Rifles of the future?

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Rico11b

Ok,

So I went and read the report. Thanks for posting the link by the way

2600 soldiers huh, that a drop in the bucket for sure. I'd be willing to bet a very large sum of money that most of the 2600 WERE in fact rear area support troops, and here is a few reasons why.

Most times when the Military does a survey like that THEY themselves PICK and CHOOSE who or whom will be "surveyed". If that is not what happened then it's like this.

Most times when the Army is conducting "surveys" like that, the only ones standing around to be asked those questions are rear area troops. Most times these troops DON'T carry their weapons on a daily basis, nor are they in an MOS that requires them to go outside the wire to conduct patrols, and such. I know guys that did 2 tours and never once had to fire their weapons. Never once did they find themselves in a sticky situation. Sometimes it goes like that, especially for a NON Combat-Arms MOS. Besides that most of them probably just repeat what they heard someone else say, just to give the impression that they know their shit, when in fact they don't know shit

I'm not picking on Non Combat Arms troops, I'm just saying that they asked the wrong 2600 soldiers. I'll be you can't get 2600 soldiers in ANY single DIVISION to say they preferred the 5.56mm over something else. Hell, I'll bet you can't find 2600 soldiers just in ALL of 18th Airborne Corps to say that.

R

If the survey was done with troops who had not seen combat before, why did the author feel the need to skew the results?

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

D'oh, you don't get it do you.

Rico's not saying that the author deliberately skewed results.

He's saying that the study's methodology was flawed, that the results were flawed as a result of the way the study was conducted.

He's not saying anybody deliberately lied, or altered the results.

He's saying that given the way the military operates, it's likely that the study was conducted using troops who did not regularly use firearms in combat.

Given that, they could not accurately provide feedback on the NATO round's effeciacy.

Bias isn't about people having a point of view and faking the results or selectively choosing the results to make them fit their PoV, it's about flawed study design and research methodology - something that anyone who wishes to use this kind of evidence in support of an argument should at least read up on to a basic level.

[Rico11b]

Yup,

What he said:]


R

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by Rico11b

Most times when the Military does a survey like that THEY themselves PICK and CHOOSE who or whom will be "surveyed".

They will also skew the results to meet their desires. There was a study back in 1980 done to determine the effectiveness of the A-10A vs soviet armor. They did multiple passes against some old 1950's era M-47 tanks, some of which survived w/o damage. The paper which was published showed how great the A-10's 30mm gun was vs tanks most of the time. 10 years later the AF used the exact same test results as justification for removing the A-10 from inventory since 'it couldn't kill all the M-47's, its not going to kill T-72's' which were already the main battle tank during the orriginal study. The pentagon has too much invested in the M-16 and 5.56 to willingly change. As a result, the writer of the survey could have been told "Go to HQ as such and such a place to do your study," knowing full well that most of the people there would not be combat troops.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Masaq

D'oh, you don't get it do you.

Rico's not saying that the author deliberately skewed results.

He's saying that the study's methodology was flawed, that the results were flawed as a result of the way the study was conducted.

He's not saying anybody deliberately lied, or altered the results.

He's saying that given the way the military operates, it's likely that the study was conducted using troops who did not regularly use firearms in combat.

Given that, they could not accurately provide feedback on the NATO round's effeciacy.

Bias isn't about people having a point of view and faking the results or selectively choosing the results to make them fit their PoV, it's about flawed study design and research methodology - something that anyone who wishes to use this kind of evidence in support of an argument should at least read up on to a basic level.

I know what he was saying and the difference between "bias" and "flawed" is lol, I was asking

"If the survey was done with troops who had not seen combat before, why did the author feel the need to skew the results?" By skew, I meant why the author felt the need to present the results as 1/5 out of the troops felt the need to change the weapon as opposed to 4/5 felt comfortable with the weapon they had as Harrod had said.

[Messiah UK]

Apologies if it's already been linked:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8F4E1...01_may2008.pdf

MoD DE&S magazine 'DESIDER' (rehash of preview magazine if anyone recalls that). Page 16 and 17, article about the SA80 and some smallish pictures of the new modifications being sent out.

[Fatal1ty]

looks like a new attempt at the LSW, but with the bipod it appears more of a support weapon, bearing in mind we've already got the minimi i don't see much of a point

and they could of at least put down ACOG under the spec. instead of just "red dot sight"

although it looks flimsy i've heard its miles ahead of the SUSAT

[Messiah UK]

don't think its intended as a new attempt at the lsw, its a front vertical grip/bipod combination - from what I recall its merely intended for better CQB (vertical grip) and better firing stability. Lots of bastardised 80's where squaddies have taken an LSW rear grip and bolted/gaffa'd/spunked it to the front housing for a make shift vertical grip. If its what they want, it makes sense. That and with the front housing gone, I guess its the only thing to hold onto anymore (well, the picatinny's don't look hugely comfortable to hold onto)

remember the magazine is public, so simply writing ACOG would confuse a large proportion of those reading it. Always have to assume know one knows what you're on about when writing articles.

looks a bit odd with the front green furniture gone, as does the ACOG. Wonder if guys on the ground will be able to private purchase sights/accessories now, given its picatinny rails.

[Fatal1ty]

i agree with the grip for stability, just like some of the M4 variants, it would certainly help with recoil too

does anyone know when the ACOG's are to be fitted to ALL of the A2's, so far I only know that the paras have got them and the marines are waiting, well 42 commando is at least, not sure about the Army or RAF reg.

[WaffleWaffleWaffle]

why not a Springfield 90/90, or the MP400 kinda both look like that Aliens gun