The US army gets a new gun

[Trunkage]

The AR15 is popular in the US because it looks like the preferred gun in their Defense force. Just note, the AR15 is a low powered rifle

The US army decided that the old rifle not shooting through body armour was a problem and that they wanted to be able kill any near peer army (eg. China) from further away than those armies rifle is effective


So this rifle, or at least a variant, is coming on to the market very soon. And it's probably going to be THE gun for gun nuts. Mass shootings might become really explosive soon

Edit: This guy is very pro-2nd amendment

 

[Gordon_4]

The AR15 is popular in the US because it looks like the preferred gun in their Defense force. Just note, the AR15 is a low powered rifle

The US army decided that the old rifle not shooting through body armour was a problem and that they wanted to be able kill any near peer army (eg. China) from further away than those armies rifle is effective


So this rifle, or at least a variant, is coming on to the market very soon. And it's probably going to be THE gun for gun nuts. Mass shootings might become really explosive soon

Edit: This guy is very pro-2nd amendment

Take this for the ignorant conjecture that it is, but the US Military has repeatedly fielded and rejected new rifles - see the XM8 project - and this issue strikes me as one they could solve by just going back to a 7.62 caliber round. Which I want to say (but can’t verify) will just require a replacement lower receiver, new magazines and an adjustment to the gas system on the existing M4/M16 platforms.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I don't see this getting a massive uptake in the civilian market, primarily because I've heard that the recoil of the round makes it difficult for women or even smaller-framed men to shoot effectively (the reason why the FBI didn't fully adopt the 10mm Auto round), and because the foremost problem the cartridge is supposed to solve- defeating military-grade body armor- isn't an issue most civilians will face. Still, you know the gung-ho dudebros who want to look tactical will be all over it.

Insofar as the military, I'd have to wonder how a cartridge so inimical to automatic fire (and which may require a 25- or even 20-round magazine) will affect the Army's and Marines' "fire and maneuver" doctrine.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Yeah, I don't see this picking up significantly, at least immediately. There's a huge civilian ecosystem already for AR-15s and .223 in general that the new gun won't have.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, I don't see this picking up significantly, at least immediately. There's a huge civilian ecosystem already for AR-15s and .223 in general that the new gun won't have.

Isn't AR15 a 5.56?

 

[Trunkage]

Take this for the ignorant conjecture that it is, but the US Military has repeatedly fielded and rejected new rifles - see the XM8 project - and this issue strikes me as one they could solve by just going back to a 7.62 caliber round. Which I want to say (but can’t verify) will just require a replacement lower receiver, new magazines and an adjustment to the gas system on the existing M4/M16 platforms.

As far as I understand, the army is looking for a particular bullet doing a particular thing and the platform that shoots it doesn't matter

I have some knowledge on guns but modification, especially to different size bullets, is not knowledge I have

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Take this for the ignorant conjecture that it is, but the US Military has repeatedly fielded and rejected new rifles - see the XM8 project - and this issue strikes me as one they could solve by just going back to a 7.62 caliber round. Which I want to say (but can’t verify) will just require a replacement lower receiver, new magazines and an adjustment to the gas system on the existing M4/M16 platforms.

Would also need new barrels and uppers as there is a size difference between the rounds as well. But at that point, you have a completely new weapon (so why not just build new rifles from the ground up), and they already designed a 7.62 AR, the AR-10.

Isn't AR15 a 5.56?

Yes and no. The .223 and the NATO 5.56, while having identical (or very nearly identical) dimensions, the 5.56, IIRC, has higher gunpowder charges.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Isn't AR15 a 5.56?

5.56 NATO and .223 are practically (but not precisely) the same size round. The bigger difference is that the NATO round is "packed hotter", meaning it fires with more pressure.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Isn't AR15 a 5.56?

What the others said and I should be more precise. From a shape standpoint they are nearly identical and any gun chambered for one can chamber the other. This is not always smart to do and should generally be avoided because just because it can doesn't mean it's necessarily safe to do. There are a few rounds that are like this, and they all have the same caveat.

 

[Gordon_4]

Would also need new barrels and uppers as there is a size difference between the rounds as well. But at that point, you have a completely new weapon (so why not just build new rifles from the ground up), and they already designed a 7.62 AR, the AR-10.


Yes and no. The .223 and the NATO 5.56, while having identical (or very nearly identical) dimensions, the 5.56, IIRC, has higher gunpowder charges.

Thanks kindly for that clarification.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Rifles that shoot 6.8 cartridges have already been on the civilian market for many years. They are somewhat popular with shooters, but not extremely popular mostly because of the fairly extreme cost of ammo. It's significantly more expensive to shoot 6.8 than it is to shoot 5.56, .223, or even 7.62 nato which are all readily available. From what I understand 6.8 barrels also don't last as long, so there's generally higher upkeep costs associated. For the civilian market it's a rich man's rifle.

The reason that the AR15 is so popular in the US isn't just because it's so similar to the M4. It's because it's design is naturally extremely accurate and it's very modular. There's a lot of tinkering, a lot of accessories that allow you to make the perfect rifle for you, and it's a pretty lightweight gun. It's all the same reasons that glocks are so popular.

 

[Lykosia]

Take this for the ignorant conjecture that it is, but the US Military has repeatedly fielded and rejected new rifles - see the XM8 project - and this issue strikes me as one they could solve by just going back to a 7.62 caliber round. Which I want to say (but can’t verify) will just require a replacement lower receiver, new magazines and an adjustment to the gas system on the existing M4/M16 platforms.

7.62 would either increase the weight or decrease the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. 7.62 also has much higher recoil making follow up shots or bursts more difficult. 6.8 seems to be a good compromise between the two. I know that Finland and Sweden have also been looking into 6+ mm rifles and rounds. Don't remember if it was 6.5 or 6.8. But now that both are joining NATO I'm guessing they'll go with 6.8 too.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Thanks kindly for that clarification.

No problem. However, you were right in that it is that easy to change the caliber of the weapon, at least the civilian AR counterpart, but instead of 7.62 it's to .22LR. Less accurate though, since the size difference (.223 to .22) doesn't do much to encourage amazing ballistics.

 

[Agema]

Take this for the ignorant conjecture that it is, but the US Military has repeatedly fielded and rejected new rifles - see the XM8 project - and this issue strikes me as one they could solve by just going back to a 7.62 caliber round. Which I want to say (but can’t verify) will just require a replacement lower receiver, new magazines and an adjustment to the gas system on the existing M4/M16 platforms.

True - but one of the reasons they have been looking at so many guns is that the M4/M16 is deemed old and due for replacement anyway, as upgrades only go so far. It makes little sense for them to adapt guns they think are at the end of their lifespan. May as well get a whole new gun.

Mind you, I think defence procurement is a lot about countries padding their own industry. I could tentatively suggest the US military potentially found an effective replacement for the M4/M16 years ago, it's just that it wasn't designed and manufactured by a US company so the can was kicked down the road instead.

 

[CM156]

Rifles that shoot 6.8 cartridges have already been on the civilian market for many years. They are somewhat popular with shooters, but not extremely popular mostly because of the fairly extreme cost of ammo. It's significantly more expensive to shoot 6.8 than it is to shoot 5.56, .223, or even 7.62 nato which are all readily available. From what I understand 6.8 barrels also don't last as long, so there's generally higher upkeep costs associated. For the civilian market it's a rich man's rifle.

The reason that the AR15 is so popular in the US isn't just because it's so similar to the M4. It's because it's design is naturally extremely accurate and it's very modular. There's a lot of tinkering, a lot of accessories that allow you to make the perfect rifle for you, and it's a pretty lightweight gun. It's all the same reasons that glocks are so popular.

The AR-15 is the Burger King of modern sporting rifles.

 

[SilentPony]

So maybe this is my ignorance showing, but the US military has a bunch of kinds of rifles, yeah? Like just looking at pictures of soldiers in the field, basically everyone has a different rifle type. So they're just replacing one of many types of rifles with one of many possible alternates.

 

[Agema]

So maybe this is my ignorance showing, but the US military has a bunch of kinds of rifles, yeah? Like just looking at pictures of soldiers in the field, basically everyone has a different rifle type. So they're just replacing one of many types of rifles with one of many possible alternates.

There's usually a basic weapon - think of it as a platform - which the majority of infantry carry. That platform can then be adapted and modified for varied purposes, so there's a range of guns with the same core but which look a bit different and have different strengths.

Then there are specialised weapons such as sniper rifles, as your average assault rifle is almost never going to convert to a particularly good sniper rifle no matter how much it is modded. And then some arms of the military (e.g. special forces) may prefer completely different models that better suit their tactics.

 

[Gergar12]

The gun has crazy recoil. Given how strong the recoil is I would have preferred them to use 6.5mm.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So maybe this is my ignorance showing, but the US military has a bunch of kinds of rifles, yeah? Like just looking at pictures of soldiers in the field, basically everyone has a different rifle type. So they're just replacing one of many types of rifles with one of many possible alternates.

Across the various services, there are a number of different rifles (sniper/designated marksman rifles, battle rifles, etc.) more often used in certain situations, and there are some alternate models preferred by certain groups (SOCOM, SEALs, so on), but the majority of troops in both the Army and Marine Corps are issued some variant of the M16, including the M4, which is a carbine variant.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

they already designed a 7.62 AR, the AR-10.

And a fine piece of engineering it is... although, IMO, not as good as the FN-LAR (aka L1A1/SLR)*

*at least when it comes to pig shooting