Rifles of the future?

[PFunk]

Originally Posted by HughJass

Its a cocking gun with a scope!

[NYgurkha]

Tau Pulse rifles.

/that is all

[[R-CON]ZZEZ]

Originally Posted by Airs0ft_S0ldier11

With bullpups you have a longer reloading time as compared with armalites

Nah you don't, its just a matter of practice, having reloaded TAR21 and M16 the difference in time is minimal at best and there will be no difference when you practice on bullup reload.

[Liquid_Cow]

Hey look! Caseless ammo in action!

[NYgurkha]

only problem with them Liquid is that Hindus and Muslims cant use them

/do those use the paper cartridges?

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Liquid_Cow

I have to disagree with you here, at least a little. 5.56 was the US's choice, and we drove the rest of the free world to that round. When WWIII looked like a real possability it made sense for everyone on the blue side to use the same round, but now there is less of an over riding need for compatability. Now the shortcoming of the round are becoming more appearant (primarily because the bad guys don't care if they die, this was not true of the Ruskies), it may be time to re-examine the round. IF ( and that's a giagantic IF) the US were to change weapons from the M-16 family it would also be valid to consider changing calibers.

The 5.56 is the best we have right now for all environments. Sure, the 6.8and 7.62 rounds have more knock down power, but they sacrifice range which USMC marksmanship is built on and in the opening battles of a war, it is not going to be CQB right away. And there are just too many weapons using 5.56 now as a standard. The SAW, M16, SA80, FAMAS, G36, etc. I don't think all those countries would suddenly change just because the US would IMO.

For the US to adopt a new type of round, they would also want for the round to match that of the Light MG/SAW, have long range, be in a weapon that is cheap, light weight, have a carbine variant, and have a 30 round magazine or bigger.

That is a lot of requirements and the only weapons that really come close to all of those right now are the SCAR which has two variants with different calibers and one of which is the standard of our enemies, and maybe the Masada which I think can switch barrels to accept two rounds.

The smart thing would of been just to buy the HK416 upper receivers and used that for now as a short term solution and then do more testing on the Masada and newer weapons. I don't think the SCAR will ever be adopted for conventional troops for whatever reason it was (too expensive?)

As you said, that will not happen until there is a major reason to make the change, one that could not be added to the exising M-16 family.

That's a good point and what I have been saying. All these kids on the internet and people keep saying "uppgrade now!", but unless it is a major change, it is better to wait. If the US were to buy some weapon and then another weapon that is better by 50% come along 1 year later, it would have been a complete waste.

[[R-COM]TheScot666]

The 7.62 was not used by the Brits in Ireland as it went through people, thus when shooting into a crowd, it would get civillian casualties aswell as IRA people.

[PFunk]

Originally Posted by TheScot666

...thus when shooting into a crowd....

That sounds SO right.

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by TheScot666

The 7.62 was not used by the Brits in Ireland

Those must be the 5.56mm versions of the L1A1 then?

[xW0LFx]

moo