Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Army receiving new squad designated marksman rifles

When a federal contract is awarded, the government cannot disclose who "lost."

It's illegal and they'd have to pay out the ass after the inevitable lawsuit.

It can be deduced by who entered the competition.

The government can't disclose who entered the competition.

Well if a M14 wasn’t entered then these gd trials were a farce! M14 greatest battle rifle ever..

I don't understand why the military keeps complaining about weapons not having enough range while they keep shortening the barrels?

I guess for shooting 600 yards and in, a 308 is just fine. it just seems like such a horrendously boring choice. I think everyone would agree if the slate was clean and they were choosing from scratch the 308 would not even be in the top 5. Something 6.5 would have considerably less recoil and have just as much downrange energy. another thought is could there be a way to go to just one cartridge. one that serves the needs of the average grunt but yet can flex into the DMR role. I don't know the answer. We as average joes can dream up lots of cartridges that have a lot more performance. but if you look at a bore scope, the barrels of the ones with the extra performance have considerable cracking and bore degradation. look at a 223 after a whole lotta rounds and its pretty clear the differences. barrels are cheap and perhaps the armorers need something to do and since its an AR a barrel change is cake. but I don't know how much shooting volume your average DMR gun is seeing.

I was kinda wondering how a retard would view this.

Thanks.

Glad they went .308 instead of that 80,000 psi .277 deal.

You missed the point.

What makes them better?
Price?
Reputation? Gun rag reviews?
Snob appeal?

Better parts? Proper assembly methods?
Those are the point.

Get any semi proficient manufacturer of machined metal parts
to follow the real mil-spec for a Stoner pattern gun, and it will be...mil spec.

That, is the point.
It's why sewing machine, farm equipment, and lamp manufacturers
made quality weapons in WWII. Not because their civilian guns
had a better reputation than someone else's.

Mil-spec when it comes to to AR's is not always the best given what's available today.

LMT, KAC & H-K are not mil-spec in their entirety.

And, just so ya know, there is no "mil-spec" standard, per se', for large frame AR's

MM

I think you all are missing the part that say's:



There are many recent articles from military sites that still say's that the new rifle will be designed around a new 6.8mm round.

And even this interim rifle will use the service's new 7.62mm enhanced performance round.


Phil

Always interesting that the people with the least knowledge are the most vocal.



The M14 is a POS in all respects compared to any modern service rifle.









You have no idea how this works.

First, the military knows nothing about weapon design or performance- NOTHING. The combat arms in the military (what is now termed “close combat” personnel) as a whole are 30 plus years behind the public sector in knowledge, skill, and ability when it comes to small arms training and use. If they don’t know how to use the weapons with any real skill, how can the design something to perform and set spec for that? The requirements are mostly guesses- some good, some bad, and manufacturers compete to see who meets more of them.

Second, as has been pointed out, there is no “mil-spec” for large frame AR’S. They are not the same, and only in the last couple of years has anyone figured out how to make them run reliably enough and long enough for general use besides sniper support rifles. Only three manufacturers in the world have proven the ability in legitimate military trials to be able to consistently produce large frame AR/SR25 guns that are reliable and durable for wide military use- KAC, LMT, and HK. What makes them better? Reliability in all environments, durability in high round counts, long term precision,

Third, this isn’t WWII. Maytag isn’t being forced to make machine guns. DPMS (which is Remington), Remington, PSA, etc have ZERO understanding or drive to make guns work in large scale. That you think so, show a complete lack of knowledge or research. Remington has won three large US military/government contracts for rifles and lost all three because of their inability to continue producing to spec. As for PSA.... You realize that all their “good” guns are made by FN, correct?




HK won because they produced a system that met more requirements than anyone else. Whether the requirements were actually useful or not can be debated, but the requirements were open to all to compete. HK won. It is a heavy rifle and it recoils more; but it is precise, reliable and it won.


Want to complain about something? Question the optic.

After they turned down the HK416 for the jam-o-matic SCAR and the drop-n-fire Sig over the Glock, I don’t find any DOD weapon choices surprising. Imagine if they would’ve taken the AR18 50 years ago.....

The best Piston AR-10 size rifle already exists. It’s the PWS (Primary Weapon System) MK2 productline using their long stroke piston design. Runs like a top and is dang tough. Personally a PWS in 6.5 Creedmoor or 260 Rem would have been a better choice in this application.

Mark in GA

Embarrassed!
You are absolutely right!

When did this happen? And pray tell what is your experience with “jam-o-matic” SCARs?


The M17 and M18 have never had drop fire issues. I am no fan of Sig in general, however the drop issue is extremely overblown and mischaracterized across the board.









So a gun and system that has never passed a single military reliability and durability evaluation by a military entity, is better than one of the most tested and robust 7.62mm gas guns on the market that has been tested and repeatedly proven to work? And a 6.5 Creedmoor or 260R is a better choice for a Squad designated marksmen rifle in an infantry squad that shares no ammunition commonality with it, than the 7.62mm that is shared by the squad/platoon?

Formi, do you know which optic was chosen for this rifle?


mike r

Actually if you look at the original post I replied to I was responding to someone else specifically about Piston based AR’s. All AR’s are “gas guns” if you will regardless of them being DI or some form of piston-based action. So by “gas gun” I will assume you are referring specifically to DI based 7.62 platforms. I never said anything negative about those vs piston. I have had all three (DI, Short-Stroke Piston, and Long-Stroke Piston) in 7.62 and tested them extensively. All short-stroke piston including a Sig Sauer have moved on down the road. It was not even in the league with the 5 different PWS rifles I have direct experience with. Would the Sig run, yes, but much more violently than the PWS and frankly was not as reliable in my experience. All I’m saying is if you go piston, the PWS system functions better period. Smoother, more consistent, and accurate. Go and check out who was involved in the design of the PWS and their military experience/backgrounds.

That said, DI based AR 7.62 platforms are just fine too. I have them and would recommend them, especially LMT, Daniel Defense (which is located about 10 miles from my home), and the Aero Precision M5 for a less costly but quality version.

I get the logic of commonality and why they picked the 308. It is a known and dependable round. I might would have gone a different way, but I would have picked differently on all of the US Military’s small arms except for the M240. That one, I believe they got right as far as the platform goes.

Mark in GA

I was going to ask the same thing but he seems like a cranky pants today.

Simmons whitetail 3-9x40