Rifles of the future?

[Beafy]

Originally Posted by creepinshadow24/7

nice, thanks for posting (i'm a notorious XM8 lover)

XM8, crappy remake of the G36-C, I've fired both G36 is Soooooooooooo much better.

[Boda1]

I myself like the M6.

[Conman51=US=]

Originally Posted by Boda1

I myself like the M6.

the m6 looks good..but how is it at range???..can u put a GL on it??

[creepinshadow24/7]

Originally Posted by Beafy

XM8, crappy remake of the G36-C, I've fired both G36 is Soooooooooooo much better.

i still like the XM8 as its proven to be more reliable than the G36, HK416, FN SCAR, M4, M16, etc..


(source: wikipedia)


oh! and i have an XM8 as softair with original weight that is! and its stil comfortable after 5hours of carrying.

[[R-CON]nedlands1]

Originally Posted by creepinshadow24/7

i still like the XM8 as its proven to be more reliable than the G36, HK416, FN SCAR, M4, M16, etc..


(source: wikipedia)


oh! and i have an XM8 as softair with original weight that is! and its stil comfortable after 5hours of carrying.

Actually according to the source that wikipedia refers to (Source: Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test - Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times), the XM8 was only tested against the MK16 SCAR Light, the H&K 416 and the M4. There was no mention of the "G36 ... M16 ... etc".

[WildBill1337]

out of those rifles, id cast my vote for the M8. that thing was such an awesome gun, and it just looks cool. my second choice would be the HK416. but if the US were to start researching a new weapon, id suggest making a modular, ambidextrous bullpup that uses 6.8mm ammunition. that would be the most efficient and effective type of weapon.


why are americans so damn attatched to the traditional rifle design anyway? many other nations seem to be moving on, but we're still stuck in the past.


IMO, instead of spending so much money on a stealth bomber and other 5th generation aircraft (when our current enemies dont even have radar), we shouldve used those funds on getting better equipment for our ground forces. our air force is fine as it is. its pretty much unstoppable compared to Iran's, North Korea's, and maybe even China's air forces. we shouldve spent more on our ground forces, as they are at much greater risk to enemy fire than our air forces.

[Taliban-IED]

It always the Soldier who is the weapon. Weapon is just a tool which has too be in hand´s of good Soldier. So i would say all Rifles sucks exept HK416 it come close too Kalashnikovs masterpiece, buy it! Germans got good engineers btw

[Liquid_Cow]

[quote=WildBill1337;766682]

why are americans so damn attatched to the traditional rifle design anyway?

We're not the only one "stuck," Germany and Russia both use modern conventional homegrown designs (and you gotta admit that when it comes to guns the Germans know what they are doing). There are some problems with bullpup as well, the biggest being the difficulty in making it ambidexerious and increased hearing damage to the user (being closer to the muzzle).

As for 6.8mm ammo, please go back and read this thread, there's been a lot of conversation on that topic which boils down to this: While 6.8 looks like a great (if unproven) round, NATO uses 5.56mm as its standard, and even if we broke from that standard (which we wrote) the cost of completely changing the entire US military over would be enormous.

our current enemies dont even have radar

I think both Russia and China have radar, and given the current situation in Georgia I think it was money well spent.

[Hardtman]

I don't really think that the bullpup design is that good.
The traditional design (i.e. the magazine forward of the grip) still has it's advantages. The Reloading is done easily and fast, without requiring the user to move the weapon much opposed to therelatively awkward reload on a bullpup.
Also, most users feel more comfortable with the classic weight balance and you can also use the mag as an ad-hoc vertical grip.

You can still compensate for the greater length with retractable butt-stocks or carbines.

Come to think of it, how about having the magazine being parralelly attached to the gun, somewhat like the P90? If you put it on top you could have a great weight balance as well as makin the overall dimensions of the weapon smaller. On the other hand,I'd having the mag parralel at the side of the weapon might allow for a very quick and comfortable mag-change (If you've ever seen the barrel change performed on an MG42 you know what I mean).
You could even have the actual firing mechanism behind the grip bullpup-style by having the bullets in the mag moving towards the user.

[WildBill1337]

Originally Posted by Hardtman

I don't really think that the bullpup design is that good.
The traditional design (i.e. the magazine forward of the grip) still has it's advantages. The Reloading is done easily and fast, without requiring the user to move the weapon much opposed to therelatively awkward reload on a bullpup.
Also, most users feel more comfortable with the classic weight balance and you can also use the mag as an ad-hoc vertical grip.

You can still compensate for the greater length with retractable butt-stocks or carbines.

Come to think of it, how about having the magazine being parralelly attached to the gun, somewhat like the P90? If you put it on top you could have a great weight balance as well as makin the overall dimensions of the weapon smaller. On the other hand,I'd having the mag parralel at the side of the weapon might allow for a very quick and comfortable mag-change (If you've ever seen the barrel change performed on an MG42 you know what I mean).
You could even have the actual firing mechanism behind the grip bullpup-style by having the bullets in the mag moving towards the user.

as for the argument of bullpups being awkward to use, thats only because you and others are trained to use traditionally designed rifles. british soldiers may find it awkward to use traditional rifles as they train almost exclusively with bullpups.
and as for the difficulty in making bullpups ambidextrous, look at the F2000, with its forward ejecting shells, and i think with the AUG you can choose which side the shells eject from during assembly.
and as for hearing damage, wear earplugs or make the barrel longer.

and by enemies that dont have radar, i mean the guys were currently fighting: terrorists. and besides, our airforce is damn good. look how we did in the 1991 Gulf War. the iraqis would send up a russian fighter, and itd get shot down every time, so in the 2003 war, they didnt even bother to try using their air force. i say we sell one B2 and use the money from that to get better weaponry.