Slashdot Mirror
US Army Unveils 'Revolutionary' $35,000 Rifle
rbrander writes "Don't call it a 'rifle,' call it the 'XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System' and get your $35,000 worth. Much more than a projector of high-speed lead, this device hurls small grenades that automatically detonate in mid-flight with 1-meter accuracy over nearly 800m. The vital field feature is the ability to explode 1m behind the wall you just lazed — the one with the enemy hiding behind it."
The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths.
FYI, a non-transferable M16 (that is, not for regular-old-civilian purchase) costs something around $800-$1000, not the $28k you mention.
noun
the protection of a position, vehicle, or troops against enemy observation or gunfire.
Rounds are going to be relatively expensive yes, but it's not as if you fire the thing full auto.
How it changes the game in that enemies behind hard cover - who might otherwise engage you in a protracted firefight - will lose the benefit of that cover.
It's in service now with the 101st airborne apparently, so I'm sure we'll shortly find out whether it's the exceptionally useful tool it appears to promise to be.
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
If they have zero chance against us on the battle field, they'll shift the focus of their attacks. Namely, more terrorist attacks. IEDs, roadside bombs and attacks on American civilians.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...hope that an improvement like this actually does allow the soldiers to better target the real bad guys and not civilians as well as protect themselves from compromising situations.
You know, from the description it seems that this weapon is fabulous at killing people who are hiding behind cover when there's some shooting nearby, people which can't be seen clearly...
Even is those will be enemy combatants often enough, that still doesn't preclude nearby civilians as you point out later.
One that hath name thou can not otter
The price sounds okay, an M16 can cost up to $28,000 and frankly I'd rather hit the taxpayers than cause more deaths.
FYI, a non-transferable M16 (that is, not for regular-old-civilian purchase) costs something around $800-$1000, not the $28k you mention.
True that. Someone looked in shotgun news and assumed that there were no other factors pushing up the civilian price.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The United States is leveraging its ultimate secret weapon: Deficit Spending!
OTOH, a majority of ammunition fired from automatic weapons in combat is used in suppressing fire. I've heard an official figure of tens of thousands of rounds fired per confirmed kill. Even if a single 5.56mm is cheap, ten thousand of them ain't.
Suppressing fire, for those who don't want to go google it, is firing on the enemy's position to keep them "suppressed", i.e. scared shitless and behind cover. Or, put another way, if you can keep firing on them, they won't be able to return fire on you without sticking their heads out into a blizzard of incoming lead. An application of the principle that the best defence is a good offence. Most of those shots won't actually hit any enemy targets, because a sensible opponent will stay out of the line of fire for as long as the suppression is maintained.
Obviously, this costs a ton and a half of ammunition, which adds up in cost, and raises the risk of hitting other targets downrange (like civilians or friendly soldiers). A weapon that allows you to eliminate an opponent in cover with a single (expensive) shot might actually be cheaper, and certainly would be more precise, reducing the risk of collateral damage.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
Sounds like you two know a hell of a lot more about pricing on assault rifles than I ever will.
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
My work here is dung.
so you're firing on a target you can't see...I'd bet money that in many cases the target won't even be properly identified...somebody will be fired upon...see somebody "gophering" at a window...and promptly kill an innocent family in a house...we'll hear about it from wikileaks in 2014...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11
Wouldn't this weapon be more useful against an occupying force, than for them? That is, wouldn't urban "insurgents" have more and faster access to mostly-enclosed structures, while the occupiers would tend more to ad-hoc cover?
I suspect that we may regret introducing this, once it's copied and sold cheap by certain other nations which will go unnamed... Maybe it'll give us the advantage in a burned-out dust bowl like Afghanistan, but it would hurt us somewhere like Iraq.
Please correct me, I'm just a cynical jerk, not a tactician.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
"target the real bad guys and not civilians"
That would be a pretty advanced AI, seeing as the distinction is quite blurry for humans, especially politicians, soldiers, and probably the "real bad guys" themselves.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I'm not an expert on military stuff, but I have been interested in this and I have read articles about it over the years.
This came out of research that started many years ago, the OICW program.
The original vision was that every soldier might get a fancy grenade launcher like this as his/her primary weapon. But you don't dare use a grenade if an enemy is at very close range (perhaps attacking with something as simple as a pointed stick), so the OICW was supposed to have a close-range, defensive capacity: a "kinetic energy" weapon, i.e., bullets. The result was a heavy, complex, expensive weapon that didn't make anyone happy.
But I guess the research to produce the fancy grenade launcher paid off, and here is the result.
I was always troubled by the 25mm projectile size. Can a 25mm projectile contain enough explosives to produce the desired effect when it air-bursts? I guess so, if they are deploying it.
For general issue, it will continue to be the M16 family for the foreseeable future. I have read the occasional article about the military starting to wish it had a rifle of intermediate calibre between the 5.56mm of the M16 and the 7.62mm used before the M16. In desert engagements, ranges might be farther than the M16 can comfortably handle; in jungle terrain, foliage can sometimes deflect the 5.56 bullet. But nobody wants to try to generally issue the 7.62 mm again, as it has much more recoil than the 5.56, and it would be a pain to introduce some sort of new ammo.
But now this new, fancy grenade launcher looks like it shall fill in the gap: it shoots a relatively massive projectile at up to 500 metres point effect, and up to 1000 meters area effect (source: Wikipedia). The ammo will be much more expensive than 5.56 ammo, and it will need batteries and special training besides; but if it really works as promised, it should be very cost-effective. (Even if you spent many dollars in ammo on attacking the enemy, if it decisively stops the attack from the enemy before he inflicts casualties, you have come out ahead.)
As I said, I am no kind of expert and I welcome corrections if I said anything wrong here.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
That's true to some extent (especially where aircraft are concerned), but the rifle analogy is not quite correct.
In Vietnam, American troops were armed with the recently-developed M-16, early versions of which frequently jammed. They jammed because the rifle was prototyped using ammunition packed with pellet-shaped nitrocellulose gunpowder (which worked fine in bad conditions), but mass-produced using stick-type nitrocellulose/nitrogylcerin gunpowder (which fouled the barrel if the weapon was not cleaned regularly). The lack of cleaning supplies and instructions for troops didn't help matters either.
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
According to TFA, the US Army is going to shell out over $400,000,000 on these guns. Each shell (?) has a computer chip; they aren't pennies apiece.
Meanwhile, we keep hearing about an overwhelming debt and how we'll need to cut social security benefits, cut energy R&D, cut mass transit investments, cut unemployment benefits. But we've got enough money to provide a tax cut for those making $250,000+, and we've got enough money for yet another BFG.
I love my country despite it's terrible collective decision making skills.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
We've been taking out enemies in cover with TOW missiles. They cost $180,000 each, and you need to fire two to make sure a building is clear. This weapon costs 1/5 the price of a SINGLE TOW missile, is reusable and man portable. This means no need for an attack helicopter ($3000 or more per HOUR to FLY) AT4 Rocket is $1500 each use, and causes too much damage in urban fighting. This is the field mortar evolved, and it will change combat forever.
As another poster pointed out an M-16 can approach 30k as it is.
Don't believe everything you read on /.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You're aware that Mr Gatling, a dentist by trade, designed the crank machine gun in the hope that it would end wars and killing... how'd that work out?
The basic M16 is well under a thousand dollars. But a fully tricked-out M16, with a range-finding night vision scope mounted on it, costs a lot more than a basic M16! On the gripping hand, not many troops get the fully tricked-out version.
I read some articles about the OICW, and I was dubious about the cost. Some OICW apologists argued that it wasn't really going to be that much more expensive than the M16, and they used the most expensive M16 numbers they could find. IIRC it was on the order of $10,000 or more.
Also, I wonder how the price of $35,000 is being computed. If they are amortizing the R&D costs for two decades of research, that would tend to make the weapon look more expensive. I doubt that the manufacturing cost is that high. But I'm not an expert.
Hmmm, for what it's worth: Wikipedia projects the cost per weapon at $25,000.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
The cost of keeping men in theater is so great that if this (or any) weapon reduced the length of the conflict by 1%, it will likely have paid for itself. The real issue is whether the conflict can be solved by killing people.
Likewise, the cost of recruiting, training, and maintaining a soldier is so large that if this weapon saves some lives and prevents some injuries, it will pay for itself.
As far as how "revolutionary" the system is, well, I can't say for sure because I'm not using one. I'm guessing that this weapon will be issued to the guy in the team who would normally be carrying the M16/M4 with the M203 on it. The M203 is reasonably effective for firing on enemies behind cover. When I had the chance to fire one in Basic Training, I could very reliably put a round through a window out to about 100 meters. Landing a round a couple meters behind a berm or small wall was a bit more tricky but definitely doable. The sighting system on the XM25, the much flatter trajectory, and the air-burst feature should make these kinds of shots much much easier. It will also allow a soldier to shoot from the prone position, which isn't so easy with the M203. The important thing about this weapon is the range. Being about to put those grenade rounds out to 800 meters is a big advance over 150M with the M203.
I haven't shot or handled one of these weapons, but I can imagine firing one. What I imagine is something similar to the feeling of firing a M2 or Mk19-- my feeling was 'Holy shit! There's nowhere to hide..." That's what I can imagine with this weapon.
The projectile is traveling say 1000 feet per second ( let's say that the target is 500m away starting behind a long stone wall ), then the projectile explodes. To kill someone it just passed, it will have to fire lots of large fragments backward and down ( or backward and sideways - if person is standing around the corner of a building ) at at least 1000-2000 feet / second to be lethal.
The physics on this is tricky. To do this, you need to meet the "for every action, an opposite and equal reaction" law. This means something of equal mass will fly forward at ~ 3,000 ft/sec ( this is wasted material not being aimed at anything except unsuspecting persons in the distance ) . In the end, you are talking about a round with what? maybe 20 fragments ( to increase the odds of hitting something ) and each fragment will have to 1) fly fast enough to penetrate and ideally cause hydrostatic shock and 2) be heavy enough to do damage. If the rounds are too big and heavy, a single gunner will have trouble firing the weapon ( bruising on the shoulder ) and won't be able to carry many rounds because of the weight.
For close range targets - 100m, the round is traveling at perhaps 2000 feet per second. Even if this thing blows up over someone's head, it seem most of the blast is going to continue forward, not towards the person behind the wall. Perhaps they hope the concussion wave will be strong enough to be lethal. A very high percentage of the metal fragments should blow forward due to the already high velocity of the round.
Keep in mind, this round is spinning, so the blast will go in all directions. It is not possible to tell the bullet to fire downwards when over the target.
note: a 22 cal bullet fires at bout 800-1200 feet per second. An M15, the standard round for the USMC, fires at about 2,700 to 3,500 feet per second and can have a range out to about 800 meters.
Koreans already have quite comparable weapon in service, apparently ~3 less expensive.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Look-- I can understand the questioning of the physics behind a round moving 2000 feet per second exploding and killing people below it. It sounds like a difficult problem to solve. I'm certain that you're not the first person to wonder about this.
Still, this weapon has been in development for a long long time. Presumably, they've tested the ammunition at some point in the 10+ years that they've been developing it. During that testing, I'm sure they figured out how to make it kill things despite the physical challenges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_machine_gun
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Basically, I treated it like everything else the government buys for me with my money: I googled it, found the highest price and then added about 100-200% for an estimate. Guess it doesn't transfer well to all military expenditures.
Your methods are quite sound, I work for a major company mostly (almost completely) fueled by the defense industry and I can say that I have no reason to believe our government gets any type of discount whatsoever, foreign governments do, but it's widely known that Uncle Sam doesn't mind paying MSRP.
Basically, look at the lowest price you can find on a reputable AR-15, then take 10-20% off of that to estimate what the government is paying.
Why? I'm not trying to be a smartass but why would the government get 10-20% off? I've never seen an instance where a government organisation got a "bulk discount"
What this weapon will replace is the need for many mortar fire missions by 81mm mortars (and possibly the squad or platoon 60mm mortar).
Mortars are used when a very rapid response is required in order to combat ground units that are firing on relatively open friendly units from relatively defensible positions. I say again, a very rapid response. They always fire at a high trajectory so can be dropped behind walls and even an advancing mortar group can be on the target or at least adjusting on, within five minutes or less from the time the incoming fire mission request is received. If the mortars are already stationary (e.g. they are in a fire base), then they can be 'on' even faster... faster than artillery can get on target. I've heard quotes that mortars were the most dangerous weapon on the battle field in both Vietnam and WWII; accounting for more killed and wounded than other weapons.
As to what you are worried about... collateral damage i.e. civilians. Mortars are fired from up to 5km away. Each tube has a 'beaten zone' where their bombs fall, shaped like a football. For an 81mm mortar, the beaten zone can be up to 100m long by 40 or 50 metres wide. Combine that with three other mortars in a mortar group and you have a wide area of damage (hence the term 'area suppression weapon'). Don't believe what you see in the movies... 81mm mortar HE has a kill radius of 40 metres. *kill* radius.
So if a squad/section, platoon, company, or even one or two soldiers are under fire and need a fire mission to save their asses, they call for a fire mission (which will usually be mortars if they are in range). If they are in a built up area and there are civilians around, they are likely to be hit unless they are underground. If artillery receives the fire mission, the amount of damage they will cause is at least double.
So now we have this infantry carried version of a shoulder fired light automatic mortar. To me, this is a better description of what it is. Since the target is directly sighted by the person firing, it is more likely that they will be able to hit the intended target quickly and more effectively. And since the blast area is smaller, collateral damage is for a certainly going to be far, far less than calling in fire missions from kilometres distant guns firing shells with explosive power orders of magnitude more powerful than those of this new weapon.
So no, it doesn't preclude you from having civilian casualties. The only way to preclude this is to never have war. Being that we are humans, you can have high hopes of this, but this will only happen when Santa Claus delivers it. However, if I were a civilian close to the fighting, I would rather have these fired when one side is trying to suppress fire (or take out the enemy).
As for the 60mm mortar, it almost certainly will be replaced by this in many armies, but I have heard, not all. I think it is not a direct replacement and getting rid of the 60 is a bad idea... something akin to removing the automatic cannon from the design of the F4 Phantom fighters; mainly because the prevailing rational that dog fights were a thing of the past since missiles would do it all. We now know that this is ridiculous, and they put the cannons back into the planes. i.e. I think the 60 could make a come back into armies that remove them thinking this is a direct replacement. Reason being is that this weapon likely won't provide as effective a solution when you want to drop some bombs behind a building or some other application that requires an extremely high elevation/trajectory. But this new weapon will be excellent to hit enemy behind the closest wall or other similar cover.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
...but it ain't no Zorg ZF-1
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
In Vietnam, American troops were armed with the recently-developed M-16, early versions of which frequently jammed. They jammed because the rifle was prototyped using ammunition packed with pellet-shaped nitrocellulose gunpowder (which worked fine in bad conditions), but mass-produced using stick-type nitrocellulose/nitrogylcerin gunpowder (which fouled the barrel if the weapon was not cleaned regularly). The lack of cleaning supplies and instructions for troops didn't help matters either.
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
This apology for the M-16 just misses the forest for the trees. The reason the M-16 is so sensitive to the type of gunpowder used is because it uses direct impingement gas operation. Note that most other common military rifle families don't use this design. Why don't they? Because it's less reliable!
Are you adequate?
how much is the cost of the ammo?
"Once the trigger is pulled and the round leaves the barrel, a computer chip inside the projectile communicates exactly how far it has traveled"
That doesn't sound cheap at all.
It costs four hundred thousand dollars to fire this weapon... for twelve seconds.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If you study guns, you'll notice that the most reliable ones fire larger, heavier, rounds and themselves are larger and heavier. Good reasons for this:
1) The tolerances don't have to be as tight. When things are large, there's more room for play. A bit of dirt doesn't matter nearly so much.
2) More recoil force and/or gas. When there's more pushing back against the action, it cycles better. Also you can load up heavier springs, to push it back harder, again making it more reliable.
That's what the M2 is still one of the most reliable guns out there. Shoots a big heavy round and is built with some room for error in it.
Wonderful, but you have to consider carried weight. Troops have to slug a lot around, gun and ammo weight matters. While it might sound nice to say "Just give them bigger guns with bigger ammo!" that isn't necessarily so practical.
Accuracy also comes in to play. Part of the AK's reliability comes form the action. If you've ever watched it in slow motion it positively slams shut, even flexing and vibrating a little. Well enough but at what cost? The cost is accuracy. It is not a good gun at range. "Spray and pray," are very much the operative words. The M4/M16, however, are much better. They aren't quite rifle accurate, but they aren't bad.
It is a tradeoff, and it is easy to pull the "grass is greener" type thing, look at the other gun and say "Well clearly that is better!" However if you used that, well then you might have a different opinion.
Once this design flaw was identified, the powder was changed, the barrel was lined with chrome, and troops were given instructions and tools to clean the weapons. Afterward, they became much more reliable in jungle conditions.
Yep, except that they aren't being used in jungle conditions today - and guess what?..
Maybe, before they make more new shiny $25K toys for the infantry, they should take care of the basics first. The only countries using AR family of guns other than US are those which are able to purchase it from US for cheap or free. And no other infantry rifle in military use around the world uses direct impingement gas system.
It's been a while, but unless things have changed, if you sell any product to the government, according to the law you are required to charge the government no more than what you charged under the best discount to any other party for the same quantity and product. This affects the legal jargon involved in every commercial as well as government sale - if there is a special price to any other party (such as a contractor who is using the equipment to write software for the company) the sale must be constructed so as not to inadvertently invoke the government discount, allowing the gov to get the same equipment (or software) for little or nothing.
Sometimes the method is to have two different 'models' or configurations in the price list, that accomplish the purpose.
This is also why most companies that give hardware to schools etc. often 'sell it' to an intermediary non-profit organization controlled by the company, which then donates the hardware to the school.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Why? I'm not trying to be a smartass but why would the government get 10-20% off? I've never seen an instance where a government organisation got a "bulk discount"
What do you mean you've never seen a government bulk discount? Happens all the time. For any item where the number needed by the government is in the thousands or more, you can bet they're paying less per unit than you would be if you wanted to purchase just one of the same item from a store. It's no different than when big companies buy in bulk.
Besides which, for certain firearms, the cost is driven up by the strong regulations in place. For anything fully automatic, the only option if you want to legally buy one is to get it from an existing owner whose gun was grandfathered in before the law changed, which obviously drives the price up. Hell, there are a few fully functional miniguns in the hands of private owners in the US, any one of which would cost at least as much as most people make in a year to purchase, even assuming you could find an owner willing to part with theirs.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
I know some of the guys who tested and rejected the SCAR, they said it was just too easy to break. I expect this to get to units who can afford it and be rejected as unreliable, or to be treated more like a mortar or heavy MG. I would be shocked to see this rifle get much use.
To my mind, this capability is in fact far more important than the 'shoot behind walls' factor. Honestly, for $35,000 you can carry around something capable of blowing UP the wall and the people behind it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I was a supply Marine, I remember looking up the M-16 while in supply school. I remember it being just under $500. That is for the bare minimum basic M-16 A2, and was about six years ago.
Yes, it was indeed a rather extreme test, which explains why the difference in numbers is so big. Thing is, it doesn't go away in other conditions, it just isn't quite as pronounced.
When it comes to "typical operating environment", you can't do better than ask the grunts in the field:
"I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too."
“The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning."
“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”
The official Army position is:
"M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant."
which is pretty much confirming their point. It is a high-maintenance weapon, which is a major issue for main infantry rifle.
It's been a while, but unless things have changed, if you sell any product to the government, according to the law you are required to charge the government no more than what you charged under the best discount to any other party for the same quantity and product.
MIL-SPEC is the key here. Make a version that doesn't meet some sort of specification for the civilian market (cheap) and leave the properly spec'd item jacked up! (just to elaborate on what you said here:)
Sometimes the method is to have two different 'models' or configurations in the price list, that accomplish the purpose.
It gets even hairier when you deal with other suppliers who want to get in on the free-for-all. Oh, and the people who pitch needless services from those suppliers for huge premiums (profits all around!) and then when those services start causing the company more issues than they're worth they have to try and figure out a way to make that magic elixir look like snake oil without seeming crooked. God help me I love it so. I could write a book it gets so absurd.
What do you mean you've never seen a government bulk discount? Happens all the time. For any item where the number needed by the government is in the thousands or more, you can bet they're paying less per unit than you would be if you wanted to purchase just one of the same item from a store. It's no different than when big companies buy in bulk.
Oh yeah, what I said definitely reads wrong. Sorry. I mean not like a special for-gov't-only bulk discount. You are correct and I am uhhh sloppy :/ ...my bad!
Bingo! Somebody who gets it.
Infantry forces do like to have new tech as an option, but they also favour holding on to their existing hardware. Part of this is adherence to tradition, but another element is reliability. If $gun_type_x works just fine in it's role, the troops know how to use it, and no external circumstance has drastically changed, why replace it with $gun_type_y?
What's far more common is for new tech to build on or improve existing tech. If you look at the difference between a Vietnam era M16 and a current era M4, the differences are almost entirely incremental improvements based on advancing technology and field-tested solutions. One small thing changed at a time until the end result is distinct from the beginning.
Novel weapons like the one in TFA, where the main intent is to use them in specialized situations, will be adopted long before the military seriously considers replacing existing, general-purpose hardware.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Want to carry lots of heavy rounds and have high mobility in an urban setting? It's almost 2011, where is my fucking POWERED ARMOR!?
Ok maybe they aren't as practical in the so called "real world" but the terrorists will be so shit scarred they'll give up immediately!
But... the future refused to change.
This does however expose a tactical weakness of the XM25 - the lack of good, flat mousing surfaces on the modern battlefield.
Who is John Cabal?
Let's recap. Bush thought that Afghanistan had bin Laden.
He had training camps there you idiot. Its well documented he's eluded capture numerous times. He was there.
The rest of your post is of equal stupidity its completely without merit. I really wish people who really believe this bullshit would bother to educate themselves before the make themselves sound like a complete idiot. Obvious why you posted anonymously.
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
Nice way to completely ignore Russia and their invasion. Nope, something like intelligent facts are likely to get in the way of your ranting stupidity.
Ok, selective amnesia secured.
Then we agree...you have selective amnesia.
I can't even stand to respond to the rest of your ignorant rant. Its not the least bit grounded in reality. You've got enough buzzwords here and there to sound like you know what you're talking about to the generally ignorant. But the sad truth is, almost everything you said is complete bullshit and/or a convenient laps of important, well documented facts.
Oh yes. I also love this technical note from ArmaLite, and specifically this bit:
Some of the worst cleaning practices are found among those expected to know best how
to maintain rifles: the military. Especially in peacetime and in garrison locations, military
procedures are too often focused not on cleaning properly, but on cleaning totally. That’s
because of tradition and the sad fact that it’s hard to make a judgement call that a rifle is
cleaned and preserved well enough for reliable service. It’s easier to say that there isn’t a
speck of dirt remaining on the rifle.
The fact is that Soldiers and Marines, in some situations, tend to vastly over-clean their
rifles, despite official guidance that “white glove” clean isn’t proper.
Is that a device that works by the zimulated emission of photons?
... Rifle grenades for a loooooong time and cover is still as important as ever. The important new features for the XM-25 are range (800m is double the range of a typical 40mm grenade launcher) and its airburst capability, sustained fire and relative ease of use. Using smaller grenades also means reduced damage, a desirable feature in CQB. However, there are and there will be countermeasures deployed: the device needs its laser rangefinder, so expect the use of particulate smoke to make ranging difficult. Like in all warfare conditions, the best defence is offence so if I expect my forces to go against XM-25 armed troops I'll have snipers deployed to take out soldiers carrying it - hopefully eliminating the weapon as well. It's a nice advantage to have but only the Nazi elite believed in miracle weapons to win the war, and watch where it has led them. Aggressive tactics and adaptability trump any technological wonder. The Russian campaign in WW2 should have taught us that, but I guess the iWar generation has taken over and will need some blood by the megagallon to understand it. I'd like to have one of those in my arsenal, but to believe one weapon will change the face of warfare is naive. Not even nukes did that.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Is it like the inkjet scam? $35,000 for the rifle then $200 for each bullet...?
No sig today...
Nevermind that bin Laden was extensively trained by the CIA.
There's ample evidence that this claim lies somewhere between grossly misstated and total bullshit.
In my basic military training, I used to work in a position with access to pricing lists (not US, though). I can tell that while most stuff was incredibly expensive, guns and rifles where actually pretty cheap. $800 for an assault rifle sounds pretty reasonable (without any extra accessories, of course).
is there such a thing as an "accurised" M16? I.e. someone paying a fair amount of money to an armourer to tune a standard rifle for higher accuracy?
Yes, there are accurized AR-15s. Fully floated handguards, Kreiger stainless steel barrels with 1:7 or 1:8 twist, 1/4 MOA iron sights, and a two stage trigger. Mine also have additional lead weights in the handguards and stock to reduce shake. They are generally used for NRA High Power matches, and they cost about 2x what a standard AR costs.
Two manufacturers that come to mind are Compass Lake Engineering and White Oak Precision
m
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
A light tube... interesting. We could make it so light that one guy could carry it and point it at the enemy. Firing it with a trigger.
More opportunities for the American military to murder even more people around the world.
Nice to see the US still has it's priorities right[1]
[1] To help American readers, that's called irony.
Someone's been watching too many movies.
I was in Iraq way back when it was still a war. I was an infantryman, and got to do all the fun infantry stuff you do in a shooting war (sarcasm intended). My personal weapon was an M249, but I trained and shot with M-16 variants my whole career. In an 18-month combat tour I only ever saw one M-4 jam. That was due to a double-feed because the FNG private liked to practically bathe his magazines in CLP. It's been a long time since the M-16 was introduced, and for some time the weak link in proper weapon operation has been the individual soldiers own PMCS. If you don't take care of your weapon, no shit, it's going to jam.
Except for calves and forearms, I also never saw anyone shot with a 5.56 round just ignore it and keep fighting. Hit someone anywhere near center mass and they all go down. They also tend not to die right away, and the screaming and gurgling definitely has a negative impact on their buddies' fighting effectiveness.
And the Army does still use M-14s for designated marksmen. They're great weapons in that role, and the round does have more energy at range than the 5.56, but they're heavy, unwieldy, and useless in close combat. Which you can't avoid in Iraq. Still, some did prefer it; to each his own, I suppose. Just don't believe the 'M-16s are plastic toys' myth.
[semantic mode]BTW, the 5.56 is a NATO standard rifle round.[/semantic mode]
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
Hear, hear! I was also an Infantryman in Iraq in 2004-2005 (central Baghdad and the re-invasion of Fallujah) and my weapon fired every time I pulled the trigger because I took care of it.
Also, everyone that I saw who was hit in the torso or head with a 5.56 went down, period. Varmint gun my ass.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
How is this even a problem? I have not read of a SINGLE incident of a LEGAL owner of a minigun using it to kill people. Not to mention it is a FACT that someone who's willing to kill doesn't really give a crap if having the gun they are about to use is legal or not.