Jump to content
Frankdatank1218

The Fictional MX Rifle series, why?

Recommended Posts

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.

You are wrong, compare 20mm and up with the standard issue NATO 5.56 caliber is apples to oranges.

In order for a caliber swap to happen Lake City would have to retool which will cost billions, the figures have been looked at before and its expensive..more so than anyone can imagine, thats a lot for such a minor increase in performance.

Also 6.5 is not a cureall and honestly is not much better than 5.56 using the righ bullet design. I won't deny the terminal ballistics are improved(no such thing as knock down power) it is still only a minor increase. I think the biggest issue with a caliber change is that the Army buys ammo 10 years in advance so we have a huge stock of 5.56 already, but 5.56 works out to 600M. Remeber we looked at and developed 6.8 and what do we use now..5.56, even 6.8 was not really worth the upgrade when one caliber is already getting the job done.

I have never had issues with the brown tip ammo out to 400M which at that distance shot placement is key no matter the caliber. 5.56 has been working ever since the war started, the difference is we now have a whole host of enhanced bullet designs that perform even bette at distances than M855 does. We are finding that the guys with the MK-17's are having to shoot a person the same amount of times as everyone with the M4A1 but they have to carry more weight, carry less ammo, and have a more harsh recoil and muzzle climb to deal with. I have even successfully used a M4CQBR(10.3" barrel) out to 200M before.

When we get into fights with armored guys M995 is a must and a that point a larger caliber is a bit better since the only thing going through the armor is the tungsten penetrator which will act like an ice pick no matter the caliber so larger is better there, but even then 6.5 is only a minor incremental upgrade that costs billions to get.

Aside from cost and the incremental upgrade we also have the NATO issues to deal with, alot o which are just adopting 5.56. I doubt they would be thrilled with changing calibers after a few years of doing just that

Edited by Oglee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeez, it's just a game.

Just a game? Just a GAME!?!?!? /sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we really need is someone to do a test where various shooters fire, using rifles of various calibers, with laser sights affixed to each. With a camera recording the path of the laser during each shot, we could find the appropriate range of muzzle deviation during recoil in minutes of angle, how fast the muzzle should realign on target, and how accurately it should do so.

Assuming such a test could be done, I think the best test subjects would be people who'd been through basic training and qualified with rifles, but not with years and years of experience. After all, shooting in a videogame will always be easier, and players will always compensate by pulling down and correcting with the mouse. Therefore, if you base the recoil on a SEAL with 20 years of experience, expert control of recoil, and then the player corrects with the mouse on top of that, you're back to excessively low recoil and easy long range shooting.

As for the 6.5mm recoil, I think I can guess what's going on here. Since BIS has implemented fictional weapons for the opfor, with innordinately high magazine capacities, they figured they could "balance" things by giving 'em innordinately high recoil. Given that it's blatantly higher than 7.62x51mm rifles we see in game, it couldn't be called a 6.5 Grendel analog. Personally, I'd have rather seen the enemies armed with contentional, real rifles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if changing the calibre to something different than every assault rifle and carbine in NATO, including in the Navy, Airforce, Marines, Army, National Guard, Coast Guard, is the same things as updating a pouch. New pouches that are introduced are usually compatible with what the old pouches held. It seems like a big change to me, not just getting the next missile version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day Weapons wear out, Machine tools making ammo wear out

They all need replacing at some point - look at the USMC choosing to replace their SAWs not with new SAWs but with an 'Automatic rifle'

And military units in Afghanistan are replacing weapons with 7.62 ones anyway.

The US Military not replacing the over powered .30 cal round before ww2 with a better bullet - .276 Pederson (which the M1 Garand was originally designed to fire from a 10 round clip) - was down to the top brass worried about the 'huge' stocks of .30 cal ammo they had never being used (it was all used in training before Pearl Harbour anyway so a pointless argument).

And anyway western armies have changed their standard bullet twice since the 1950s - so its not like it never been done.

However all that being said - I don't see the US (and therefore NATO) changing from 5.56 until Bullet tech takes another leap forward - ie LSAT which would probably have happened in the scope of the games alternative time line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day Weapons wear out, Machine tools making ammo wear out

They all need replacing at some point - look at the USMC choosing to replace their SAWs not with new SAWs but with an 'Automatic rifle'

And military units in Afghanistan are replacing weapons with 7.62 ones anyway.

The US Military not replacing the over powered .30 cal round before ww2 with a better bullet - .276 Pederson (which the M1 Garand was originally designed to fire from a 10 round clip) - was down to the top brass worried about the 'huge' stocks of .30 cal ammo they had never being used (it was all used in training before Pearl Harbour anyway so a pointless argument).

And anyway western armies have changed their standard bullet twice since the 1950s - so its not like it never been done.

However all that being said - I don't see the US (and therefore NATO) changing from 5.56 until Bullet tech takes another leap forward - ie LSAT which would probably have happened in the scope of the games alternative time line.

The IAR did no replace the SAW, it suplemented it. They still have SAWs which can be issued as needed based on mission.

The whole IAR thing really only works for the Marines and its overpriced. It was also down selected as the best of the losers since none of the entrants met the requirements.

We have switched bullet construction multiple times but it is still 5.56 so all the loading dies remain the same. SOCOM lead the way to the 6.8 an we ended up sticking to 5.56 because new bullet designs proved to work excellently and ended up being far cheaper. As to the guy who quoted Tony Willions...his data is suspect and has been proven wrong on a few issues by certain ballisticians.

There is no such thing as a do all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One rumored explanation for the IAR was that had actually been an attempt to "sneak" a piston M4/the HK416 past Congress into Marine Corps armories... but yeah, even in public there was never any stated intent to wholesale replace the M249 SAW and variants thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One rumored explanation for the IAR was that had actually been an attempt to "sneak" a piston M4/the HK416 past Congress into Marine Corps armories... but yeah, even in public there was never any stated intent to wholesale replace the M249 SAW and variants thereof.

While not the original intent(the intent dates back to the BAR days) the Marine Corps did look into replacing the M16 with the M27. They found it cost to much and would take nearly 20 years for HK to supply all the rifles they would need(HK has nothing on Colt in this department). Instead they are working on a PiP(free float rail, collapsing but stock) for the M16 which will net them 90% of the capabilities of the M27 but will cost them 25% as much as the M27 does and will be completed in less than 5 years(once they select the collapsing stock and free float rail).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...its expensive..more so than anyone can imagine, thats a lot for such a minor increase in performance.
The cost is an issue - the only one there is, but looking at recent US DoD projects that got pretty advanced, then being scrapped, of which I can name a dozen that went over one billion US Dollars, I think US DoD can easily afford that.

Now, as far as performance goes, you're locking yourself on the bullet performance, forgetting, that it is only one part of the "weapon system" in which the central element is the soldier himself. He have limited capabilities, that vary greatly between individuals. What that new ammo promises is not increased lethality per say, but greatly limited weight. And given Afghanistan experience, any pound less on the war-fighter is very welcome. Everyone is trying as hard as they can to get the gear weight to be as low as possible, and getting the weapon+ammo weight down by 40%+ IS A BIG DEAL, worth spending money on.

PS.

Aside from cost and the incremental upgrade we also have the NATO issues to deal with, alot o which are just adopting 5.56. I doubt they would be thrilled with changing calibers after a few years of doing just that
US DoD never cared about what other NATO forces are using. Didn't cared when the 7.62x51 was pushed, and didn't cared when soon after the 5.56x45 was replacing it. Same with going from 105mm to 120mm for MBT ammo. And frankly at this point NATO forces don't care either. Since the scenario of fighting side by side on continental Europe, locked out from supply lines diminished - everyone is going their own way, obeying STANAG only to get more sales (look at HK G36). And US is not the only one working on telescopic, or caseless ammunition either, whoever gets all the quirks out first, and get the manufacturing costs low enough - will implement it, not looking at others - what they would think, other than "can we sell it to them?". Edited by Sundowner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... so basically the C7A2 with a quad rail?

Kind of, except it will have a free floated rail which in testing has shown to greatly increase bolt life. That is part of the reason for the FF requirement in the RIS II.

Sundowner I think we agree more than it seems. I was thinking you meant going from 5.56 to 6.5 in brass cased ammunition, since you meant LSAT I agree 100%.

The current US LSAT program is actually a joint program between us and a few other countries, it should be interestin to see how it all works out in the end, I'm not a fortune teller so I can only wait and see if the program pans out and if it is truly worth it in the end. Until then though sticking with the 5.56 is fine and works exceptionally well out to 600M, past 300M pushes the limits of most average joes but if your on the top of your game you can get COM hits at distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because you said we have caseless ammunition now and pointed at a picture of a g-11, but the whole thing was dropped a long time ago. I guess when you say that we 'have it now', you mean that it was invented some time in the past.

The reason it was dropped was mostly because the caseless ammo was prone to cook off. The brass insulated the propellant from heat in the chamber. Nobel developed a propellant that would have a higher ignition temperature, which solved most of the issues. The German Army was about to field the G11 during my time there but decided against it because of the non-standard ammo, and went for the G36 a few years later.

The caseless ammo has advantages. It doesn't weight as much, is smaller, and has no ejection cycle.The latter made the G-11 have an insanely high fire frequency when fired in triple-burst, plus the movable firing mechanism delayed the recoil until the third shot was out of the barrel.

Personally, I think caseless ammo is feasible enough to be standard in 2035.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason it was dropped was mostly because the caseless ammo was prone to cook off. The brass insulated the propellant from heat in the chamber. Nobel developed a propellant that would have a higher ignition temperature, which solved most of the issues. The German Army was about to field the G11 during my time there but decided against it because of the non-standard ammo, and went for the G36 a few years later.

The caseless ammo has advantages. It doesn't weight as much, is smaller, and has no ejection cycle.The latter made the G-11 have an insanely high fire frequency when fired in triple-burst, plus the movable firing mechanism delayed the recoil until the third shot was out of the barrel.

Personally, I think caseless ammo is feasible enough to be standard in 2035.

Caseless is a stretch even for 2035 but its possible. CTA though is where it is at, remember Brass is not an infinite resource and its price varies so prices of ammo varies. Polymer cases would allow ammo to be made cheaper, allow more people to manufacture it, and would have a static cost vs a variable cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly speaking I'm fine with the MX rifles in the fictional canon of ArmA 3. In any case I'm sure there will be a comprehensive standardized mod set that will implement current day facsimiles of real weapons *coughACE3cough*.

What I would like them to fix however is the 100 rounder on the MX LMG being longer than its bipod. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like the MX series of rifles. I've been having a great time with the MX LMG and MX Sniper Rifle. I don't know about anybody else but quite frankly I'm glad there's no M4's,M16 or there variants atm as I'm really sick to the teeth of those guns being in very god damn fps ever made.

Change is good:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The IAR did no replace the SAW, it suplemented it. They still have SAWs which can be issued as needed based on mission.

The whole IAR thing really only works for the Marines and its overpriced. It was also down selected as the best of the losers since none of the entrants met the requirements.

We have switched bullet construction multiple times but it is still 5.56 so all the loading dies remain the same. SOCOM lead the way to the 6.8 an we ended up sticking to 5.56 because new bullet designs proved to work excellently and ended up being far cheaper. As to the guy who quoted Tony Willions...his data is suspect and has been proven wrong on a few issues by certain ballisticians.

There is no such thing as a do all round.

Tony Williams is on the internet of course someones going to disagree with him!

However his points are well made and he has independent and verifiable Data backing him up

As for "There is no such thing as a do all round" - this is always going to be the case - but there is such a thing as a better compromise than 5.56 in what ever improved loading it is given (and increasing its loading is going to have implications on the life of the current stock of 'cheap' M4 Carbines)

5.56 might be cheap and is effective at the ranges it was designed for (i.e Fighting in Europe) but those that can go 7.62 where ever possible (this includes the likes of SOCOM) because nearly all the conflicts that our soldiers have found them selves in over the last 20+ years have had at least half the engagements beyond the effective range of 5.56.

And predictions are that this trend will continue.

Now I know the counter argument is that beyond this 'effective 5.56 range' most soldiers would not be able to hit the target anyway (under combat conditions) but on occasion you can and you want the bullet to still retain enough energy to effective wound if it hits / suppress a target if it does not.

Given that DOD and MOD etc have and continue to pour countless millions away on projects that ultimately get cancelled I am sure that they can buy a few less F22s (which will never be used anyway because we are not going to war with China and Russia) and be able to buy the slightly more expensive better bullets in sustainable quantities for their soldiers.

As for the IAR M27 not replacing SAW's this is very true - the USMC have not replaced them with anything even New SAW's for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too late, but I would honestly prefer a 6.5mm M27 family of Rifles (called something else since BIS seems to shy from licensed names in A3). HK416 like Carbine, 7.62 HK417 like battle rifle/DMR (except the DMR and carbine could have some of the slightly different aesthetics of the M27 which looks slightly different than the 416/17), and an M27 IAR rechambered for 6.5 using a fictional 100 round quad-stacked mag. It would at least be more grounded and plausible than the current guns. Maybe even a 6.5 version of this to replace the MXC:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_02-tfb.jpg

This also makes more sense because Greece and several EU nations already use the HK416. So NATO adoption would be plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caseless ammo works, it was the G11 that was the problem. The USMC is developing the LSAT with a caseless ammo version. It's not even slightly beyond the realm of possibility.

And you guys gotta remember that Arma takes place in a fictional 'Armaverse', where the Commanche didn't get cancelled and America chose the Merkava over the Abrams. These are not impossible scenarios by any stretch of the imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually like the MX series of rifles. I've been having a great time with the MX LMG and MX Sniper Rifle. I don't know about anybody else but quite frankly I'm glad there's no M4's,M16 or there variants atm as I'm really sick to the teeth of those guns being in very god damn fps ever made.

Change is good:p

M16s and AK-47s is too damn Counter Strike! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's too late, but I would honestly prefer a 6.5mm M27 family of Rifles (called something else since BIS seems to shy from licensed names in A3). HK416 like Carbine, 7.62 HK417 like battle rifle/DMR (except the DMR and carbine could have some of the slightly different aesthetics of the M27 which looks slightly different than the 416/17), and an M27 IAR rechambered for 6.5 using a fictional 100 round quad-stacked mag. It would at least be more grounded and plausible than the current guns. Maybe even a 6.5 version of this to replace the MXC:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_02-tfb.jpg

This also makes more sense because Greece and several EU nations already use the HK416. So NATO adoption would be plausible.

There's a mod to this effect. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was loosely based off the SIG MCX Series which has only really been released recently but we have to remember Bohemia Interactive also has the division Bohemia Interactive Simulations which sells military grade simulators so of course they get to go to all the fun Military Expos around the world and can see some products before hand. The MX Series in the game is based on a Rifle that can do multiple roles without producing separate weapons. The SIG MCX also does such a job or is going to do such a job. This is my conclusion on why Arma 3 used the MX series. (Not just because MCX and MX are VERY closely named the same.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×