Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Cappy Army" channel.

  1. 42
  2. 27
  3. 22
  4. 15
  5. 6
  6. 5
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 4
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 1
  24.  @gunguru7020  You can even go with less chamber pressure and generate 3400fps muzzle velocity from 12” barrel 6.5 Grendel with a lighter bullet. We know even the 6.8x51 doesn’t penetrate Level IV at 100m, but does only at close range, so the baseline expectation of it to penetrate hard armor at 600m has not been met and was exempted year ago. That was the basis for most of the ballistic requirements of the program, which then set the magazine, rifle, and LMG weights and configurations. The whole program is literally flawed because the people who specified and are running are incompetent. This is no surprise, because big Army has not been able to solicit, select, develop, or manage a successful rifle program since the M1 Garand. M1 Garand “Great success” M14 Massive failure SPIW Massive failure ACR Failed OICW Failed ISCR Failed (7.62 NATO redux battle rifle) NGSW Colossal failure across the board Now look at USAF rifle history: Used what the Army did, namely M1 & M2 Carbines for Security Police in the 1950s AR-15 adoption driven by Curtis Le May for SPs after US Army Ordnance declared it wholly unfit for US service rifle use Special Forces, Airborne, Airmobile, and Commonwealth Special Forces Units quickly adopted it in the early-mid 1960s (UK SAS, Canadanion Recce/SOF, Australian SAS, New Zealand SAS) Then look at JSOC history: XM177E2s Colt 653s M16A1/M203s from 1977-1985 Colt 723s from 1984 to 1993, introduction of Aimpoints and Surefires, Ops Inc Suppressors, SR-25s M4A1 from 1994-2004, more LPVOs, newer LAMs, better lights, slings, suppressors, newer SR-25s, rails, FF RAS, MRE, better sniper optics, Thermals Hk 416s from 2005, more optics, better LPVOs, smaller/higher output WPLs, newer suppressors, SR-25 ECC, better optics KAC AMG belt-fed constant-recoil LMGs 6mm ARC DMRs with newer optics and accessories US Army has proven they can’t define, select, manage, or develop appropriate weapons systems even for its own infantry, combat support, and support troops, even with the biggest Army budget in the world, with help from the other services. Therefore, small arms development for individual service weapons like rifles, carbines, and pistols should not be driven by the US Army anymore. They’ve had over a century to get it right with all the resources one could imagine, and still failed.
    1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32.  @gunguru7020  A high performance intermediate cartridge to replace 7.62 NATO, which will also reduce shipping bulk and weight (this is where the real money is in the budget, costing billions just Army internal). We could keep 5.56 for the low-end PDW and for most combat arms duty positions, and equip anyone who used to employ a 7.62 NATO weapon with an efficient intermediate cartridge. M4 program just needs to adopt the SOPMOD-style Block upgrade approach rather than trying to re-invent the wheel, as you can’t really get a simpler design with less moving parts. Anodize the receivers FDE and make little improvements here and there. The Surefire/Magpul ICAR solves the mechanical side of frame and magazine for the new intermediate cartridge. Apply cartridge and propellant design improvements to 5.56 or make an even smaller cartridge with equal or better performance than 5.56 for most dismounts, combat support, and support personnel in a much smaller overall form even than the M4. Just for reference on the Intermediate cartridge side, a 12” 6.5 Grendel will spit a new EPR projectile out at 3400fps, without exceeding 52,000psi chamber pressure. 6.5 Grendel and 6mm have decades of developmental history already behind them, so we aren’t re-inventing the wheel there either, and we haven’t even tried pushing them with the new case technology. The hybrid cases are failing though, so single piece cases continue to be a proven solution that can either be legacy brass, and/or NAS. This solution set reduces the overall soldier’s and unit weight burden, while increasing the round count, increasing hit probability, increasing lethality, and increasing survivability. NGSW does all of those metrics wrong.
    1
  33. 1
  34. 1