ARmy Rumour SErvice

The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
Being able to mix and match weapons, calibres and sights depending on the job.
An optimal calibre or brl length or sight or recoil system is all well and good, but is always built around an ideal environment (most notably the standard battlefield mission).
But being able to have a carbine version of a rifle with a reflex sight is ideal in a CQB environment. A long brl with support and magnified optics for open warfare, in line night capability for when light conditions vary etc...

These generic debates on what is weapon or calibre is better will always depend on specific examples of how and when and who against, it is used.

I think we should be looking at standardising concepts, not calibres. So all the lower receivers are laid out the same (Even if made by different companies), so the safety's and selectors are in the same place and work the same way. (Like the pedals on cars).
OK, things like bolt actions will always need to be unique, but there is no reason why new assault rifles cannot all have a lever safety/selector, with the safe in the same place in relation to the other modes!!!

Just think of the ease on training. An operator can pick up a carbine, SMG, rifle, long range rifle, no matter who makes them, and know how they work with no extra training.

Taking this a stage further, it would be ideal to be able to change upper receivers "toolbox" style in order to meet differing environments (heavier brls or shorter brls etc...)

Just some ideas, but hopefully something a little more "out of the box" than just "this calibre is better than that calibre" debate.

rgds

PR

Originally Posted by Picatinny_Rail

The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
Being able to mix and match weapons, calibres and sights depending on the job.
An optimal calibre or brl length or sight or recoil system is all well and good, but is always built around an ideal environment (most notably the standard battlefield mission).
But being able to have a carbine version of a rifle with a reflex sight is ideal in a CQB environment. A long brl with support and magnified optics for open warfare, in line night capability for when light conditions vary etc...

These generic debates on what is weapon or calibre is better will always depend on specific examples of how and when and who against, it is used.

I think we should be looking at standardising concepts, not calibres. So all the lower receivers are laid out the same (Even if made by different companies), so the safety's and selectors are in the same place and work the same way. (Like the pedals on cars).
OK, things like bolt actions will always need to be unique, but there is no reason why new assault rifles cannot all have a lever safety/selector, with the safe in the same place in relation to the other modes!!!

Just think of the ease on training. An operator can pick up a carbine, SMG, rifle, long range rifle, no matter who makes them, and know how they work with no extra training.

Taking this a stage further, it would be ideal to be able to change upper receivers "toolbox" style in order to meet differing environments (heavier brls or shorter brls etc...)

Just some ideas, but hopefully something a little more "out of the box" than just "this calibre is better than that calibre" debate.

rgds

PR

That would be the FN SCAR then?

PR, a nice idea but I dont feel there is much need for common lowers, most troops should be competent with platoon weapons. The principle behind having changeable barrel lengths seems great till the battle changes and the enemy sits out beyond 300 yards and blasts you and your team armed with fibua carbines in the little house you are now pinned down in.
Bull pup designs ensured we get carbine overall lengths without sacrificing full length barrels. I think a bull pup is still the way to go, ambidextrous yes, adapatble for easy on off of sights and grenade launchers yes, this then leaves us deciding upon a calibre.
The calibre has to be man enough for the job. Had we used .280/7mm ammo as standard would we have gone down the 5.56mm route with a standard Nato? Who knows.
I know that Nato didnt have the clout to ignore the yanks over .30 ammo.
If units had been able to deploy to Korea with the L9 rifle in its automatic version then perhaps the Yanks may have seen how good it was?
Maybe we would have seen how many problems exist with bullpups and the SA80 wouldnt have been such a balls up!

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by Picatinny_Rail

The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
PR

That would be the FN SCAR then?

Sort of.. But my point was more about a joined up method of being able to buy and use suitable weapons from where ever, and be familiar with them. The SCAR is modular, and not all of its modules are the best on the market. There will always be sacrifice in a fully modular system where you trade off functionality for modularity. However, I think it is a bold first step by a company to try and tackle these issues we all discuss.. :D

I still think the Iron Duke was right, an ounce of round ball is needed for the Frenchman!

Personally, I'm still waiting for that often talked of belt-fed wombat, but only so I know what to expect should I ever come across a lady who fcuks like one...

Originally Posted by Picatinny_Rail

Originally Posted by EX_STAB

Originally Posted by Picatinny_Rail

The real concept that needs to be taken onboard (IMHO) is that of the toolbox weapons.
PR

That would be the FN SCAR then?

Sort of.. But my point was more about a joined up method of being able to buy and use suitable weapons from where ever, and be familiar with them. The SCAR is modular, and not all of its modules are the best on the market. There will always be sacrifice in a fully modular system where you trade off functionality for modularity. However, I think it is a bold first step by a company to try and tackle these issues we all discuss.. :D

I think there's a lot to be said for having the controls in a similar layout and for the sights to be interchangeable to some degree but I don't see it needs to go further than that.

Originally Posted by ugly

PR, a nice idea but I dont feel there is much need for common lowers, most troops should be competent with platoon weapons. The principle behind having changeable barrel lengths seems great till the battle changes and the enemy sits out beyond 300 yards and blasts you and your team armed with fibua carbines in the little house you are now pinned down in.
Bull pup designs ensured we get carbine overall lengths without sacrificing full length barrels. I think a bull pup is still the way to go, ambidextrous yes, adapatble for easy on off of sights and grenade launchers yes, this then leaves us deciding upon a calibre.
The calibre has to be man enough for the job. Had we used .280/7mm ammo as standard would we have gone down the 5.56mm route with a standard Nato? Who knows.
I know that Nato didnt have the clout to ignore the yanks over .30 ammo.
If units had been able to deploy to Korea with the L9 rifle in its automatic version then perhaps the Yanks may have seen how good it was?
Maybe we would have seen how many problems exist with bullpups and the SA80 wouldnt have been such a balls up!

Your right, but that was not the point I was trying to make. My fault for not being articulate enough :P
I am not on about having the ability to change brls etc on ops. I'm looking at it from a big hand perspective. If we deploy troops to an urban area, where EHC is going to be the order of the day, equip the lads with short brl, reflex sighted, carbines. If we are going to fight in the green zone or in deserts, a longer brl, with a longer optical reach, maybe even a bigger calibre.
But the calibre being big enough to do the job is only relevant to the job!
EHC, against a target 5m away, a 5.56mmx45 fired from a C8 carbine will make a mess of anybody it hits.
Same round fired from a long brl C8 at 300m might not be up to the job.

That's why the debate about what round or weapon is best goes nowhere unless it is measured against specific requirements.