Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm guessing people here may be interested in this.


I liked the way this video explains how changes in technology made the new rifle possible and necessary.

Here's all about the new scope it comes with.



Again, explaining how and why this is now possible and useful..

Personally looking at these I couldn't help feeling like this is kinda close to how the primaries marines get a new family of bolter guns over the standard marines. You'd think as hard and it is to make bolter tounds marines would worship the one shot one kill ideology.

Now if only someone in the adeptus whateverus would realize the IG is still the imperium's main force and get a new lasgun in production.

I personally liked these videos and thought some guys here might too.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since I couldn't put links in my first post here I'm putting them here.




https://youtu.be/D3oWZhjCrk8



https://youtu.be/iPrIN0Gie-U

This one from forgotten weapons is also quite interesting

My knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to having fired an AK47 once. However my first thought when seeing this news is: What effect will this have on civilian weapons in the US? Without wanting to start an argument about the 2nd Amendment I'm not sure that more lethal ARs in general circulation is a good thing.

El Torro wrote:
My knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to having fired an AK47 once. However my first thought when seeing this news is: What effect will this have on civilian weapons in the US? Without wanting to start an argument about the 2nd Amendment I'm not sure that more lethal ARs in general circulation is a good thing.

Zero effect whatsoever. A bunch of LARPers will buy a new man-Barbie to dress up with thousands of dollars in shiny new accessories but AR15s and similar weapons are already easily available and minor differences between models are irrelevant in the context of shooting helpless civilians.

Also, remember that the average military rifle is a considerably less lethal weapon than rifles from 70 years ago. A long time ago we realized that weapons like the classic .30-06 are overkill and light weight and carrying more rounds to spend on suppressing fire matter more than muzzle energy. If you want power per shot you can get plenty of that from a cheap WWII surplus M1.

Nice. Wish I was allowed one here.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

El Torro wrote:
My knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to having fired an AK47 once. However my first thought when seeing this news is: What effect will this have on civilian weapons in the US? Without wanting to start an argument about the 2nd Amendment I'm not sure that more lethal ARs in general circulation is a good thing.

Zero effect whatsoever. A bunch of LARPers will buy a new man-Barbie to dress up with thousands of dollars in shiny new accessories but AR15s and similar weapons are already easily available and minor differences between models are irrelevant in the context of shooting helpless civilians.

Also, remember that the average military rifle is a considerably less lethal weapon than rifles from 70 years ago. A long time ago we realized that weapons like the classic .30-06 are overkill and light weight and carrying more rounds to spend on suppressing fire matter more than muzzle energy. If you want power per shot you can get plenty of that from a cheap WWII surplus M1.

Indeed.

If anything, this new rifle represents a regression back to Battle Rifles from the lightweight small caliber Assault Rifles that most people used for the last 60 years.

This rifle is really a realization that 5.56 is simply too wimpy if we were facing a peer military where everybody is wearing body armor. So it has been chambered in a caliber that is more akin to what was used in WW1 and WW2, back when the standard weapon was in a rifle caliber. Calibers that were actually made originally for shooting at human targets that were 2000+ meters away or for mowing down cavalry.

Nothing about the M5 rifle is new. Nothing is revolutionary. It's just a modernized Battle Rifle. They might as well have made a modernized FAL.

The really interesting stuff is its Scope, and all its fancy computer software, and to an extent its suppressor(3d printed and being a Flow Through design). All stuff they could have put on any firearm.

I guess the other interesting thing that remains to be seen is if this will cause NATO to begin switching to this new caliber, or something like it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This rifle is really a realization that 5.56 is simply too wimpy if we were facing a peer military where everybody is wearing body armor.

My knowledge of body armour is limited to what I've seen on Demolition Ranch and similar YT channels

But how does the body armour used by the military hold up to various calibres at various ranges? My limited understanding was that most off the shelf civilian armour wouldn't be rated to stop a 5.56 at anything but very long range, but I have no idea what is common for the military.

Over here in the Communist Republic of Australiastan, even body armour is illegal for the vast majority of the population to own.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Over here in the Communist Republic of Australiastan, even body armour is illegal for the vast majority of the population to own.

Well if the roo's get guns you would need it sharpish... Otherwise if the Chinese invade wait until the wildlife gets them and strip the bodies!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Zero effect whatsoever. A bunch of LARPers will buy a new man-Barbie to dress up with thousands of dollars in shiny new accessories but AR15s and similar weapons are already easily available and minor differences between models are irrelevant in the context of shooting helpless civilians.

Also, remember that the average military rifle is a considerably less lethal weapon than rifles from 70 years ago. A long time ago we realized that weapons like the classic .30-06 are overkill and light weight and carrying more rounds to spend on suppressing fire matter more than muzzle energy. If you want power per shot you can get plenty of that from a cheap WWII surplus M1.

(Can't see youtube videos but assume you mean M5?)

I have often wondered why the US limits select fire weapons. Having failed to hit things on full auto on various occasions surely it would reduce firearms casualties....

While the public may buy it to look 'alle', unless the over pressured rounds become commercially and cheaply available they are going to be using the lower powered all brass cases, and the increased weight and suppressor wear and tear won't be that attractive. I think for killing your fellow citizens, criminal or otherwise, or assisting with/opposing government repression (something conveniently forgotten is how many armed citizens side with government repression) the AR-15 and the massive aftermarket and support ecosystem will rule the roost for a very long time.

Also can't see other nations picking up this ammo for quite a while, not least because of cost, proprietary status and the engineering changes needed to weapons.

I really hope that the Australian armed forces have a secret stash of spider deployment artillery shells.

They can weave their own parachutes.

And reptile landmines. Launch a snake at your groin area.

So having used and carried almost every weapon in the US Infantryman's arsenal at one point of the 90s and to today, there are some VERY clear reasons why this is both an extremely good thing, and an extremely bad thing, that we have adopted this rifle.

1. CONS:

a. The reason the M14 or any 30 cal rifle was a general failure as a primary service weapon was easily explained. Weight of gear and the ability to sufficiently train raw recruits to put the majority of their rounds on target in stressful situations. A 110lb trooper cannot wield the M240B as effectively as a 220lb trooper. The rifle and the force of the discharge make it impossible. Also, the weight of the weapon, the ammo, and the maintenance gear would weigh more than the trooper themselves.

b. The XM110 is possibly the best marksman rifle ever used by the common soldier. However the cost of manufacture and the cost of it's attachments (Scope cost more than the rifle) made it an extremely rare weapon.

This weapon uses a type of ammo that if not in large production, there is relatively little of it, and the weapon itself has components that will end up costing more than 5 of any other weapon. The Glass, the Can, and the Free Floating Match Grade barrels. This weapon, with standard breakages and armory mishaps, may end up causing a unit to go into the red for expenditures.

So we have Cost, ease of use, and ability to train the lowest skill person up to proficiency.

PROS:

a. This weapon is, on paper, a miracle of science. It's taken them 70 years to create a round that outperforms the 165g BTHP for accuracy over distance, the muzzle velocity of the 5.56, and the sheer stopping power of the 30-06. All while being relatively easy to shoot.
Simply put, this round F*&^S!

b. The tested performance of the new weapon system is beyond anything we currently have in the arsenal for first time shooters. If the Can Magic works as intended (The ability of a suppressor to dampen the crack of the rifle, and the flash, creates a safer and more relaxed environment for first time trainees) then we may start to see a whole new level of Sniper School. Now the common soldier can reach out and hit targets beyond the range of even the DMR (M24/M14). This would revolutionize the way we fight.

(Addendum) most modern military conflicts/firefights are within or under 150 meters( Especially Urban warfare/building clearing), so the extra 1900 yards of range is really useless. But it's nice to have)

I get where you are coming from Fezzik - but do you think this is heralding the next iteration of the system an infantryman fights as part of of?

Other NATO countries have downsized their military and upped the training overhead for the remaining troops. The US can't hit its recruitment targets, whether of not the government likes it it is downsizing. The average US infantry man gets less weeks basic (hard to compare serials through the year as it varies massively within armies never mind between) than other nations as the US still has a deployable mass no other nation can dream of allowing shorter training. Are we going to see a 2-4 week increase in basic training time to properly introduce the gun to new soldiers?

No, I don't. Part of the problem of being an all volunteer military is that you have to now cater to the weakest members of your units.

The fact that the US has decided to go to a 6.8 style of ammo creates an instant ammunition shortage in the world. If we go into a war involved with NATO allies, they cannot depend on us for ammunition when/if they need it. They cannot use our ammunition. The US was literally one of the only reasons the 5.56 NATO was still in use. Most other countries use 7.62x39. We manufacture over 50% of the world's 5.56 NATO. If the military stops that, the world cannot continue to use that round. Other NATO states will be forced to dump money into the production of non-5.56 weapon systems, or risk not being able to properly supply their military and police forces.

I would actually predict the Non-US member states would either go to the AK Style variants out there. The AK10X series of weapons is basically all the best parts of the AK, compatible with any type of ammo. Either that or the world will need to start producing it's own ammo. Either way, the US just lost a MAJOR source of Export money.

I always preferred the scar 17 when I had the option because of how weak 5.56mm is at longer ranges. I'm excited to see the Spear in some real world, 2 way range testing.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now the common soldier can reach out and hit targets beyond the range of even the DMR (M24/M14). This would revolutionize the way we fight.

(Addendum) most modern military conflicts/firefights are within or under 150 meters( Especially Urban warfare/building clearing), so the extra 1900 yards of range is really useless. But it's nice to have)

Is the extended range an unintended bonus anyway? I thought the main purpose was not to extend range, but to defeat body armour at normal engagement ranges.

Here's the silly thing about body armor. Only industrialized and 1st world countries use it. Name a 1st world country we've gone to war with in the last 50 years. We as a rule, don't pick fights with countries that have advanced military might. Hell, we don't even pick fights with countries that have 1st generation Aircraft (F16s/ F/A-18s)


5.56 is actually better at punching through body armor anyway. It's ceramic plate wrapped in Kevlar weave. Dropping it from 3 feet, will shatter it. There is no reason to choose a round or ammunition that defeats body armor. It's a boogeyman we conceived in the 80s to scare up money for a bigger defense budget.

Has the US ever fought a nation that used body armor en masse? I don't think the NVA and VC did. It wasn't really a thing back in the 50s.

The US really hasn't fought a near peer since Korea and there was still a technological gap there, but less of one than the following wars. Iraq was thought to be something of a near peer before the Persian Gulf War, but that proved false. The only real near peers out there would be NATO countries, China, and maybe Russia. The odds of the US fighting any of those nations is very low...so I'm not sure what the concern is with defeating body armor. I understand the need to maintain a technology gap, but I'd think a war with China would take place in Asia (defense of RoK, Japan, or possibly Taiwan) and in such a scenario, infantry performance would be a secondary concern.

China has over 1 million in infantry. No way they use mass body armor, unless it's wooden/metal. Russia uses body armor on all their front line troops, which make up about 1% of their actual troops. 90%+ are just conscripts given an AK and a helmet. As we are seeing in Ukraine.

China likely doesn't expect any resistance to any military action as they roll in on Tank heavy assaults. They don't do "western style" combat. We are likely the only nation that gives 100% of their soldiers/airforce/marines/navy body armor.

For a VERY Bad and outdated reason. We go into situations expecting to get shot. Plain and simple. We also place the lives of each soldier beyond anything else. We will sacrifice entire teams, squads, and platoons, to save just a few. No other country fights like this.

And therein lays the highest value of the "all volunteer" military. Everyone who wears a uniform knows that the entire military will not stop to save them, the person to either side of them, or the people behind/in front of them.

Russia/China/Korea doesn't place this value on human life. The UK does, as does Australia. They don't really "go to war" though, like we do.

So year, we're the only ones who use it. So why is it important that our guns beat body armor again?

I also recall reading somewhere that most casualties in modern warfare are not from small-arms fire, but from crew-served weapons, vehicle-mounted weapons, bombs, missiles, etc. I know the primary purpose of an LMG in a fire team is for suppressive fire, but I'm pretty sure a single LMG has more killing power than the three service rifles combined. Especially in a defensive position.

The modern value in infantry is really for maintaining control over a given area and operations in terrain that is difficult for vehicles to perform in.

Edit: I neglected to consider that infantry can carry anti-vehicle weaponry.

The value of infantry in military tactics depends on what book you read. The FM7-8 makes the case that the common infantry platoon is made up of variable smaller squads, which are broken into teams. Platoon based combat is the cornerstone of all western military thought. You don't throw a division at a building, you throw squads trained in MOUT. You don't react to ambush in Regiment formation, you divide by squad, and depending on near or far, you assault by squad through the ambush. A platoon of properly equipped infantry can literally take on any objective, be it hardened bunker, tank formation, or other equally sized force of infantry.

They do carry anti-tank, but they only do that if and in case they are made aware of such threats. For my Airborne unit, we carried AT4s, and WP grenades, but those are jumpable weapons.

This is the large strategic value of infantry. With the invention of Airborne(Jump out of planes in massed formations), and later Air Assault (Helicopter insertion of smaller squads) the US can deploy immense tactical and strategic force anywhere in the world in under 24 hours.

This new weapon system invalidates that. Take a look at the battle of Mogidishu (Black Hawk Down). The Delta operators were ham strung from the start as their specific types of ammo were not accounted for, mainly being .45acp, and .308 match. Instead they had to make do with common infantry weapons such as M16s, and M9s. The most powerful asset in the theater was unable to perform due to ammo shortages. This new 6.8mm round magnifies the threat of this happening again.

I was under the impression body armour is less about saving direct hits, and more about preventing flesh wounds and ricochets debilitating the solider?

That's pretty much how it started, bomber crews wearing flack jackets etc during WW2 to protect against shrapnel...
Modern ("Western") armour is more about reducing the lethality of the incoming damage mainly focused on protecting chest and head.
There is stuff that does protect elsewhere but it becomes a trade off between safety and being able to function at your best.

But on a flip side I've been hearing about a reduction in armour (during training at least) as it is proving to be less useful in certain environments...

*Most of my understanding comes from serving and ex military people in my social circle, as well as wearing some of the stuff for funsies, so it's just my experience, not facts...

The average SAPPI plate (The kevlar wrapped ceramic plate) is about the size of a large rectangular dinner plate. Everything around it is just a kevlar weaved pad, that is not actually bullet proof or even fire proof. The plate covers roughly 1/3 of most humans (male or female) midsections, Starting at the bottom of their rib cage and stopping around their belly button. There is an equal sized plate that goes on the back.

There is also a literal "dick plate" that most people don't use, which is a sleeve that dangles down which can also be fitted with a "plate".

Near the end of 2007 there were side "plates" that were just basically blocks. The entire rig fully loaded weighs over 80 pounds. It also prevents you from lowering your arms as the plates get in the way, or laying on your back or chest. Remember, a hard fall can shatter these.

Again, the size of the average person is essentially given a 1.5x boost sideways, forwards, and backwards wearing this rig. You can't sit in normal seats.

I spoke about weight earlier. On this rig is all your essential war fighter stuff. Ammo pouches, with 240 rounds or 8 full mags, secondary ammo pouches, 36 rounds or 3x full mags, two water canteens, kept full whenever possible with 64 oz, a "everything else pouch" with paper, pen, reloading tool, cleaning kit, maps, spare parts, etc. Add this all up, plus weapon, and the average soldier, without carrying a back pack or a ammo belt like a MG guy, is carrying, bare minimum, over 150lbs of gear. Try running max speed carrying 150lbs of dead weight. In boots. In pants, and a blouse. That some idiot decided needed to be fire proof, which makes it non-breathable.

If you are carrying an MG, you STILL have to carry the M4 or whatever, because the RIFLE is now your back up. So add 20lbs for the rifle, and 40lbs for the extra ammo belts. If it's a 240B add an extra 30lbs for the tripod to someone else, the secondary gunner.

Point being, Body armor is the single dumbest thing the US Military ever decided on, including the ACU, and the Two handed hat.

Oh, I forgot the helmet, that weighs 3lbs. F that thing.

Fire proof is idiotic right up to the point when you might catch fire

"Something" might happen as a reason to do something, is right up there with reasons as to why the US invaded Iraq. It's often given as an excuse to do something stupid, rather than something smart.

I'd rather they said, he's an idea, if we don't invade other countries, we won't have to worry about part of a generation dying in the desert.

Having done a lot of jobs in a construction environment, digging holes in 36 degrees C wearing flame retardant gear, I agree it sucks. But also, I prefer not to go on fire.

trexmeyer wrote:
Has the US ever fought a nation that used body armor en masse? I don't think the NVA and VC did. It wasn't really a thing back in the 50s.

We just gave the Taliban a bunch of body armor when we left, so a lot of guys running around North Africa are gonna have level 4 plates.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
"Something" might happen as a reason to do something, is right up there with reasons as to why the US invaded Iraq. It's often given as an excuse to do something stupid, rather than something smart.

I'd rather they said, he's an idea, if we don't invade other countries, we won't have to worry about part of a generation dying in the desert.

"Something might happen" is the basis of all risk assessments. When done correctly you end up with things like seat belts, bike helmets, fire resistant clothing in high risk environments, and more people getting to go home at the end of the day.

When done badly or for vanity purposes, the outcomes are less useful.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Here's the silly thing about body armor. Only industrialized and 1st world countries use it. Name a 1st world country we've gone to war with in the last 50 years. We as a rule, don't pick fights with countries that have advanced military might. Hell, we don't even pick fights with countries that have 1st generation Aircraft (F16s/ F/A-18s)

5.56 is actually better at punching through body armor anyway. It's ceramic plate wrapped in Kevlar weave. Dropping it from 3 feet, will shatter it. There is no reason to choose a round or ammunition that defeats body armor. It's a boogeyman we conceived in the 80s to scare up money for a bigger defense budget.

China is the relevant threat for the US, they are modernizing at a rapid pace and while they don't have it as standard issue yet they most certainly will when(not if) they finally go to war with the west.

5.56 is better than pistol rounds at punching through body armor, it is NOT better than 7.62x39, 5.45x39, or any rifle caliber ammo at getting through body armor.

And no, its not a boogyman anymore. Back in the 80s there was a worry over Russian paratroopers in titaniam plates with unknown levels of protection. That was a figment of overactive imaginations watching too many spy movies, but today there are lots of readily available body armors that can withstand intermediate calibers very reliably and provide some protection from rifle calibers as well.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
This rifle is really a realization that 5.56 is simply too wimpy if we were facing a peer military where everybody is wearing body armor.

My knowledge of body armour is limited to what I've seen on Demolition Ranch and similar YT channels

But how does the body armour used by the military hold up to various calibres at various ranges? My limited understanding was that most off the shelf civilian armour wouldn't be rated to stop a 5.56 at anything but very long range, but I have no idea what is common for the military.

Over here in the Communist Republic of Australiastan, even body armour is illegal for the vast majority of the population to own.

It depends on the rating of the body armor. There are 4ish levels of body armor, depending on who is defining the rating.

Levels 1-2: This is stuff like Kevlar vests and padding. They'll stop pistol calibers and shrapnel. Higher caliber pistol rounds like .44 magnum might be stopped, but it is very iffy. You will have broken ribs, internal injury, and major brusing even best case scenario with stuff like this. Any and all Intermediate and Rifle calibers will not give a frak about this, you might as well have worn a T-shirt.

Level 3: This stuff is usually a hardened steel plate 1/2" or so thick. This stuff will stop repeat hits from pistol rounds and glancing blows from stuff like 5.56 and 7.62x39(usually tested against 30 degree impacts). Level 3+ is kinda of an upgraded version, harder/thicker steel plate that can stop 5.56 and 7.62x39 at flatter angles, and can also stop 7.62x51 or similar calibers(like the M5s caliber) at 30+ degree angles.

Level 4: These are plates made out of Ceramics that can stop most rounds up to 7.61x51 even at fairly flat angles(assuming ball ammo and not armor piercing stuff). They are much lighter than the steel plates, but slightly bulkier.

The disadvantage of Ceramic plates is that unlike Level 3+ they are less resistant to multiple impacts. If a steel plate can resist a certain impact, it can take more repeat hits in the same spot before utterly failing. Ceramic are better against a single hit, but will quickly become useless against multiple hits. And even hits from lower caliber rounds will rapidly degrade a ceramic plate.

For example, if you shot 9mm at a level 3+ plate you could shoot it all day. The 9mm won't cause very much damage to the plate. Often the steel targets that are put up at ranges are made of the same steel used as body armor. But if you shot 9mm at a level 4 plate, it would become useless after a few shots in the same spot.

As for what the military issues, the US issues Level 4 plates to active duty troops, but as far as I am aware level 3+ is also used in large amounts. I know there are organizations that specifically try to get funds to donate the best plates possible to troops as they sometimes don't get the best. All types of body armor are perfectly legal for US civilians to own and use as well. A few states only allow in-person sales of body armor, but as long as you are not a felon you can own any type of body armor. It's just illegal to use it in the commission of a crime. Level 4 plates can be purchased for $200ish so they are not that expensive.

It is kinda illogical to ban body armor because you'd be banning slabs of metal. AR500 steel is commonly available and has many industrial uses. Cut it into chest sized slabs and you have body armor. And as Demo Ranch has shown, you can make your own ceramic body armor fairly easily.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And no, its not a boogyman anymore. Back in the 80s there was a worry over Russian paratroopers in titaniam plates with unknown levels of protection. That was a figment of overactive imaginations watching too many spy movies, but today there are lots of readily available body armors that can withstand intermediate calibers very reliably and provide some protection from rifle calibers as well.

Don't knock it - without those worries we never would have had SG-1 armed with P90's! Then how would they have battled the Jaffa so effectively?!