Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "US Army OFFICIALLY HAS A NEW PRIMARY WEAPON" video.

Well the last century was irons and the limiting factor of 300m was you know... human vision. The designated marksmen and snipers were all made to take out people at longer distances. They did this by having magnified optics. Now what are they giving every soldier who fields one of these weapons? A magnified optic which can automatically do any calculations and thus hit targets far farther out. Issue isn't things like foliage and never has been. Simply human vision.
67
@mecampbell30 Polymer ends up as a better heat sink as demonstrated by the stone cold chambers after the True Velocity ammo is fired. Polymer is also cheaper than metal in every capacity so it wouldn't take long for the new facility to start up and then pay for itself in the long run. I actually agree with Chris here and say it was probably the lack of a belt-fed option and Sig playing politics saying "Machine gun only comes with our rifle" since everything about the GD bid seems to have been better except the suppressor looking a tad silly and you absolutely know they would've taken both if they could've when we know asanine the army is about recoil and hit percentage via follow up shots on target which is how the 3rd burst came into being in the first place and is facilitated by lighter ammo allowing soldiers to carry more.
3
@RWebster325 Too much personal experience. Not enough data. Not enough feedback. You proved some people wrong and now everyone is up to your standard and always will be despite being a provable outlier.
3
I think it's less that it was because of being unable to in Afghanistan and more of testing the waters to see if that was at all possible to do with making everyone a designated marksman. And well with these new scopes that can do exactly that, it seems kind of a no-brainer to do so. Also historically Assault squads have wielded different weapons to actually engage in CQC like this so I see the M4 being put exactly in that role again if that needs to be done. Assault rifles basically allowed militaries to do away with the submachine gun because the Assault rifle could handle that role as well. Seems like exactly where all of that extra stocks of munitions would go. More than anything else it seems like this would've best been fit by the general dynamics bid mentioned earlier with the only possible issue being over-penetration due to the way that rifle is designed. However due to a lack of belt-fed option, no dice and it was shelved.
2
@RWebster325 The rifle is supposed to be for the average soldier. Great that you're better. But uh... if you've kept up at all with this whole thing, the average soldier is supposed to have this in a few decades as that was the intention of the program with this first bit being limited adoption within the newly created "Close Combat Force" which isn't even all of the combat forces of the US military. It's given first to the highest tier operators and then down further down the line.
2
@theimmortal4718 Because the technology hasn't caught up yet until now. 20 years ago the computing power of your phone took multiple full power computers to match. The advance has been in computing power.
1
There were some specific requirements being mostly overall weapon length and velocity with lower ammo weight. This is just a function of sig shenanigans for trying to meet the requirements.
1
@alexwalker2582 It's about the same size as the M4. Remember that barrel is only 13.5" lol.
1
@mecampbell30 The breech and barrel are also cool to the touch. Everything is cool to the touch. Also realistically I imagine the reason TV ammo is higher is just volume since they're a small company and the only producer with limited quantities on the market. This is compared to the incredibly large factories which exist for a lot of ammo and the fact that prices are pushed down due to the presence of ammo made years ago still on the market.
1
@RWebster325 Can you potentially see and hit them. Yes. But only because you know exactly the fact that they're targets and the people who engage in that stuff usually have better than average eyesight. At distances roughly around 300m it becomes difficult to properly identify targets. And even farther out you're not even aiming at a target, just an approximate position. Which needles to say is less than optimal for an engagement with a lot of trouble for the average soldier to actively score a hit on.
1