25
the mini-14 is good too. you can harvest animals within 200 yards without problems.
1
u/Significant7971 May 19 '25
The Loaded from SAI is a 1 MOA gun out of the box which is better than the 4+ MOA that the NGSW is getting.
Shim the Loaded and you'll get 1/2 MOA groups with 168gr/175gr SMKs.
It's significantly heavier than a Browning BAR hunting rifle. But at least it dozen freeze up and jam when hunting below -20°C.
1
17
u/Rhongomiant May 18 '25
SOCOM's MRGG rifle is going to be the new hotness, imo.
1
u/Someguyintheroom2 Brass Gremlin May 19 '25
It’s just an accurized AR-10 with a hellacious price tag?
1
u/Rhongomiant May 19 '25
There's a bit more to it than that. Geissele won the contract for the MRGG-S and their rifle has a barrel with what they call a phased array gas system -- basically multiple gas ports. Here's the patent.
Unlike 6.8mm x 51, 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't kick like a mule and is much more pleasant to shoot while still being very capable out to distance. The MRGG just seems like a more user-friendly weapon system than the NGSW.
And yes, the price tag is nuts, but G$ can't charge GOV/MIL more than they charge civilians, so it is what it is. This pricing is right in line with KAC/LMT.
I'm just hoping that the new barrel with the phased array and gas block will be sold separately as standalone parts so we can put together uppers on our own.
30
u/USArmyJoe TactiCOOL May 18 '25
The XM7 is a solution looking for a problem, and now the subject of major sunk cost fallacy.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/Comfortable-Memory51 May 18 '25
The irony is that the XM7 and M14 suck in very similar ways and will likely have a similar fate in the US military.
10
u/TheDrunkLibertarian May 18 '25
Hello friend, do you have a moment to speak about our lord and savior LMT?
4
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
thats what i was thinking. the mars h battle rifle is basically the xm7...but you know...with a quick change barrel, qa/qc, and it actually works.
1
u/TheDrunkLibertarian May 19 '25
Yep, the only thing with the XM7 is the 6.8 is ballistically better than a 308 or 6.5, but with double the pressure. If you made some pissin hot 6.5s it could do the same thing lol
2
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
Which would be doable. I mean the ebcg is.pretty beefed up anyway, im certain the ar10 version is as well. Not to mention, with that quick change barrel they have, itd make changing out burnt barrels every 3k rounds pretty easy at an armory level
27
u/RestAdministrative49 May 18 '25
I want the General Dynamics RM277 Bullpup. How are we supposed to fight the Covenant if we dont have bullpups?
7
u/BeenisHat May 18 '25
This is a solid answer. Maybe the Desert Tech WLVRN. I wish they'd actually release the RM277 to the market. No idea if that's even in the cards.
3
u/RestAdministrative49 May 18 '25
The last thing I saw about it being released on the civilian market was all the way back 2022. Haven't seen anything on it since.
3
u/BeenisHat May 18 '25
Yeah, I know Beretta was supposed to be doing manufacturing or at least some of the manufacturing for it. I'm guessing that never happened since the Sig won.
3
u/RestAdministrative49 May 18 '25
Yeah I guess the closest thing to a Halo rifle I can get is my Hellion lol.
1
u/BeenisHat May 18 '25
How do you like the Hellion? I have an AR but I was thinking about replacing it with a bullpup in .223 since I already have magazines and ammo stashed away.
2
u/RestAdministrative49 May 18 '25
I really like it. Reminds me of the BR from halo a little bit lol. When I decided to get a bullpup I was able to rent a few from local gun ranges and try them out. I definitely like the way the hellion feels vs the x95. The trigger isn't bad for a bullpup either. I believe there are some after market upgrades I will probably end up getting like an upgraded trigger, mag release, flared magwell. Overall I love the rifle. It has nice flip up irons as well.
3
22
u/my_name_is_nobody__ May 18 '25
Or just get an AR-10, or better yet use the NGSW in .308 so it fits nato standard…
24
u/Hmmm2please May 18 '25
- AR10 easier & cheaper to accurize.
- Familiar control and operation.
- US is the NATO standard.
- US supplies/pays for most ammo around the globe. Directly & indirectly.
- 6.5CM works well. As does 6.8
14
u/cfri125 May 18 '25
Say yes to the HK M27 IAR*
13
u/raiderman43 May 18 '25
M855A1 and the amount of it you can carry makes the already failed battle rifle concept unappealing. The marine corps at least understands that
3
u/englisi_baladid May 18 '25
Ah yes. Let's choose a rifle more expensive and worse than a M4.
1
u/cfri125 May 18 '25
More like -let’s adopt the rifle the USMC is and has been using that is an overall upgrade compared to a standard M4.
3
u/englisi_baladid May 18 '25
How is it a upgrade.
1
u/cfri125 May 18 '25
Short stroke piston system for starters -runs cleaner than an M4, runs cooler, and has less malfunctions overall. Free float handguard also improves accuracy over a standard drop in m4 handguard. The trigger is also better than a standard m4 trigger. As far as a bone stock military issued weapon from the factory, M27 > M4. (Cause ofc you can put a free float on an m4 and better trigger, but let’s be realistic about who’s actually going to be able to do that with their military issued/gov property m4)
3
u/englisi_baladid May 18 '25
Free floating is a significant improvement. Short stroke is not. It introduces issues to the AR15 platform.
1
u/cfri125 May 18 '25 edited May 22 '25
To each their own, the USMC seemed to like it better than M4s and I think they know what they’re doing. No hate on ARs/M4s, I have 2 and don’t plan to own any other platforms.
6
u/Revolting-Westcoast May 18 '25
Honestly, based. Let's get back to the Sage chassis MW2 era of drip.
5
25
May 18 '25
M1A gang🔥
35
u/JoseSaldana6512 May 18 '25
They're waiting on the retirement shuttle to bring them to the fight
29
7
u/Kiss_and_Wesson May 18 '25
It is great way to say "get off my lawn" from 600 yards.
6
u/p8ntslinger May 18 '25
which you can do just as well, with faster follow ups, with an AR in 5.56
→ More replies (6)1
17
u/Imperialist_hotdog May 18 '25
If sig actually fixed the poi shift issue with the MCX (as far as I know they haven’t) and left it in 5.56 I’d be all for the NGSW. But mechanical issues aside it’s fucking Wild to think that a 66% decrease in the size of the fighting load while increasing its weight is in any way “more lethal”
8
4
May 18 '25
I think that would be even worse
You get further away from ar15 standardization for basically no reason
The ngsw at least has SOME (theoretical) benefits on paper
8
u/Imperialist_hotdog May 18 '25
Right, theoretical advantages.
Like body armor defeat that isn’t really a problem, since the Russians can’t seem to supply armor and the Chinese armor that was ordered in 2020 (that still hasn’t made an appearance on regular infantry units as far as I have seen) is only rated to ~IIIA
Or the “”overmatch”” of a few extra hundred yards of range when we’re seeing, yet again, that combat ranges rarely exceed 300 yards. With the exception of mountain warfare this has been accepted fact since at least 1942.
Also you talk about deviating from standardization for “no reason” when the NGSW went and created a new caliber that’s absolute dogshit. To make matters worse it doesn’t just mess with the existing logistics and standardization of the rifleman and his AR-15 but also for the medium machine gun.
3
May 18 '25
But the armor defeating capabilities and li fee range are actually beneficial
But the sig mcx offers basically zero benefits. Some would argue the folding stock is beneficial. I don’t really think it’s that useful
I wouldn’t choose either one over an AR even without the logistic differences
2
u/Imperialist_hotdog May 18 '25
Not for the average infantryman. Think about it. When you’re on an ambush line or on patrol, can you see a man 800 yards away? Especially when he doesn’t want to be seen? If you think you can you either haven’t tried to, or are lying to yourself. Sure the 6.8 can reach out that far but is the soldier gonna be able to ID and engage a target at those distances. They didn’t when they had battle rifles or bolt actions. And even with optics they probably won’t be able to now. Cause we still use the mark 1 eyeball for acquisition. 6.8 was also designed explicitly for Ratnik defeat (supposedly if it can defeat ratnik it can defeat what the Chinese ordered). Two issues with this, 1) neither army is issuing the armor they adopted, and 2) according to accounts in Ukraine, m995 “black tip” is perfectly capable of defeating what little Russian body armor actually makes it to front line units
Personally I agree, I wouldn’t have adopted anything to replace the m4. But I think that if the army really wanted a new rifle, and still wanted an sig, then it would be better to adopt a 5.56 MCX than a 6.8 MCX.
3
11
3
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
honestly, im surprised the lmt mars-h battle rifle wasnt in the running or maybe beefed up for the new cartridge. its form factor is much more pleasant in the hand. its got that quick change barrel thing for when you burn thru one because youre shooting rounds that no one need. and best yet, its not sig...so itll actually have qa/qc and work.
4
u/mild123 May 18 '25
I’m sorry but I thought the whole point was getting away from 556 bc it’s not deadly enough
19
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25
no, it's about effective range, and penetrating body armour more reliably with less shots. (this is why the .277 fury military round has so much recoil, its HOT, specifically designed to defeat ceramic body armour. .308 can be made to do the same, but it has a limit.)
5.56 is deadly, it's just reaching its limits as far as armour penetration without reaching dangerous chamber pressures the gun wasnt originally designed for.
3
u/el_chino_del_mal May 18 '25
I swear effective range is brought up for every generation of new service rifles. Just watch in our next COIN or near peer conflict with china, engagement be at 200-400 meters average.
2
u/themickeymauser May 18 '25
The problem isn’t the gun or caliber it’s the shooters themselves.
At the end of the day you’re still gunna have riflemen lobbing hundreds of expensive rounds at one target just for it to not penetrate if it ever does hit because they only do live fire range days twice a year for paperwork purposes.
2
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
the 2 live fires a year thing is 100% correct from my experience in the infantry. i will also say, suppressing fire is very very effective at keeping someone from shooting you.
1
u/themickeymauser May 20 '25
That’s true but you don’t need a 50,000 psi round in a brand new caliber in order to do that. 7.62 has been doing that just fine for thousands of years
1
u/sovietbearcav May 20 '25
Shit, i still say keep 5.56 for nearly everyone since weight sucks and you should make the most of it when it comes to ammo cap. Have a saw in every squad and a 16" hk417 if you need some longer range, accurate knockdown. Keep a 240 in your weapons squad since theyll be a base of fire for a platoon maneuver. Its worked for years. And ill tell ya, plates or not, 5.56, 7.62, or .277 fury, no one wants to get shot.
4
→ More replies (9)4
2
2
2
u/OperatorGWashington May 19 '25
All I hear is the Bushmaster ACR needs to come back with its swappable barrels
2
u/dawkinsd37 May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25
I say bring in a 16 inch ar10 with select fire. Thing is a beast. There may be a military spec for ar10s receivers after so many years lol. Or we can always go with the SCAR like we should’ve years ago
2
u/halincan May 21 '25
Ammo that costs a dollar a round plus at scale seems to be a good place to bury some 1’s and 0’s when you need to…let alone the maintenance / upkeep costs of proprietary platform. This may a be a bit tinfoil hat of me, but it seems the entire endeavor isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.
4
3
May 18 '25
Im late to the party why are we against NGSW?
16
u/Godless_Rose May 18 '25
Because it’s a giant hunk of garbage in a stupid caliber that doesn’t even perform as advertised that was designed to do a job that nobody fucking needs it to do.
2
May 18 '25
If that's the case give them to me I'll make great use of them 😎 (to the fbi agent in my phone this is a joke)
1
u/MrCasualgamer May 18 '25
because "New thing is bad"
7
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
because new thing much heavier than it needs to be with heavy ass optic and heavy ammo that very much restricts movement and carried ammo capacity. i mean, this sub already snubs the block 2 because its "too heavy and no one wants to carry it" but somehow the rifle that weighs more stripped than a block 2 decked out is supposed to be the new standard? add in 20 round mags that weigh significantly more than 30rd 5.56 mag and takes up more bulk? i mean you can ONLY be expected to carry so much and be combat effective. also new things burns thru barrels like it was its job. imagine if we're in a years long near-peer war and you need a new barrel every 2 months because youre actually using your rifle. there's a reason we moved on from battle rifles, and it isnt because 308 was bad. it was because weight and ammo carriage was more important.
1
u/ThreeScoopsOfHooah May 19 '25
People are concerned about the extra weight, quality control issues, and less carried ammo since the round is bigger. People also don't believe there's any reason for the average infantryman to be engaging targets outside 300m.
I'm on the opposite end, and a bit of a NGSW fan boy. The M7 is to the rifle what the M60A2 was to the tank; it is going to have growing pains due to newly introduced technology, but will mark the shift into an era of larger rounds, laser range finders, and ballistics computers integrated into each infantryman's weapon. The same way it's inconceivable to think of a respectable modern MBT that doesn't automatically lead targets, have thermals, or a 90% first round hit probability, the mark of a country having a respectable infantry force will be their thermal, UAS, and data sharing capabilities, combined with a smart rifle.
4
u/603rdMtnDivision May 18 '25
"The M14 sucks!"
While not the greatest rifle it isn't the worst either and usually, it's the shooter that sucks ass at shooting it.
0
u/sovietbearcav May 19 '25
its heavy, not terrible accurate--and to make it accurate, you have to zero it everytime you clean it (read about the ebr), its less reliable than expected in harsh environments, and did i mention that its heavy and that the ammo is also heavy? theres a reason no one fields a battle rifle if they can avoid it.
→ More replies (3)
3
2
u/GoombasFatNutz May 18 '25
Yeah, let's NOT continue to go back in time with the battle rifle concept.
The hybrid ammo concept has promise. It's smart. Instead of needing excessive barrel length to teach velocity, they figured out a way to safely increase chamber pressure. Albeit at the cost of barrel life. But, 800 billion dollars a year should have extra room to cover the cost barrel replacements.
Now, at this point, I'm sure you've already pressed the downvote button because it sounds like I'm sucking off Sig. I'm not. They have us a heavier rifle, less ammo, heavier ammo, a much longer weapon, higher recoil, and the army decided to page it with probably the most breakable optic known to man kind. It's stupidity. And outright corruption.
5.56 is reaching the end of its capability. It was a cartridge designed in the 1950s using that era of technology. It'll be obsolete within a decade. The army had to do something to replace it. It remains to be seen whether they made the right decision, (Probably not).
They wanted the big cartridge because the army got sucked into a tunnel vision of armor penetration and range. They disregarded support by fire, suppression, and maneuver and also how the significantly reduced amount of ammo will be affected in a future conflict. 15 magazines are a standard load for Ukrainians. Now, it's a different type of war that is most likely unique to Ukraine. They don't have the benefit of the world's most robust economy and the aforementioned $800B a year. But lessons are not being taken from the conflict.
A better alternative would be
Keep the hybrid ammo idea. It's actually pretty fucking smart and impressive.
Take the 6.8 spc cartridge, and neck it down to 6.2mm. Why 6.2? Because of the same reason that 6.8 was chosen. Based on military trials from before the adoption of 5.56 and even 7.62, 6.5mm was shown to be the most accurate diameter. The British and a large chunk of European nations wanted 7mm. (.280 British and the EM-2 rifle). America convinced the key players of NATO that it sucked and we should use the .30 American instead. This evolved into the 7.62 NATO and the reason that 5.56 was adopted soon after. So, coming back to why 6.2mm. The 6.2 to imperial conversion is .243. A VERY common bullet diameter already. Weight ranges from 80-105 grains. It's already bigger than 5.56. It's still going to be very accurate. And you're maintaining doctrine that's been established after 70 years of combat lessons.
Combine this new cartridge with a similar weapon to the M7. The army did make the right choice with going to a similar manual of arms. It's easier to relearn, and it's easier to teach.
Get rid of the smart optic idea. Give us something between a prism and an LPVO. With night vision compatibility. And SIMPLE reticles. (None of this Christmas tree ballistic calculating bullshit that every LPVO insists on you needing). .
3
u/Godless_Rose May 18 '25
I agree with everything you said except 5.56 reaching the end of its capability and being obsolete within the next few years. The M855A1 is a helluva round, and putting it in an NAS3 casing, ramping up the pressures, improving bolt and chamber metallurgy, and tuning the gas/recoil system is all we need to do.
Edit: well that, and updating the M4 to a 16” URGI
→ More replies (6)
1
1
u/MrMcFisticuffs May 18 '25
I feel like I'm going to get some down votes, but I advocate for the most common, easily transported cartridge: .22lr
Despised by no one, carriable by all, save a fortune in acquisition costs for both round, rifle, and armor. Pretty sure FM3-21.8 could double as a plate.
1
1
1
1
u/No_Yesterday_2788 Connoisseur of Autism Patches May 18 '25
Am I the only one that thinks they should give the 6.8 SPC ll another look?
1
1
u/Burkmax18 May 18 '25
Or just use a better ballistic round in the same frame. 6mm arc is pretty good. More penetration, flatter trajectory, more of a punch at all distances.
1
1
u/SaltyPilgrim May 19 '25
Likely two things will come out of the NGSW. The 6.8x51 cartridge, and the Optics Package. The gun will likely be sent the same way the M14 was.
That's really what the Army was after; a cartridge that could outperform current battlefield infantry cartridges when it came to range and armor penetration.
1
1
u/Garrett1031 May 19 '25
I remember there was this conversation during the earlier years of the GWOT, between I wanna say ‘04 to at least ‘08, specifically in the Afghanistan theater, about the M14 serving as a superior patrol weapon due to the geography and engagement type at the time, with most gunfights consisting of Taliban taking pot shots at our troops from the other side of a valley, sometimes from as far as 600-800 meters away.
Admittedly the M14 definitely found a solid home as a DMR around then, but that was about it.
1
1
1
1
u/Nay_K_47 May 18 '25
So instead of a different platform, we're going to take the stance of the fudds in 1950 fighting against the AR-15? I'll take option C.
Honestly to be 100% if someone offered me one of the two right now, i would take the sig. The idea of a super hot intermediate cartridge is a good one imo, maybe that rifle isn't the one that's going to do it, but I think the concept should continue.
2
u/Godless_Rose May 18 '25
It’s not an intermediate cartridge though. It’s the same size as a 7.62
3
u/Nay_K_47 May 18 '25
Well I see that it's not an intermediate cartridge, sure. Definitely not the same size. The land diameter is 6.86mm vs 7.62mm. I guess what I was meaning was using velocity to add energy vs mass. In my opinion leveraging some better manufacturing processes and maybe some metallurgy and ballistics to add energy to a rifle vs just a bigger rock makes more sense to me.
1
1
May 18 '25
Would prefer a platform optimized around a cartridge like the 6 arc over the sig monstrosity
1
u/coldafsteel May 18 '25
Lolz no, not even a little.
M14 was a bad rifle when it was new in the 1950s, it has only ever gotten worse over time
1
u/ForbiddenAlias May 18 '25
Can’t wait to get my hands on those new NAS3 rounds. Even though it’s wasted on my dumbass
1
u/Thenewjohnwayne May 18 '25
M14 is cool ar-10 is more practical, I’m really interested in the sfar though.
1
u/Dr_Sir1969 May 18 '25 edited Jun 24 '25
offer nose narrow live hurry unwritten teeny marble tan hospital
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/PrestonHM May 18 '25
Nah, m14 blows chuncks too. Give us a true AR10 battle rifle. Not the XM7, but an AR10. An M110 thats been battle-ified
0
0
u/Jaguar_AI May 18 '25
I don't have a problem with M14s I just simply wasn't trained on them. M4 platform for me boyos.
0
-13
u/dassketch May 18 '25
Americans pretending to embrace free market capitalism when what they really want is grift, graft, and that sweet promise of American exceptionalism - SIG USA, M14
Americans when they encounter real free market capitalism - not invented here, sham evaluations, cherry picked reports, outright fucking lies
The only reason capitalism beat communism is because the rich got richer faster under this joke of a system.
10
u/Sand_Trout May 18 '25
Are you pretending there was no corruption of bullshitted testing results under communism?
Google Lysenkoism, tankie.
→ More replies (1)4
u/RoddyDost May 18 '25
Capitalism: the lesser of two evils
→ More replies (4)3
u/DirtieHarry May 18 '25
Cleanest shirt in the dirty laundry. Could use a refresh with the blood of patriots and tyrants, though.
439
u/Penguixxy May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25
I mean the m14 also sucks so.......
AR10 time?
HK417?
screw it, bring the FAL back from the grave. (brazilian favelas)