The Fictional MX Rifle series, why?

[slatts 1978]

The ARX-160 is unlikely to win the IC competition, the HK416A5 or new version of the SCAR the 2 best bets. Although I would like to see the LSAT.

[Oglee 1]

The ARX-160 is unlikely to win the IC competition, the HK416A5 or new version of the SCAR the 2 best bets. Although I would like to see the LSAT.

New guy here, I joined for this thread discussion.

Nothing will come from the IC. Having actually time behind the HK416, MK-16, and SOPMOD II M4A1 I can tell you that none offer any noteworthy upgrade. We abandonded the MK-16 forthat very reason, the M4A1(issued with the SOPMOD II items) was capable of everything the MK-16 was, but it costs us a lot less. The HK416 is also nothing spectacular, its a piston operated M4 that has parts life equal to the M4A1 but costs 3 times as much as our M4A1's. the Army is currently running the PiP as well which when finished will get them a M4A1 almost exactly like SOCOMS, the Marines are also doig a PiP for their M16's and it will be the M16A5 when finished.

I can tell you first hand that the issues with the M4 are 1 of 3 things. 1. Bad and worn magazines, 2. Improper lubrication(alot believe lube is bad because it attracks sand but in my experiences the more the better) and 3. Worn parts(the Army is horrible at replacing parts, they work on the mindset of well replace t when it breaks).

None of the systems in the IC will fix those 3 issues, and in order to upgrade to a new, marginally better system it would cost us $1.8 billion and 10+ years for a marginally bette system that offers at most a 5% increase in capability and maintainability.

Now you tell me, is $1.8 billion and 10+ years worth it? LSAT is right around the corner and would be a full fledged system by the time the Army finally fields all 500,000 IC rifles. LSAT is where it is headed and will be worth the upgrade.

LSAT is already TRL7, it has been in testig at Benning since 2011 and is performing amazingly. According to AAI it will be done with testing and ready for field trials in 1.5years, if it does well we could see the LMG fielded in the next 10 years with a carbine variant close behind(it is in the works since 2008). The other good thing about the LSAT weapons is that mechanically they are one of the most simplistic systems ever designed, and aside from the barrel and trigger have very, very few parts to wear out and break. Due to their push through system(vs the standard pull extraction) they are far more reliable and they run far cooler than any system out their since their chamber is seperate from the barrel(but still fully supported). The polymer cased telescoping ammo is fully ready and they have M855A1 variants already working, caseless is 1-2 years behind the cased telescoping.

This weapon is actually a LSAT weapon, granted its kind of like a mix of the ACR/XCR it fires the cased telescoped ammo in a quad stack mag, so it is a LSAT system which is where we are heading so given the timeline of this game it makes sense.

[ghostnineone 10]

What's really bothering me is the 7.62 MX has the exact same magazine and proportions as the 6.5 one, also all of the MX's have ejection ports, which is redundant because they have no cases. Unless it's for cross compatibility but how are you ever going to fit cased 6.5 into a mag shaped like that?

[Psychomorph 1]

...also all of the MX's have ejection ports, which is redundant because they have no cases.

You wish to manually eject a failed round sooner or later.

[Oglee 1]

You wish to manually eject a failed round sooner or later.

If they operate like the LSAT LMG and Carbine currently do they have a push through rod that loads the nex round, but also can push out a bad round that may not ignite or that you may need to remove to show the weapon is clear.

As to the same size ammo its doable, so far they have numerous bullets in the same telescoped ammo for the LSAT program

[Lauxman 10]

Improper lubrication? Sheesh, if you want to get your .50 cal firing on bad guys, it's 1. Start taking fire, 2. Identify the enemy position, 3. Grab your bottle of lubicration in a spray bottle, 4. Soak the crap out of your entire weapon system, 5. Fire at will

[Oglee 1]

Improper lubrication? Sheesh, if you want to get your .50 cal firing on bad guys, it's 1. Start taking fire, 2. Identify the enemy position, 3. Grab your bottle of lubicration in a spray bottle, 4. Soak the crap out of your entire weapon system, 5. Fire at will

More like before you leave the wire and go on patrol wipe down your BCG and put a liberal amount of CLP on it, reinsert BCG into M4 and close dust cover. That will last you your patrol.

The issue comes in with guys who have not wiped down their BCG's and have it covered in sand and have sand all in the barrel extension and then run their weapons completely bone dry. A dry gritty system is going to fail, that is why you apply lubricant before a patrol.

That said LSAT does not have this issues as there is no bolt carrier group(BCG). For those who have no idea how the LSAT system works here is a video of how the cased telescoping variant works(Caseless is near identical other than it does not eject the round as there is nothing to eject)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul6ckFTfZNA

[scarecrow398 43]

I can tell you first hand that the issues with the M4 are 1 of 3 things. 1. Bad and worn magazines, 2. Improper lubrication(alot believe lube is bad because it attracks sand but in my experiences the more the better) and 3. Worn parts(the Army is horrible at replacing parts, they work on the mindset of well replace t when it breaks).

Where have you been all this time? i've stayed out of these conversations as it seems impossible to explain to people that decent mags, a few drops of lube and a buffer spring upgrade gives the AR-15 platform nearly the same performance without being counter argued 'Well in Vietnam it was shit' Well, in Vietnam it was self cleaning and had no cleaning kits either...

[wipman 1]

Hi, to the Topic Starter:

There you've a M4A1 with a 100 rounds (Quad-Stac) Surefire magazine, they also have a 60 rounds one that's a litle bigger than a Standard 5.56 one.

I hate the ACR shape, some yankee feds have G-36KE ARs aswell G-36CE; i would have chosen the FN-SCAR L/H for the BLUFOR as standard rifle, the FN-SCAR H for the Marksman and the JAE M14/M1A for the Sniper:

*Much pimper as M1A:

As GPMG... i would had choosen an H&K MG4 as is a 7.62, just like the JAE-M1A; or a M240L. The JAE M1A could be perfect for SRT units, keeping the balance between punch & movility, same for the SCAR-H... good for SF/SRT units and with less parts than a M4A1, for the field cleaning.

I just don't know why they'd choosen that uggly & straight P-Mag... looks uggle, is taller and a curved one is well... is ugglyer than hit your father with a sweated sock; i would had punished with a good gas hose the man that took that decission, but i would preffer to crucify him/her, you know... "for don't loose the good ol' traditions", is not a good method for give lessons, but at least the guilty don't make it again, unless that the guilty be Jessus... or Wolverine... maybe Wolverine is Jessus but no one told him... hmmm.. i should stay away from the keyboard when i smoke... but sounds plausible. Anyway, the ACR is ugglyer than "the dark side of Mordor"; will be better for the players if BIS adds G-36 (with metalic mags) and SCAR L/H in 5.56; the ACR is so uggly that would be a valid reason IMO for don't buy the game. Let's C ya

[Cryhavoc101 1]

It makes sense to use the intermediate 6.5mm round (I imagine based on the Grendel) as it is more accurate and more lethal beyond 200 meters than the 5.56 Nato round

The purpose of a intermediate round is to replace both 5.56 and 7.62 weapons in a given fire team while retaining the abilities of both

7.62 Accuracy beyond 300 meters

7.62 Enengy (ie hitting power) beyond 300 meter

5.56 Ammo Weight

5.56 recoil

Whether that will be achieved or not in a single bullet type is debatable but that is the holy grail of a GPC or Intermediate round

Also its not to much of a stretch to imagine that the LSAT plastic case or even caseless bullets would have replaced Brass in the next 20 years

A Case less bullet reduces the weight and overall length of a bullet allowing the Magazine to be 'shorter' from front to back and I think that is what we are seeing in game

In my opinion the MX Rifle is a sensible and realistic weapon that should be in our soldiers hands now and not this golf bag of weapons that a fire team / Squad / Section seems to be saddled with in Afghanistan.

No I think they got this one right (although in practice I suspect that the 5.56mm M4A# will continue to 'win' competitions and still be equipping the US Military in 20 years time!)

[PN11A 2]

Replacing an entire arsenal of 5.56 with 6.5 is a logistical nightmare.

[TV-PressPass 10]

The ARX-160 is unlikely to win the IC competition, the HK416A5 or new version of the SCAR the 2 best bets. Although I would like to see the LSAT.

I handled the ARX-160 at Shot Show this year. Not a fan.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8384578577_ec0df942e7_b.jpg (360 kB)

[PN11A 2]

What are you not a fan of ?

[TV-PressPass 10]

The handguard is big. Like really big. I've seen some of the ambidextrous demonstrations, but I just don't feel that there's anything that it does substantially better than the ACR.

I'm (obviously) more of a bullpup fan anyway when it comes to 21st century rifles, but I really think that systems like the Remington (not bush) ACR, 805 Bren, and Tavor have a lot more to offer than the Beretta series guns.

[Meloncat 10]

Yeah I have to say TV presspass, it looks like you're holding something sized for a Gears of War weapon, and we all know how the OICW turned out.

[Sundowner 11]

Replacing an entire arsenal of 5.56 with 6.5 is a logistical nightmare.

Not really, lots of paperwork, but that's every day job in logistics.

With US military, you simply take on stock the new cartridge, and the old ones you can temporarily dump on the National Guard, or sell on civilian market (like it is currently done with overflow), or to other countries, preferably ones needing to restock their army from scratch - like it was with Iraq and Afghanistan - together with old weapons using such cartridge (remember what US did with most of the M14 in the 90s ?).

Such change doesn't happen overnight, and truth be told - it's happening constantly - look at how standards have changed with the 5.56, .50 cal and 20x102mm over last 3 decades. Same with artillery and tank rounds, a-a missiles - constantly in rotation.

Ammo type replacement is happening all the time. Unless the new ammo needs to be stored in cryogenic environment, then it's a non-issue.

[samyg 3]

I wouldn't mind the MX if it did have such a crazy kick-back. It should be somewhere where the TCR and Katiba are.

[hcpookie 3770]

Remember it is FICTIONAL folks! :)

If the CMMG influence on the game is correct then the MX is coming from a good source. That company's been very beneficial to the gun industry in Real Life.

All the above posts have some merit. Kudos to BIS for taking the time to make the future tech "correct" and not just some random BS stuff. The CMMG folks have taken the current mindset on small arms improvements (quad-stack mags, 6.5mm ammunition, etc) and projected it into the logical conclusion of what will exist in 20 years. Several ASSUMPTIONS are indeed made and most are not without some basis on reality.

The issue with caseless ammunition and today's technology is the engineers haven't found the "perfect" chemical mix that allows caseless ammunition to work in a military environment. Several major issues exist - look it up online - the most notable of which is the heat dissipation issue. They simply can't get a good gunpowder recipe that doesn't cook-off in the chamber while still providing the necessary propulsion for the round. In the long run, it will probably boil down to a cost issue. IF caseless can be made cheaper than standard cased ammo then it will probably be adopted, regardless of issues it may have in the field. The mindset of "let's get an 80% solution and fix the remaining 20% after delivery" is usually how these things are justified.

The big issues I see with the 'future tech' stuff is (a) my magic 8-ball is never right, and (b) money in the future will continue to be tight, making new developments and upgrades even more difficult. It has already been mentioned that supply chains take a huge investment to upgrade - remember they have to make sure they can fight a war! So that means they must ensure every link of that supply chain is "working" before completely removing the old stuff. There will always be overlap, and I will bet $20 that the AR family of rifles will still be in use 20-30 years from now even after any replacement weapon is adopted. And yes since the SCAR rifle family may be the better mousetrap, it is still a mousetrap and the military simply doesn't think it is worth the investment to make the change. So while front-line units may be using new stuff like the SCAR in the field for testing purposes and in limited deployments, there will always be the need for that "old reliable" weapon in the inventory. Remember the US Army has concluded that the 5.56 is the pinnacle of small arms development and is looking elsewhere for the future. It is conceivable that the "faster lighter stronger cheaper" mindset could make the Army's new 25mm airburst rifle "the" next go-to platform. What's that thing called again?

Personally I'm a large-caliber fan myself and don't think you should go into the woods with anything less than a .308 - I have very few youth calibers (aka 5.x mm stuff) BUT that's just me - realy men use .30 caliber weapons! :cool:

Besides I'm sure it will be a matter of weeks before A2/OA "replacement" weapon packs are ported into A3. So really, everybody wins. :)

Edited March 26, 2013 by hcpookie

[PN11A 2]

Your missing the bigger picture, your not just changing ammunition when you switch to a new round, you need to change magazines. So now you must supply every unit with new magazines, you must get all the old magazines turned in and accounted for next you must update tamis and change get every lot number that exist for 5.56 and make it obsolete. Then you must create a new dodic for the 6.5 round, the 6.5 lr, the 6.5 tracer, the 6.5 4 to 1 ball. Next you must manufactor the rounds in a facility that will allow you to control the entire lot, then you must get the correct head stamp on the brass. All of this must be done without stopping, deployments, bct, training, ets, and pcs moves. Its different when you are creating a new round especially when it requires specific magazines for use. This was just part of it, will you be modifying m4's by changing the barrel and bolt? you would have to do this for every soldier in the Military.

P.S plus you would have to convince the Marine Corps to give up their m16 with ironsights....thats a challenge all in itself.

Edited March 26, 2013 by PN11A

[Sundowner 11]

You're over-dramatizing it. Such movements are being made constantly. Be it newer rounds (like the "silvertip" Raufos .50 cal), new gear (Molle pouches are being implemented - what ? New one every other week ?). Newer variants of AMRAAM missiles are being introduced every 4 years, making the previous ones obsolete. USAF and USN are going to change from 20x102mm to 25x137mm as standard aerial gunnery round, only years after the 20x102 new propellant was introduced. Not to mention rotations of gear in units themselves (25x137mm to 30x173mm, 105mm shells to 120mm mortar rounds in AC-130 units).

Nobody is really loosing sleep over such stuff.

[PN11A 2]

Really? Your forgetting that what you are talking about is vastly different. Changing rounds for aircraft is completely different than changing rounds for an entire military force. Its not being made constantly im not sure where you are getting this from. Molle pouches are being changed to different pattern has nothing to do with having to by new magazines. Again you need to think how deep 5.56 is embedded into our military.

[Sundowner 11]

I'm writing this after work. At my work I share the same room with people that deal with replacement of one rifle round to another - different calibers, different packaging, different magazines (more standards than for US AR-15 family). It is nation wide change, it is going on for more than a decade and... it's a non-issue from logistics standpoint, something that happens all the time - for logistics it's only numbers. Numbers of boxes incoming and outgoing; volumes of space, available and used; numbers of trucks coming and going or fuel they burn; numbers of people involved; numbers of old round disposed off either by destruction, or given to a branch specialized in selling that surplus elsewhere. Its all the same, no matter what we would talk about.

Remember, that your military still have .30-06 stored, and the major purge of M-14 rifles was during 1990s - how many decades after introducing the M193 as standard nation-wide rifle cartridge ? You would be surprised, what vintage antiques I see some days - think Maxim machine guns, or WWII era Colt 1911s - that were NEVER issued in my country - you get a cookie, when you guess where those came from ;).

[Smurf 12]

Jeez, it's just a game.

[TV-PressPass 10]

I'm writing this after work. At my work I share the same room with people that deal with replacement of one rifle round to another - different calibers, different packaging, different magazines (more standards than for US AR-15 family).

So Sundowner . . . can I buy some greentips off of you? :o

[PN11A 2]

Rgr that ill stay in my lane. I'm looking at it from unit point of view because ordering ammo is an ass pain. Thanks for the heads up. Got any .458 you want to off load.