fictitious war...pick your arms

[LR1955]

[SIZE="3"]fictitious war ... pick your arms

These Pages are filled with discussions on why the U.S. Military today continues with variations on the theme of the original 1960's M16, and NATO continues with the .223/5.56x45mm . . . a cartridge that some writers have referred to as a "varmint round." That's our "real" world. I saw the OP's choice of "fictitious" as the great escape from that mindset, which has marooned us in the 20th Century:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles...-industry/
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles...-business/
http://innovationtrail.org/post/innovation-gun-industry

One need only visit the movies to get a glimpse of future weapons design ---


We've come a long way in the recognition that shorter, more compact is better.

Then:


Today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuREEXHQ3Q

I'd like to think that if we still had the design genius of the late Eugene Morrison Stoner with us today, we might see the reality of today's forward thinkers ---

[/SIZE]

SAS:

Guys on this forum wouldn't like to hear Stoner too much. He believed in the 300 meter notion about engagement ranges and when I heard him speak about 28 years ago or so, he mentioned that it may (may) be better just to have a fully automatic carbine with a very large capacity magazine shooting tracer. Shooting would be done primarily from the hip because it is more natural than trying to bring the carbine up to the eyes. No sights either. Easier to train someone to walk tracer into a target than the old 'sight alignment, sight picture'. Sorry but such cartridges as the Grendel would be considered unnecessarily heavy and overkill.

I shot either the AE you are showing or something very similar. 5.56. Reach to the trigger was too long, trigger pull horrible, and lacking in basic ergonomics. It felt like trying to point a block of rectangular wood. Look at the movie picture of the robot or what ever it is. Reach to trigger too long, and he has to cant the carbine into his eyes. Although the artist probably thought this would enhance the aggressive nature of the movie, it actually is pretty much correct in reality.

My take is that if a person has to cant the rifle to his eyes in order to be effective, the rifle or carbine was not designed well.

Looks cool, functioned, and not made to fit the human body.

Not picking a fight, just commenting on a belief that in order to be modern, one must make something look different even though its basic level of effectiveness has not changed for 110 plus years (since semi-smokeless powder and jacketed bullets).

LR55