• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Army's new machine gun will blast like battle tanks

Xelor said:
main-qimg-edbed89dc39ba2af0dfb17792b9ded86




Wait a minute....say what? A machine gun that packs the power of an M1 tank? Oh, BS!

From the article:
​

What? Ah, no. Just no! Neither it nor any other handheld gun will put the blasting power a tank at anyone's fingertips and one'd have to be a complete idiot to think it will.

​


What's my idea of M1/"main battle tank-style blasting?" Um....among other things:
  • It blows up or blows "really big holes" in stuff like other tanks, buildings and bunkers anywhere from 2.5 to 5 miles away.
  • Body armor is not a factor in whether a direct hit will destroy the target one hits.
That woman is talking about how this new weapon, the NGSAR, will "hit hard at 600 meters" and penetrate the new body armor that is expected to be worn by units of armies we almost certainly won't be fighting.
(I mean, really. The narrator said that Russia and China will equip its units with the new body armor. Well, I'm quite sure that whatever contretemps in which we engage with either nation, nobody -- not them and not us -- is of a mind to let it escalate to actual war with bombs and bullets.)
​

There's a new weapon coming to replace the SAW. Great. It's more powerful than the SAW. Great. Tout the thing and make folks feel good about the fact that our guys will have it. That's fine too. But come the "F" on; describe it as what it is -- a "badass" machine gun -- but don't describe it as or allude to it being what it is not -- a machine gun having the blasting power of an M1 battle tank (or any other battle tank, for that matter).


Why does Fox have to oversell the damn thing like they do?

And let me be clear. Fox's (and the OP-er's) gratuitously doing so doesn't take away from the coolness of the gun; the thing is plenty cool all by itself. It doesn't need a sensationalized headline. Fox's gratuitously histrionic and hyperbolic headline diminishes Fox's credibility as serious reporter of news and information.
Click to expand...


maybe the reporter was thinking of this weapon? (warning gratuitous bug stomping)

 
TurtleDude said:
maybe the reporter was thinking of this weapon? (warning gratuitous bug stomping)

Click to expand...


I'm sure there's some reason you responded to my comments by thinking it germane to post a sci-fi movie clip and posit that perhaps imagery from it is what the Fox News article's author had in mind, but WTF that reason is escapes me.
 
Xelor said:
I'm sure there's some reason you responded to my comments by thinking it germane to post a sci-fi movie clip and posit that perhaps imagery from it is what the Fox News article's author had in mind, but WTF that reason is escapes me.
Click to expand...

I was lampooning the fox reporter who somehow thought a 10 pound weapon could generate the same destructive force as the main gun on a MBT
 
chuckiechan said:
I don’t see how the mass/velocity physics won’t break your shoulder or set the grass in front of you of fire.
Click to expand...

Perhaps something along the lines of the Kriss Vector Super V system?

It would be interesting to know if they are considering piston vs. direct gas impingement....and what would the elevated pressures do to the life expectancy of the weapon?
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
6.5 Creedmoor also seems to be hyped these days as the next intermediate cartridge.
Click to expand...

yeah and that new .244 Valkerie for the AR 15/M4 platform-supposedly a 1000 yard cartridge
 
American said:
Army's new machine gun will blast like battle tanks | Fox News


Penetration of body armor would be a good reason to upgrade.
Click to expand...

I doubt any hand held gun will match the raw power of an m1 cannon, and the m1 cannon is actually quite weak compared to towed behind and self propelled artillery. Self propelled artillery would include systems like the paladin, designed to be a rolling cannon.

The pressures achieved were capable even in the days of black powder with antique weapons, the author went all out on a bunch of nothing he knew nothing about. Modern ammo can provide more power over older ammo, but calling it comparable to a modern cannon no matter how it is moved is bs.
 
TurtleDude said:
I was lampooning the fox reporter who somehow thought a 10 pound weapon could generate the same destructive force as the main gun on a MBT
Click to expand...

Ah. Okay. I didn't realize that, but okay. TY for the clarification.
 
braindrain said:
Can't say I agree with this. Giving up the ability to put down sustained fire like you have with the 249 and it's 200 round drum and changeable barrel for what is little more then a more accurate M4 is just not an idea I can agree with. Also worth the out an improved marksmanship program the extra range of the IAR is wasted.
Click to expand...

Maybe the SAWs I have experience with are just ****ty SAWs, I dunno. One of my friends and squadmates is a prior service Marine said he would take an IAR over a SAW any day of the week. I think we need to challenge the conventional wisdom that suppression due to volume is somehow worth more than suppression due to rapid/sustained, accurate fire which is what the IAR gives you.

And yes, not to fellate our sister service but I think the Army does need to change the way we teach marksmanship and take a page out of the Corps' book. I'd rather spend a whole day on a zero range or a KD range refining my fundamentals than trying to qual at pop up targets repeatedly. However, even given a poor shooter (which a lot of SAW gunners are lol), the IAR is still a smaller MoA weapon system.
 
Last edited:
chuckiechan said:
I don’t see how the mass/velocity physics won’t break your shoulder or set the grass in front of you of fire.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of people getting wrapped around the axle over this article. Can I create controversy or what? :lol:
 
chuckiechan said:
I don’t see how the mass/velocity physics won’t break your shoulder or set the grass in front of you of fire.
Click to expand...

Break? I'd guesstimate remove....
 
StillBallin75 said:
Maybe the SAWs I have experience with are just ****ty SAWs, I dunno. One of my friends and squadmates is a prior service Marine said he would take an IAR over a SAW any day of the week. I think we need to challenge the conventional wisdom that suppression due to volume is somehow worth more than suppression due to rapid/sustained, accurate fire which is what the IAR gives you.

And yes, not to fellate our sister service but I think the Army does need to change the way we teach marksmanship and take a page out of the Corps' book. I'd rather spend a whole day on a zero range or a KD range refining my fundamentals than trying to qual at pop up targets repeatedly. However, even given a poor shooter (which a lot of SAW gunners are lol), the IAR is still a smaller MoA weapon system.
Click to expand...

But the IAR really doesn't give you a rapid sustained fire capability. By being magazine fed and not having a changeable barrel it's quite limited. It's really not much more capable of sustainable rapid fire then a m4.

But yes I agree with you that the regular Army marksmanship program leaves a lot to be desired. Though I am not a big fan of spending to much time on the KD range. Range estimation is almost as important as proper shooting fundamentals once you start getting out in range past 400 or 500 meters.
 
Lutherf said:
Actually, I just looked some stuff up (I'm not a reloader) and current .308 Winchester seems to push over 60k psi as it is. If that's the case then I really don't know what they're trying to do.
Click to expand...

I think it's hype. Replacing the M-249 isn't much of a leap. The M-60 and M-240 already out-shoot the 249 both in knockdown power and range and are already in existance.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Maybe the SAWs I have experience with are just ****ty SAWs, I dunno. One of my friends and squadmates is a prior service Marine said he would take an IAR over a SAW any day of the week. I think we need to challenge the conventional wisdom that suppression due to volume is somehow worth more than suppression due to rapid/sustained, accurate fire which is what the IAR gives you.

And yes, not to fellate our sister service but I think the Army does need to change the way we teach marksmanship and take a page out of the Corps' book. I'd rather spend a whole day on a zero range or a KD range refining my fundamentals than trying to qual at pop up targets repeatedly. However, even given a poor shooter (which a lot of SAW gunners are lol), the IAR is still a smaller MoA weapon system.
Click to expand...

The problem I see with the IAR is that they wanted a sniper rifle and a machine gun in the same platform. You can have one, or the other, but you can't have both.
 
apdst said:
The problem I see with the IAR is that they wanted a sniper rifle and a machine gun in the same platform. You can have one, or the other, but you can't have both.
Click to expand...

Where did you get that the IAR was in any way meant to be a sniper rifle.
 
apdst said:
The problem I see with the IAR is that they wanted a sniper rifle and a machine gun in the same platform. You can have one, or the other, but you can't have both.
Click to expand...


The lesson of the failed M-14.


The Holy Grail is to build a weapon that can fire ammunition powerful enough to defeat modern body armor, act as a rifle/sniper rifle and with full auto capability but also light enough for one man to carry and operate.

HK-417.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I hadn't even heard of this new development before and it seems like a ****ing pipe dream, to be honest. The military has tried to replace the M4 and the SAW so many times that I'll only believe it when I see it.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the penetration ability of the 5.56 is not at question nowadays because the new EPR rounds can actually defeat our own ESAPI plates. What would make sense would be fore the Army to follow in the Marine Corps' footsteps and adopt the IAR as a SAW replacement.

Idk what do I know though I'm just a dumb grunt.
Click to expand...

Big reason the Marines ditched the249 in favor of the IAR was experience told them that the bulkier 249 was more of a hassle in urban environments whereas the more rifle-like IAR was easier to handle.

Not surprised the Army is following suit. Though given past Army attempts to do so, I'm willing to bet this will last about a decade, and the end result will weight twice as much and shoot about 3 rounds a minute.
 
Rich2018 said:
The lesson of the failed M-14.


The Holy Grail is to build a weapon that can fire ammunition powerful enough to defeat modern body armor, act as a rifle/sniper rifle and with full auto capability but also light enough for one man to carry and operate.

HK-417.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a sniper rifle and a squad machinegun csn be wrapped up in one platform. You can't get world class accuracy out of a rifle when the barrel has been heated up to 500°.
 
braindrain said:
Where did you get that the IAR was in any way meant to be a sniper rifle.
Click to expand...

The concept is for it to fill the squad automatic weapon and the designated marksman role.

True, a sniper and a DM are techically different in employment and deployment, but they're akin in regard to engaging point targets at above average distances. DM's range out to 600m and snipers out to 1000m+
 
apdst said:
I don't believe a sniper rifle and a squad machinegun csn be wrapped up in one platform. You can't get world class accuracy out of a rifle when the barrel has been heated up to 500°.
Click to expand...


Of course.

But the military sees a difference between a "sniper rifle" and a "sharpshooter rifle".
 
Rich2018 said:
Of course.

But the military sees a difference between a "sniper rifle" and a "sharpshooter rifle".
Click to expand...

Ballistically speaking, there's no difference.
 
Rich2018 said:
But tactically there is.
Click to expand...

Tactically, too; to an extent.

If a DMR can't perform the DMR role because the barrel is so hot that performance at long distances is shot to ****, then the weapon is incapable of performing it's tactical role.
 
apdst said:
Tactically, too; to an extent.

If a DMR can't perform the DMR role because the barrel is so hot that performance at long distances is shot to ****, then the weapon is incapable of performing it's tactical role.
Click to expand...


The tactical use of a sniper versus a section/squad sharpshooter is completely different.
 
Rich2018 said:
The tactical use of a sniper versus a section/squad sharpshooter is completely different.
Click to expand...

Not completely different. What they have in common is the use of highly accurate fire to engage and destroy specific point targets, usually of high value to the enemy. Both are expected to deliver fire that is far more accurate at greater ranges than a rifleman.

The designated marksman is one of the squad's/platoon's counter-sniper assets. His accuracy needs to be above average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom