Competition for M16/M4 replacement opens

[stgn 39]

SA80 - 5kg with SUSAT and 30 rounds of ammo

M16A2 - 4.47Kg with 30 rounds of ammo

FAMAS G2- 3.8kg with NO ammo

XM8 - 2.659KG Empty

G36C - 2.8Kg Empty

Its the heaviest out of them but 5kg ain't that heavy.

a few corrections

M16A2- ca. 3.90kg with 30 rounds

XM8(carbine)- ca. 3.90kg with 30 rounds

STGN

You sure?

M-16A2 weights

XM8 weight

Prity much:

M16A2:

Colt's homepage

Fild manual TM9-1005-319-29 (page 27)

XM8:

Data sheet from H&K homepage (page 2)

STGN

[MontyVCB 0]

yea, i don't trust that guy on that gun page, he is a bit bias

[stgn 39]

the L85A2 gas parts are not all that different from the A1, HK just made some slight modifications to them and made out of higher quailty of matierals. the L85A2's gas parts are totally different to the G36's, i also still think having full rifles is the way to go, this carbine fad is just because of all the close urban fighting in iraq, what happens when you are on a open landscape and you need to engage targets at 400m+, are you gonna be able to do this with a M4 or a XM8, i think not, i don't know what the US army have against bullpups, but if they want a weapon with the range and accuracy of a rifle and the size of a carbine, they are going to have to give the bullpup concept a good think.

Well actualy the US Army is currently buying M16A4's and not only M4A1's. You forget the fact that most infantry ingagements is within 300m which a M4 was designed too be used and is powerfull "enough" too hit and kill especialy if the taget is wearing bodyarmor. What they might have against bullpubs is: they are harder to load, they can't change shoulders quick if at all, I havent seen eny bullpub which had somthing like a retracteable butt so it could fit different size personel when they had bodyarmor on and when they don't. But everything is a compromice and it is by far preferable to have a short barrel, very handy carbine when you are clearing houses in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]

How about just being there? Not specifically in combat at that moment. You are usually issued a certain amount of ammo based on a few things, among other things how much the average soldier can carry (usually a certain weight is reserved for weapons and ammo). The lighter the rifle, the more ammunition you can (and probably will) carry. If it's not ammo, it's some other piece of vital equipment. The few hundred grams you save by making a lighter rifle doesn't benefit you one bit after that, the total weight you will carry into combat will be the same.

I am not sure what you mean but one plus of a lighter rifle is that its easier too handle.

STGN

[Gordy 0]

Sth that might interest you.

It is a k-pot test showing a different caliber withstand.

Pics

Quote[/b] ]the helmet is a army issue, surplus, beat up, at least 10 year old K-pot.

The helmet stopped 9mm 115grn +P+, .357 mag, and .45 ACP without a problem.

Then we broke out the AR in 556 nato, which went through both sides easily, and then the AK 7.62*39, which penetrated one or both sides.

One note, an Airbore Ranger Sniper in my unit said that he shot a *NEW* K-pot with .308 win @ 100 yds while in the 101st, and he told me that it stopped one shot, but the second one in the same spot penetrated.

Also, *NEW* K-pots have been known to stop 7.62*39.

It is a nice comment on a weapon choice + ammo.

[MontyVCB 0]

and who says 5.56 isn't enough

@STGN, yeah i have seen a few pictures of US Armoured Cav with M16A4s, i thought they might have pinched them off the marines but now i kno

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

The extra weight isn't so much that the rifle becomes unusable or anything like that, its just unnecessary.

[Bordoy 0]

Do the cavalry/pilots still use the XM177E2?

[MontyVCB 0]

i doubt it, it would either be a sidearm or a M4A1 (or a MP5 if you are in the 160th SOAR)