Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Which was the better rifle?
- Thread starter c4t0o1
- Start date
I'm from the 5.56 generation. Buffalo is elder folk.
The weight difference between a M14 versus M4 with full ammo magazine is at least two pounds, and that gets worse depending on equipment attached to the rifle. That is quite a bit for something that you have to carry in your arms (read: not negligible). As for ammunition ballistics, the chances of you engaging someone wearing Class III body armor, with plates, in the torso region, at a penetration range is...somewhat low. Twice as much ammunition means twice as much suppressive fire, not to mention the fact you'll be a lot less likely to run out. I can't even imagine having to hump through the Shahi Kot and Arma mountans of Afghanistan with a full ruck, carrying a 7.62 chambered rifle.
I think that calibers around 4.5mm (probably 4.3-4.6 x 44mm-46mm) is the next step in ammunition development. It will drop the weight necessary to engage at the 300m+ range that is next to useless while at the same time solving the terminal ballistics problem of 5.56 rounds fired from shorter barrels. Reduced/weight recoil and better penetration at urban distances are what is needed now.
I got a chance to fire the XM-8. I thought it was an exceptional weapon. It is remarkably well refined for a weapon still in the developmental stage, and it should alleviate pretty much all of the problems that the M-16 has while retaining its positive qualities.
Last edited:
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
I'm from the 5.56 generation. Buffalo is elder folk.
The weight difference between a M14 versus M4 with full ammo complement is at least 2 pounds, and that gets worse depending on equipment. That is quite a bit for something that you have to carry in your arms (read: not negligible). As for ammunition ballistics, the chances of you engaging someone wearing Class III body armor, with plates, in the torso region, at a penetration range is...somewhat low. Twice as much ammunition means twice as much suppressive fire, not to mention the fact you'll be a lot less likely to run out.
I think that calibers around 4.5mm (probably 4.3-4.6 x 44mm-46mm) is the next step in ammunition development. It will drop the weight necessary to engage at the 300m+ range that is next to useless while at the same time solving the terminal ballistics problem of 5.56 rounds fired from shorter barrels. Reduced/weight recoil and better penetration at urban distances are what is needed now.
I got a chance to fire the XM-8. I thought it was an exceptional weapon. It is remarkably well refined for a weapon still in the developmental stage, and it should alleviate pretty much all of the problems that the M-16 has while retaining its positive qualities.
Elder folk huh! yes Sir, wet behind the ears whippersnapper, to me suppressive fire is a dead target, and the ability to make sure that that you can reach into the target.
The Marines still teach you how to shoot don't they, 100 round through the air are wasted rounds, one round through the 5 zone is fire suppression, better yet a battery of 155, firing air burst, HE, and Beehive, now that is suppression.
I was about to delete the post containing ad hominem comments and insults, allowing what was originally a decent thread to continue, but when the number of selected posts reached 20 it became more efficient to just flush it to the cesspool.
You guys can now insult and debate the finer points of guns to your hearts content.
You guys can now insult and debate the finer points of guns to your hearts content.
I'm one of the older guys, too. However, the point about carrying a rifle all day is well taken. My 'deer rifle' of choice is a 6.5 Swede carbine in a sporterized 'scout rifle' configuration.
I think the 5.56 round is too marginal at any serious range, and even up close would be outclassed by most anything with more bullet weight and diameter. The 6.8 round looks like a good compromise of low weight and suitable power. And I have to agree with Buffalo, supressing fire is best accomplished by neutralizing the threat.
My thought rifle is something the size and shape of an M1 carbine but chambered for a round like the unfortunate 9mm Winchester Magnum with a 140 to 150 grain bullet. That would do for most fighting up to about 150 yards or so, and that seems to be the current limits for typical troops. I'd still want one or two designated marksmen in a squad, as well.
I think the 5.56 round is too marginal at any serious range, and even up close would be outclassed by most anything with more bullet weight and diameter. The 6.8 round looks like a good compromise of low weight and suitable power. And I have to agree with Buffalo, supressing fire is best accomplished by neutralizing the threat.
My thought rifle is something the size and shape of an M1 carbine but chambered for a round like the unfortunate 9mm Winchester Magnum with a 140 to 150 grain bullet. That would do for most fighting up to about 150 yards or so, and that seems to be the current limits for typical troops. I'd still want one or two designated marksmen in a squad, as well.