NGSW and other Military Rifle R&D

[ShadowArxxy]

Building designs in-house isn't a panacea against corruption, note the entire debacle of the shitty M-14 being selected over the vastly superior FN FAL and the outright revolutionary AR-10.

(According to the Army, the fact that the M-14 was a little bit lighter than the FAL was a hugely important advantage, but the fact that the AR-10 was much lighter was not important at all. Similarly, the fact that the M-14 was a less developed design than the FAL was dismissed as unimportant, yet the fact that the AR-10 was less developed than the M-14 was supposedly a crucial shortcoming.)

 

[Husky_Khan]

Building designs in-house isn't a panacea against corruption, note the entire debacle of the shitty M-14 being selected over the vastly superior FN FAL and the outright revolutionary AR-10.

(According to the Army, the fact that the M-14 was a little bit lighter than the FAL was a hugely important advantage, but the fact that the AR-10 was much lighter was not important at all. Similarly, the fact that the M-14 was a less developed design than the FAL was dismissed as unimportant, yet the fact that the AR-10 was less developed than the M-14 was supposedly a crucial shortcoming.)

Enough of your Belgian propaganda. The only thing Belgium needs to provide our right arm to the free world is waffles to pair with our Canadian maple syrup like good NATO little siblings. It's quite obvious that from your analysis that it just means the M-14 hit that magnificent middle ground... for a solid eight years for that AR technology to mature.

 

[Zachowon]

And once the 15 came around, and the AF of all branches adopted it.
The US military saw the error of thier ways.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

And once the 15 came around, and the AF of all branches adopted it.
The US military saw the error of thier ways.

More like the Air Force saw the light, and the Army was dragged kicking and screaming after *yet another* failed wonder-rifle project wasted enormous amounts of taxpayer money.

Project Salvo, Project Niblick, Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Future Rifle Program, Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Infantry Combat Weapon. . . the list goes on.

 

[Zachowon]

More like the Air Force saw the light, and the Army was dragged kicking and screaming after *yet another* failed wonder-rifle project wasted enormous amounts of taxpayer money.

Project Salvo, Project Niblick, Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Future Rifle Program, Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Infantry Combat Weapon. . . the list goes on.

NGSW wich is going to be going through it seems

 

[ShadowArxxy]

NGSW wich is going to be going through it seems

True, but NGSW is finally stepping away from the decades-long obession with a flechette/microburst assault rifle + multishot grenade launcher combination.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Enough of your Belgian propaganda. The only thing Belgium needs to provide our right arm to the free world is waffles to pair with our Canadian maple syrup like good NATO little siblings. It's quite obvious that from your analysis that it just means the M-14 hit that magnificent middle ground... for a solid eight years for that AR technology to mature.

Yes, the most short-lived infantry rifle in U.S. history.

 

[Sailor.X]

Yes, the most short-lived infantry rifle in U.S. history.

Um the US Navy was still using the M-14 right up until the early 2000s as a shipboard defensive rifle. It could shoot farther than the M-16 which made it good for ship defense.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Um the US Navy was still using the M-14 right up until the early 2000s as a shipboard defensive rifle. It could shoot farther than the M-16 with made it good for ship defense.

Okay, let me clarify: the M-14 is the most short-lived general issue infantry rifle in American history, although it is also ironically the longest-serving limited issue specialist rifle.

 

[Zachowon]

Hell, modern day variants are used as DMRs

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Hell, modern day variants are used as DMRs

Hence longest serving, yet shortest serving. It lasted only nine years (1959 to 1968) as the general issue service rifle, less than even the Krag-Jorgenson's twelve year run, but may have now surpassed the Springfield M1903 for length of service in some capacity.

The Wikipedia article claims it already has exceeded the Springfield, but the numbers don't quite add up -- the Springfield was used for 72 years (1903 to 1975), whereas the M14 has now reached 62 years (1959-present).

 

[Zachowon]

I would personally trust a 1903 over a M14

 

[Aaron Fox]

More like the Air Force saw the light, and the Army was dragged kicking and screaming after *yet another* failed wonder-rifle project wasted enormous amounts of taxpayer money.

Project Salvo, Project Niblick, Special Purpose Individual Weapon, Future Rifle Program, Advanced Combat Rifle, Objective Infantry Combat Weapon. . . the list goes on.

Not really, the ACR and OICW programs were programs that pushed the limit on what you can do, particularly the OICW program.

It's like how the Seawolf-class SSNs and Zumwalt-class DDGs became testbeds for all sorts of things for the Virgina-class SSNs and Burke-class III/future DDG program respectively.

Right now, the US military is literally throwing darts that the wall and seeing what sticks.

I would personally trust a 1903 over a M14

In a modern battlefield, I would trust an M14 more than a bolt-action of any type, largely due to the rate of fire advantage of semi-auto and full-auto. Would quickly dump it for an M16 though.

 

[Zachowon]

Not really, the ACR and OICW programs were programs that pushed the limit on what you can do, particularly the OICW program.

It's like how the Seawolf-class SSNs and Zumwalt-class DDGs became testbeds for all sorts of things for the Virgina-class SSNs and Burke-class III/future DDG program respectively.

Right now, the US military is literally throwing darts that the wall and seeing what sticks.

In a modern battlefield, I would trust an M14 more than a bolt-action of any type, largely due to the rate of fire advantage of semi-auto and full-auto. Would quickly dump it for an M16 though.

Current model M-14s are semi auto only, and ar again, DMR's. They are not used in any front line capacity as they were in Vietnam

 

[Aaron Fox]

Current model M-14s are semi auto only, and ar again, DMR's. They are not used in any front line capacity as they were in Vietnam

True, but still, if you throw me an M14 and an M1903, I would go for the M14, even if it is semi-auto. I didn't know which model is being used so I covered my bases, so to speak.

 

[Zachowon]

True, but still, if you throw me an M14 and an M1903, I would go for the M14, even if it is semi-auto. I didn't know which model is being used so I covered my bases, so to speak.

Basically, Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle - Wikipedia This si what they use

 

[Aaron Fox]

Basically, Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle - Wikipedia This si what they use

As I said, I just wanted to cover my bases. No need to get hostile about it.

 

[Zachowon]

As I said, I just wanted to cover my bases. No need to get hostile about it.

I was just showing ya

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Not really, the ACR and OICW programs were programs that pushed the limit on what you can do, particularly the OICW program.

The OICW pushed very little "new ground", it was yet another rehash of the Army's obsession over infantry rifles with a repeating grenade launcher. An obsession which, again, goes all the way back to SPIW and which the Army continues to waste obscene gobs of taxpayer money over despite time and time and time again being shown that they're too inherently damn heavy to ever be practical.

(Mostly Kidding) We need to do something like pass a law saying every time the Army approves an R&D project, two-thirds of the pay of every officer who thinks it's a good idea gets placed in a trust fund to pay for cost overruns. They only get it back if the project delivers on budget, on schedule, and meets or exceeds all objectives without revision.

 

[Aaron Fox]

The OICW pushed very little "new ground", it was yet another rehash of the Army's obsession over infantry rifles with a repeating grenade launcher. An obsession which, again, goes all the way back to SPIW and which the Army continues to waste obscene gobs of taxpayer money over despite time and time and time again being shown that they're too inherently damn heavy to ever be practical.

(Mostly Kidding) We need to do something like pass a law saying every time the Army approves an R&D project, two-thirds of the pay of every officer who thinks it's a good idea gets placed in a trust fund to pay for cost overruns. They only get it back if the project delivers on budget, on schedule, and meets or exceeds all objectives without revision.

Wow, that is various levels of stupid. It's like the bullshit 'Military Industrial Complex' conspiracy shit that gets past around like the truth.

The thing is, things like the OICW hits two road blocks: technology (it must be noted that for about three decades, the smallest round you can have with a fuse is about 75mm, then in the 1970s Bofors developed a 40mm shell with a VT fuse and got put into the DIVAD program) and Congress, especially after it started going back to its 'fuck the military of funding' routine.