[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


Why have these two weapon systems stood the test of time? I know the UK uses the SA and China uses the QBZ but where else in the world you see other nations adopt these weapon systems? It seems that the m16 line and the Kalashnikovs have the most "mass produced" and used status.


They are used because they have undergone many years of real combat usage which allowed for flaws to be discovered and corrected. Fun fact the new Chinese QBZ-191 is mechanically similar to the AR-15 see >>42


said they have had the most development and use of modern intermediate military rifles


Early cold war was a major time for weapon production and testing, if we end up seeing another world war there will probably be another batch of new rifles made by superpowers


It's my least favorite aspect of the M5. It's a revolutionary platform, the weapon of the future, throwing 135gr rounds downrange at a screaming 3,000fps… but it's still just a fuckin AR platform rifle.

It sucks that the US is the only real military left, because it means we don't get the bizarre innovations from other powers. Even China gave up on the bullpup. Instead of fucking around with it until it worked, they just copied the AR and called it a new glorious innovation.


the US and Soviet/Russian MIC's became the armories of the globe
lots of them lying around to pick up and convert, etc
simple logistics


There's only so many ways to do it and Stoner/Kalashnikov found two of the best designs to do it


there are some french prototype weapons,but they don't go anywhere because making civilian rifles is worthless,and our military buy US and Isreali gear so the military market also doesn't matter.


It's just a slightly smaller 7.62x51 NATO rifle. Like inbetween an AR15 and a 7.62x51 battle rifle but closer to the latter. It's not very good at all, which it can't be or it wouldn't be profitable enough.


File: 1653934919907.jpg (38.36 KB, 736x460, ray gun.jpg)

>It's a revolutionary platform
Lets wait for aimbot bullets to curve towards the intended target, have tiny rocket motors in the slug, or come out of an electromagnetic mass accelerator, before we call it revolutionary.
Scifi from the 1940s and 50s thought we'd have laser guns with tiny atomic power cells by 2000.


ak is kino, if I was a burger I'd buy one in a heartbeat.


File: 1653935299415-0.png (1.22 MB, 1024x562, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1653935299415-1.png (3.8 MB, 1600x954, ClipboardImage.png)

We already have rocket ammo it's just nowhere near as cheap as your average bullet, and the military likes to fire lots of bullets so it's a non starter. It's called the Gyrojet:
>The Gyrojet is a family of unique firearms developed in the 1960s named for the method of gyroscopically stabilizing its projectiles. Rather than inert bullets, Gyrojets fire small rockets called Microjets which have little recoil and do not require a heavy barrel or chamber to resist the pressure of the combustion gases. Velocity on leaving the tube was very low, but increased to around 1,250 feet per second (380 m/s) at 30 feet (9.1 m). The result is a very lightweight and transportable weapon.[1]
>Long out of production, today they are a coveted collector's item with prices for even the most common model ranging above $1,000. They are rarely fired; ammunition, when available at all, can cost over $100 per round.[2]



The future is now, old man.


…What? It hits harder than 7.62x51 while having better sectional density, lower weight, and a flatter trajectory.


How do you know it hits harder? Also 5.56 has a lower weight and flatter trajectory but the new round is still quite heavy and bulky. Mags fit 25 instead of 30. Less ammunition carried and the recoil will be a lot worse.


File: 1653948050370.png (448.58 KB, 1333x933, fury-2.png)

>How do you know it hits harder?
uygha the specs on .277 Fury aren't a secret, you can literally buy it right now. The civilian version is a 135 grain bullet going 3,000 fps out of a 16" barrel, which is more powerful than M80 ball out of a barrel a full 6 inches longer. The military version pushes the pressure up to get 3,000 fps out of a 13" barrel. Putting even the civilian version in a 20" barrel to make a DMR would give you an insane ~3,200fps with better accuracy and force than even 6.5 sneedmore.

The recoil is higher than the M4 to be sure, but warfare has moved further and further away with every conflict to the point that the only person in your squad that's going to be firing on automatic is the guy with the SAW. Even now soldiers almost exclusively use single shots with 5.56, with room clearing being done with grenades while the guy with the SAW suppresses the area. The wars of the future demand a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. 20 rounds of a full power round with more accuracy and impact will outclass 30 rounds of an intermediate round like 5.56.


how is the fury not going to be an absolute fucking barrel burner


I thought that too, but SIG is using some weird new steel alloy and stated that the barrel lasts 12,000 rounds.


Now I don't actually THINK it will last 12,000 rounds, but the requirements of the program were only that it last 10,000 anyway.


The only real reason the US is adopting a new rifle is because the corruption in the government and the DoD want more money.

Given current doctrine, infantry are only really playing an occupation role, where as most of the fighting is done by artillery, airstrikes and drones.

New rifle is obviously superior to the M4/16 platforms in terms of ballistic performance. But the cost of equipping the military with a new rifle, when the current platform really is "Good enough" is a huge waste of money, with current doctrine direction.


It's because they've been doing firearms research for forty years under the guise of an M16/M4 replacement program. The only difference now is that Milley is the first guy in 40 years to be tired of the wasteful spending. Hell, the guy advocated just giving every soldier a Glock 19 because it's cheaper than testing out a new modular pistol.

"We're not figuring out the next lunar landing. This is a pistol. Two years to test? At $17 million? You give me $17 million on a credit card, and I'll call Cabela's tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine with a pistol for $17 million. And I'll get a discount on a bulk buy."

It's an expensive program to be certain, but $150 million for the first year of production is less than 0.02% of the US military annual budget, and only gets cheaper once the rifles are in service and ammo is in large-scale production.

Most of all, I think a lot of the opposition to it is simply because the M16/M4 has been around forever. I'm old enough to where my dad would tell me about how he hated "that goddamn plastic Mattel piece of shit," but now after decades of improvements nobody in the general public even remembers that we ever used anything else.


> The only difference now is that Milley is the first guy in 40 years to be tired of the wasteful spending
Is he the guy that said he read Mao or Marx?



“I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with having some situational understanding about the country which we are here to defend?”


I love the line of thinking that it's cheaper to replace every rifle in the US military than to let research keep embezzling all the money under the guise of developing one


>Advanced Combat Rifle program cost $300 million
>OICW program cost $100 million
>Individual Carbine program cost $1.8 billion

Milley was the guy that canceled the last one for being wasteful. After a $1.8 billion waste of a program, it changes your perspective on how much you can do for that kind of cash. It literally becomes a better idea to say "fuck it, give us battle rifles that double as DMRs and put fancy terrifying aimbot scopes on em. Just stop spending money on nothing."


>but it's still just a fuckin AR platform rifle


Oh it is lmao, like especially with military ammo that shit fucking sucks


>why have the main rifles of the former two world superpowers stood the test of time



File: 1708930802736.png (3.88 MB, 1920x1080, ClipboardImage.png)

Cowboy Bebop was predictive programming. we're still gonna be using AK's, M4's and Tokarev's on mars.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Unique IPs: 28

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]