Right,my jamed in the middle of contest and i was disqualified!!!

when you're talkin here about the disadvantages of the M16s,is not the advantage of the smaller "kick" in compare to 7,62 ammo for example(AK etc.)?I haven¨t shot with these weapons so i am just asking..

Why would a new round put lives at risk Rndr? I can't figure that one out. Either that or replace the powder with something a little more clean burning so that the chamber doesn't get all gunked up. That is supposed to be the advantage of the XM8 the hot gases do not enter the chamber to re-**** the weapon. It has some kind of piston system. But I have a feeling that the XM8's piston system would be harder to clean.,

The M240B uses a gas-piston system that works pretty reliably. I don't see any problem with that being applied to a smaller weapon.

At any rate, I was thinking about it, the worst issued weapon I have ever seen would be the K1 and K2 fielded by the Korean Army. They don't hold up very well to constant use by conscripts. Although all of the ones I saw were pretty well maintained, the thing looks like it's just two stamped steel halves seam-welded together.

I could actually see these big grooves worn into the interior of the receiver from where the bolt wore on it. Makes the whole thing rattle around horribly. I am not sure, but the bolt carrier might be a harder metal than the receiver. If anybody has a different experience with these things, let me know... personally they looked pretty bad though.

Originally Posted by JaegerWolf08

Why would a new round put lives at risk Rndr? I can't figure that one out. Either that or replace the powder with something a little more clean burning so that the chamber doesn't get all gunked up. That is supposed to be the advantage of the XM8 the hot gases do not enter the chamber to re-c**k the weapon. It has some kind of piston system. But I have a feeling that the XM8's piston system would be harder to clean.,

In the case of the 6.8x43mm SPC:

No one else in the world will be using the round, much less the majority of the US military. For a unit like SF, which may have to take months of supplies in when they infil, this is a critical deficiency. We have sold NATO on the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 NATO cartridges in the past as standards against their will. I do not see them, in a time of declining defense budgets, adopting a new round while they have billions of 7.62 and 5.56 ammo and hundreds of thousands of weapons in the old calibers.

Also, don't forget, because it will be rare - anyone that uses it is going to be leaving a very distinct mark. For an HVT like SOF, which is seriously hunted by the Bad Guys, this is more than a minor concern. The unit scattering these expended cases behind them will soon have a new group of motivated fans following them with hostile intent.

The round has not been field tested for numerous parameters, and is even now still being tweaked.

This is mainly from an SOF perspective, but you can twist it around and apply it to our conventional fellas as well. We know how slow the Army can be at getting the new toys out to everyone. Try running over to the nearest unit and ask for some spare 6.8 ammo. How about using the extra SAW ammo then, opps does not match either.

I much prefer the 5.56 and 7.62. Instead of wasting money on something that isn't really a viable option, or won't be for another 5 to 10 years, we should focus on improving what we do have, IMO.

What would you do to improve it?

Better question, what can be done to improve it?

Mod edit: Jaeger, don't make multiple back-to-back posts, include everything in your first post or edit in new information to prevent clutter here.

Originally Posted by JaegerWolf08

Better question, what can be done to improve it?

Sorry, Jaeger - the thread got buried below a pile of others and I forgot it was here.

Two types of combat failures:
One- the round not downing a bad guy.
Two - the shooter not hitting what he is shooting at.

While the first is actually a relatively rare event, the second occurs all too often.

My suggestion would be big Army goes to the 77gr. cannelured 5.56 bullet. It is my belief that you would find a much better solution to soldiers hitting and killing bad guys in going to the 77 gr. bullet with sufficient quantities for all soldiers to shoot monthly, a good low powered optical sight, new ranges (indoor at BDE/BN level?), and well-qualified marksmanship training at a variety of KD and unknown ranges under varying conditions.

the beretta is horrible, we need to make the m1911 the standard issue. (again)

The Berretta is not a bad gun.

And yes the 1911 is a great gun, but it has it's good and bad parts.

92F Berretta

Pro: Accuracy, Clip Size, and the "double tap ability"
Cons: 9mm Cal, Plastic feeling

.45 1911

Pro: .45 Cal, 1 Shot and you are on your ass, a real metal feel to it.
Cons: Clip Size, Accuracy, and the action likes to bite you.

It is basically your choice for your side arm. I like them both, and think that there should be a meeting half way... .40 Cal handgun would be fantastic.


Those are views from a Jarhead, take it or leave it.

How is the 9mm size a con?