inerlogic
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
U.S Army scraps testing after rifle outperforms M4A1
- Thread starter johnny.cassidy3
- Start date
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
yep, i would be curious to see the budget numbers every year for the cost of maintaining every base outside of U.S. Soil.
They felt short due to politics, and short sighted penny pitching, more than anything. Going back to the Garand, with the 276 Peterson, and the FAL, with the 280 British, it has been pretty well understood from a technical perspective that a 6.5-7mm round would be superior.
- - - Updated - - -
+1 Million
The last article on that topic that I had read puts the cost of the global US empire at about $700 billion a year, minimum.
Edit: That number I think is the cost of all US defense spending not including active foreign wars. I think the cost of maintaining all the foreign bases is closer to $250 billion, at least as of a few years ago?
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with any of that stuff, there have been plenty of viable designs. The cost isn't even the issue, it probably wouldn't even cost a few hundred million (which is like mouse milk for the .gov) It has everything to do with 2nd or 3rd level politics within DOD procurement, etc. It's just another example of massive dysfunction within the DOD.
-Mike
inerlogic
NES Member
I have no clue when the SAW hit guard units. I know mine had them in 2004 and they were beat up so I would guess they've been around for a bit. The unit I was in had m240's instead of M60's also so maybe it was better equipped than other units. Not sure. I can say for sure that I've never seen an M60 in .mil service ever, though. From 03' on.
The infantry unit I was in in the guard had teh M60 through at least 1996..........things have changed though........guard units don't get the hand me downs anymore now that it has gon from a strategic reserve to an operational force. However with the current budget who knows what the future holds for the national guard.......in a few years it may go back to begging at the table for scraps.
Last edited:
We had brand new M16A4's when I got in. The M240's looked new also. The SAW's though. Oh those poor SAWs. The biggest gripe I had when I was still around was the trucks we had sucked.
When I drive by the old armory these days - holy shit. They got some nice trucks now.
The 7 TCU is too long for the AR15 platform.
mav
NES Member
I humped an M249, then an M60 and that was '96-2002. M240's were on the books as I was getting out in '02 and my Battalion was heading to Bosnia.
FWIW, we had hand-me-down M16A2's as our standard issue rifles. Never saw any high speed low drag M4 carbines during my time. And the SAW wasn't all it's cracked up to be: too high a cyclic meant it was inaccuracte as hell unless you had the bipod deployed and shoulder support extended and kept the bursts very short. And carrying 4 packs of belt-linked 5.56 wasn't any lighter than humping the M60 pig and a few belts of 7.62. No spare barrel and ammo mule AGunner though.
Tavor and Galil. I think they are used by one of those countries where there is sand, everywhere. Dunno.
As far as the M249 goes it is utilized two ways according to MTOE......(military table of organization and equipment)......as a SAW it is truly the squad automatic weapon which the acronym stands for and is an individual weapon assigned to one infantryman (no spare barrel and ammo humper dude) in the squad and is under control of the squad leader (sounds like that was your assigned position)........it is also under the MTOE as a crew served weapon (two man team with the spare barrel and ammo humper dude) in the heavy weapon platoon and is under control of the company commander. On the unit property book it is even tracked as two seperate LINs even though the weapon system is identical.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I have no idea how the marines break this down.....the above is army "speak"
Last edited:
So, AK chambered in 5.56.
And thanks dnepro, now I want one of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKB-517
And thanks dnepro, now I want one of these. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKB-517
Jsfitzgerald85
NES Member
so if we did what every other nation did and housed our troops in our own nation we could cut defense spending by a potential 250 billion a year? Wow so almost half our budget goes to just maintaining those bases.
Global empires aren't cheap.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
You may not want to read about the Navy's $12 Billion debacle that currently is the USS Gerald Ford
What is the likelihood of the enemy returning fire after being hit with a .308 vs 5.56 ? I carried the M60 for about 2 years when I was a gunner.
Both put holes in people just fine.......the point is you can carry a full combat load of 5.56 and be able to maneuver faster. Have you ever carried a full combat load in addition to wearing IBA with plate carriers? If you have........ and say you would prefer 210 rounds of 7.62 ammo over 210 rounds of 5.56 ammo and will still be able to keep up with your fire team then more power to you.
Last edited:
Isn't the likelihood of hitting someone with a bullet pretty low? I heard that the GAO said it was something like 250,000 rounds for each insurgent killed. If you are thinking about whether .308 is more effective than 5.56 when it hits, you gotta balance that against how many rounds you will have of each, and whether you would be better off getting more chances with 5.56. From how I have heard veterans talk about machine guns and combat, it was all about having the enemy keep their heads down, more of an offensive defense than anything else.
In addition to that, aren't we fighting more unarmored insurgents than armored regular troops? Wouldn't a smaller round make more sense since troops don't need to penetrate the same armor they're wearing? And with a smaller round, it would be cheaper plus they could carry (and fire) more.
Or do I just know nothing about the military?
mav
NES Member
As far as the M249 goes it is utilized two ways according to MTOE......(military table of organization and equipment)......as a SAW it is truly the squad automatic weapon which the acronym stands for and is an individual weapon assigned to one infantryman (no spare barrel and ammo humper dude) in the squad and is under control of the squad leader (sounds like that was your assigned position)........it is also under the MTOE as a crew served weapon (two man team with the spare barrel and ammo humper dude) in the heavy weapon platoon and is under control of the company commander. On the unit property book it is even tracked as two seperate LINs even though the weapon system is identical.
I have no idea how the marines break this down.....the above is army "speak"
Our light infantry company used the SAW in the former role you described, 1 per fire team, 2 per squad. The weapons platoons had M60's until the M240 replaced it in our unit sometime in 2001. We also had mortars attached to the headquarters platoon... not sure how that was considered "light infantry". Ah, now I remember, "light" was code for "walk everywhere". Never said anything about how much what you humped weighed. The killer was NTC... humping TOW components in the mountains while the armor and mech infantry played in the sand...
