The ACR, a two-position (suppressed and non-suppressed), short-stroke, gas-piston system of operation; modular, interchangeable bolt heads, barrels, magazines, buttstocks and handguards; an aluminum upper receiver and a polymer lower receiver; a cold hammer-forged, free-floating barrel; and ambidexterous controls. In short, it's innovative and badass.
Forget the Army (no offense to you Army guys), I hope the Marines do... maybe I'll have one put in my hands during my time in the Corps, doubt it though. The Marines always have to make do with old equipment years after the Army gets all the new toys .
Heard that anubismp, the Beretta's good enough for brass even though plenty enough grunts have complained and the weaknesses of 9mm ball are plainly obvious even to 9mm lovers. Oh well :
As for the ACR the military was looking into some new rifles a while back, problem is a Colt cost civies just a hair over a grand, the military gets them for $800 a piece (not including accessories). If the ACR is going to be $1500-1999 for civies then I doubt the military will get them for under a grand. Following that logic, with our Govt wallowing in debt I don't see such a massive changeover from the M4/M16 occurring any time soon .
Well you also have to look at all of the M4/16 series parts and accessories, racks and etc that would have to be replaced(the govt doesnt seem to do mods) also the M4/16 isnt proven broken and most of the calls for a new rifle are from gun folks like us. As said I just dont see it but it would be nice. Then again a sign that change could be coming could be the SCAR. Usually when Super Friends gets new toys the regular troops follow suit a while later after all the "field tests" are done. I'd like to see a shootout done between the M4,Scar and ACR. I do think the modularity would help the ACR if they could push a bbl swap and 100 round drum to replace the 249 and m4 at the same time and I do believe a good portion of M4 accessories would fit the ACR more so than the SCAR.
Honestly, IMO, I do not see a need to change the platform for our military. The biggest complaint with the M4/M16 platform from the grunts, is that the caliber does not have the stopping power that is desired. That being said, name one war or battle our troops have ever lost due to the perceived inadequacies of the M4/M16. You can't. Simply because the caliber, while much to be desired, has performed reasonably well and has won countless battles.
That being said, I would like to see the 6.5G become the standard U.S./NATO round. At the very least, the 6.8 SPC.
I think just the fact that there are better things out there is justification enough to switch. The military is going to need to streamline it's expenditures a little bit though, without cutting benefits to vets, it can be done (and should be).
As for new calibers I'll say this, The 6.8 has come a little ways since it was first intorduced velocity is much better now. There's a good reason it's taken a healthy following among dear and boar hunters, it has punch. The 6.5G is best suited as a long distance paper puncher, it's terminal ballistics don't quite measure up to the 6.8.
Another cartridge folks need to keep an eye on is the 6.5 MPC, uses the same case as the 5.56 so the only mod that has to be made to existing military platforms is swapping out for a 6.5 barrel.
The bugest problem I see the military facing when transitioning from service rifles is all the time and money that has to be spent on re-training. This alone is probably the #1 factor contributing to the extension of the M4/16 as a service rifle.
You're probably correct on that one. But I would only think that that is due to the lack of intelligence within the rank and file to figure it out on their own. Give them a comic book style instruction manual and the ACR, and you will have a highly trained and combat effective force. )
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.