(05-15-2025, 05:16 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote: Had to laugh the other day.  A friend of mine who was a "Cobra" pilot told me they called the 2.75-inch folding fin aerial rockets "wonder rockets" ... because once they launched, one wondered where they would land 

(05-25-2025, 09:54 AM)FCD Wrote: The real challenge with those irregularly shaped barrels is the differential heat and dissipation variances.  But you're right; if you're going to "fix" something, at least fix something that's broke.  If it ain't broke, don't go "fixing" it!!  BUT...then the kids of military brass don't get free swimming pools.

Quote:...

Folks is funny, and I think a lot of them are either not quite aware of how far 800 meters is, or else they have way too much faith in a light bullet to fly true against cross winds and such. 800 meters is a long way for a 52 grain bullet to fight a cross wind.

I believe the video's assessment of the AK-12 is much more likely to be true that the armchair warriors who write gushing articles for the internet. I'm more likely to trust the instincts and reports of the guys who have to carry one on real-world battlefields.

(05-25-2025, 12:08 PM)FCD Wrote: Man, I could write a book about stuff like that.  Especially the gun rags (internet or in print).  All those guys get huge endorsements from firearms companies to give props to anything new.

Quote:The Army pulled its new M7 rifle, the one replacing the M4, from independent testing under the Director, Operational Test And Evaluation, or DOT&E. (Yes, I say it wrong every single time in the video. I don’t know why in my head it is ODT&E.) Anyway, the decision to pull the weapon before it completes testing in a tropical environment has some concerned. But maybe the rifle is ready to go and the negative feedback is isolated or outdated. The Army will still conduct testing, so it isn’t like they’re just saying all is well, but removing a layer of relatively unbiased feedback doesn’t inspire confidence. In this video, we discuss what led the Army to this decision, why it might be a mistake, or why it could be a way to reduce unnecessary red tape and get a good weapon into soldier’s hands sooner.

Intro - 00:00-01:10 Ad read - 01:10-02:36 What is the M7? - 02:36-05:13 Removed from oversight - 05:13-07:11 What is DOT&E - 07:11-10:56 The Army’s take - 10:56-13:04 Why this matters - 13:04-End

Quote:The U.S. military is phasing out the 5.56 and 7.62 and the new caliber changes the battlefield forever. After decades of dominance, the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds are being replaced — and the new cartridge is rewriting the rules of modern warfare. In this video, we break down why the military is making the switch, the ballistic science behind the new caliber, and what it means for both soldiers and civilian shooters. From armor penetration to long-range energy retention, you’ll see why this new round might mark the biggest leap in small-arms tech since Vietnam. No hype just real data, expert insight, and what’s coming next for the future of U.S. combat rifles.

(10-16-2025, 12:23 PM)Ninurta Wrote: The fella in that video sounded like a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman trying to give the Joint Chiefs the hard-sell. He'd be a good guy to have on a used car lot.

More power to 'em, if that's what they want. It should open a glut of 5.56 and 7.62 NATO on the surplus market, at least. That's good news for me, because those are what I'm sticking with. Ain't no way in hell I want a two-piece ammo case running at 80,000 PSI exploding right in front of my cheek bone, Not even a solid case - it's made of TWO pieces of two different metals, and exploding at 125% of normal high chamber pressures even at that.. How could that possibly go wrong?

In my AO, 5.56 and 7.62 will continue to do just fine. There ain't no 1000 meter shots to be had here - or at least damned few of them. Most shooting here is brush and thick woods shooting, so quick reactions are a lot more important than trying to throw a grenade out of your rifle barrel at a target a mile away. Most shots here are going to be in the 10 meter to maybe 300 meter range for a long shot, so the established calibers will do just fine.

IF that cartridge will do all the salesman there says it will do, they're going to need a new rifle to go with it. The AR platform is not a sniper rifle, despite the Marines trying to turn it into one... and a 14.5" barrel as found on the M4 is definitely not a sniper grade barrel. To take full advantage of the alleged sniper-quality shooting the salesman claims for this cartridge, they're going to need at least a 20" barrel, and preferably a 22 or 24" barrel. If you're trying to pop G's at 1000 meters, I don't give a damn how heavy your rifle is - and the one they had in mind for this round was a 9 or 10 pound beast of a rifle, but with that same stubby M4 barrel -  a 14.5 inch barrel just ain't gonna get your bullet where you want it to go 98% of the time, and the other 2% is going to just be lucky slop-shots.

So I'll just stick to what I already know will work for me, here in my AO.

With all of that said, keep in mind also that nothing, but nothing, is ever as good as it's proponents claim, nor is it ever as bad as it's detractors claim. I just know what works for me - your mileage may vary.

P.S. - plate body armor is why God gave us head shots. If you can't make a head shot on a man-sizes target, what the hell are you doing wearing a uniform anyhow?

.

Quote:You know... I had been preparing a rant to dispel just about everything in that AI voiced hype video, but decided against it for time being because it was becoming exceedingly long and the important part at the moment is the armor penetration potential. Now, as per NIJ standards;

RF3 (Formerly Level IV) plate must be able to stop at least one round of .30-06 M2 AP with a 2880 ft/s reference velocity...

The reason they did this rehash was because of the addition of the category, RF2, which was commonly referred to as Level III+, specifically for stopping intermediate cartridges such as the M193 and the M855 5.56... What's interesting about this is the testing parameters have reference velocities for both rounds exceeding 3000 ft/s... 

Now... Why is this important? Because the difference in weight between Level III+ and Level IV (RF2 / RF3) plates is only like 3 lbs or so per plate, and as the previous links / videos I provided have shown, the "not-spicy" version 6.8x51 has difficulty defeating Level IV plates... So it's really not much of an improvement.

All of this is a moot point, because those plates aren't designed to keep you in the fight... They're designed to keep you alive. I mean these plates still only really cover the vitals so the best defense is still not getting hit in the first place. 


Source
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/equipment-and...ard-012300
If you'll allow me to double up on the tinfoil I'm wearing today, the only reason I can see at all to pull a weapon system from independent testing prematurely is "Graft." Especially when the current service pistol, the M17 / M18, purposed service rifle, and purposed LMG, and the ammunition for the rifle and LMG are all designed / manufactured by the same entity... That's never happened before. So how did Sig get awarded all 3 contracts in the first place?


Well, first we actually have to look at the U.S. Army's "Modular Handgun System" contract. Sig won the contract largely because of cost, to the tune of $103 million in savings over Glock... and secondly, in my opinion, Sig has a U.S. based firm under it's umbrella. Glock even tried to protest, citing issues with a lack of testing, reliability concerns, and accuracy issues. Which the Government Accountability Office straight up denied. The main reason? Money. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/s...ract-44447

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/looks-li...tem-award/

Hell, in Glock's own words, and please forgive my citing the redacted GAO release, they cite that their protest was essentially because Glock,
"asserts that the Army evaluated proposals unequally by improperly waiving a key subfactor evaluation for Sig Sauer."

https://www.gao.gov/products/b-414401#:~...em%20(MHS).


Fast forward 8 years and Sig is currently under a lot of fire, pun intended, for some potentially dangerous issues regarding the new service pistol's ability to... How do I put this? Ejaculate prematurely when teased in just the right way. It is so bad that, "numerous shooting ranges, training academies, and organizations have banned the P320 (Civilian speak for the M17 / M18), particularly variants without an external manual safety, due to documented incidents of unintentional discharge, which can occur when the weapon is dropped."


So this is where I bring it back to the M7 / M250.... What happens when each handshake also includes a wad of cash to look the other way in regards to flawed systems? That's right, the deck gets stacked in favor of the intended victor. The Army decided that it needed a new rifle because of body armor penetration issues and being able to engage at longer distances, or some such.... Yet single shot tests against Level IV and Level IV+ plates (modern ballistic plate body armor), not even at the ranges being touted... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGL9wP8_-LI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTAfS1addXU

...As an aside, fast forward to around 6:20 in the Garand Thumb video (Video 2) to skip all the hype and bullshit. 


Note: Highlighted section shamefully copy and pasted from Google AI because it is just THAT well known of a problem and I didn't feel like citing another article unnecessarily.


It's not "new journalism" though. It's graft plain and simple, my friend. Let me explain...

Every few years or so, for as long as i can remember, the Army Ordnance Corps has put out a call to replace Eugene Stoner's design. Hell, from my perspective, with the changes they demanded of the OG M16 that caused all of the early issues in the field? It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the changes weren't about budget constraints as claimed, but rather corporate sabotage on a "Military Industrial Complex" level. You have to take a look at what the original field testers, reported about the rifle that was handed to them...

As a note: The rifles as Eugene Stoner originally designed were actually issued, initially, to some groups that kind of weren't supposed be there... (I'll see if I find the actual reports. I know I have them around somewhere... ) ...and they fucking loved the thing. Go figure. And this is pre-STANAG 5.56, mind you...

But Army Ordnance had to fuck with it, because that's what they do to anything they don't like. I mean... Think about the logic behind their insistence of a Forward Assist for a moment... if you have to force a round into a chamber it clearly doesn't want to enter, something is wrong with the weapon... Yet, it is a must have for some reason. And that wasn't the only change they made either, the worst being the change to the ammunition itself... but keep in mind Springfield Armory's baby M1 Garand, the M14, was the AOC favorite. It had reach, it had legs, a wooden stock, etc... We all know the story... But!!! It's too fucking heavy. The recoil in Full Auto is nearly unmanageable because of the stock design. The magazines are limited to 20 rounds, and they're too heavy as well. The list goes on. If we look at it from a purely dispassionate position, the M14 is actually a kind of shit rifle... And the only reason why it is looked at in such a good light is because the M16 that was actually issued to the rank and file grunts in Vietnam, wasn't EXACTLY the rifle Eugene Stoner designed, and on top of that, the AOC claimed that, "It's a rifle that cleans itself!" 

Now let me ask you, who the fuck doesn't issue a cleaning kit to soldiers in a gahdsdamn swamp ass jungle?!? 

(10-17-2025, 07:57 AM)727Sky Wrote: Current Chinese manufacturing of military essential's .. They can out produce almost anything from any country; yet a turd with a new paint job is still a turd.

(10-23-2025, 06:17 PM)MalevolentTwitch Wrote: One of the things that hasn't been touched on much regarding the M7 platform is that damned boondoggle of an optic... the XM157...

Before i get into my rant, I'm reminded of a quote often attributed to John Glenn, "As I hurtled through space, one thought kept crossing my mind - every part of this rocket was supplied by the lowest bidder."

Parts will fail, shit will happen, and smartphones have made us stupid. So what happens when we hand a magical, does all the math for you, optic to the actual current crop of warfighters? Well... They don't like it, and the short-term reason? Apparently, it fails. A lot. A quote from the following article;

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/02/04/armys-new-rifles-have-optic-problem.html

"The XM7 with mounted XM157 demonstrated a low probability of completing one 72-hour wartime mission without incurring a critical failure," the Operational Test and Evaluation report adds.

That's as of February of this year. But that just the appetizer for today's, completely unhinged, rant.

Now, 20+ years ago, on my first deployment, I was issued an M68, the "Comp M2" version... The one that required special batteries... the Comp M4 (AA batteries) was after my time, but I digress... It was phenomenal. 4 MOA dot. I only ever shut the thing off to swap batteries when I could get them... and while it's supposed to be a close range optic, technically called a CCO or Close Combat Optic, me and the boys could accurately "suppress, at the very least," out to 400 - 500 yards with it quite effectively. But there's a trick to it... First thing we had to do was divorce ourselves from the 25/300 zero of the irons. And yes, I referring to the 8/3 and 8/3+1 for all you Salty Bastards out there.... We ran a "36 yard" zero for the dot itself, and it worked, beautifully out to about 300 yards without any kind of holdover... But the best part? There was never any need for a hold-under.... Because, yes, with a 25/300 zero? The 5.56 is still climbing out to about 175-200 yards, the the tune of a dinner plate or the old Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pizzas back when "Book-it" was still a thing. Gahds, say that 5 five time fast...

Now here's where the math gets fun.. If 4 MOA is a (roughly) 4 inch circle at 100 yards, an 8 inch circle at 200 yards, a 12 inch circle at 300 yards, etc.. when thinking purely from a conical perspective, how much holdover do you actually need to hit a target (roughly) center-mass at 400 yards, if the rifle you are using fires a bullet that inherently drops roughly 20 to 24 inches between 300 and 400 yards, assuming the rifle would hit about 4 inches low at 300 yards?

That's right... adjust your aim from roughly center-mass to centering your dot on the shoulders of your target. THAT'S LITERALLY IT. It is so simple that it requires almost no thought. Oh! While I'm at it... Want to know how far away your target is at a glance? You have a device to measure with... A 4 MOA dot. If your humanoid target is facing you, and his, her, they's, them's shoulders are broader than the dot? Guess what? They can be assumed to be closer than 400 yards away. Why? Because the average width of an adult male's shoulders are between 16 and 20 inches, and an adult female's shoulders average between 14-18 inches.... if we average that together.... That gives us, a mean average of 16 inches... Or 4 MOA at 400 yards....

Now, ask someone that has become reliant on technology to figure how to aim if their Ti-83 equivalent graphing calculator of a scope fails them....

I do apologize for my 'tism... I really do. I just have a hatred for unnecessary bullshit for the sake of "progress"....