Gun porn

[baldeagle]

http://www.military.com/news/article/fr ... ESRC=eb.nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Beiruty]

It is time for US to clone an accurized AK74 and call the the day. Nothing is wrong in cloning a good and simple design.
However, one has to consider future designs too. Bullpups, Integrated launcher. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Mad Moderate]

It is time for US to clone an accurized AK74 and call the the day. Nothing is wrong in cloning a good and simple design.
However, one has to consider future designs too. Bullpups, Integrated launcher. Something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have been thinking this for a while. I think its time to swallow our pride for a bit and use the design it based on the 47 its simple, reliable and cheap. That alone could save hundreds of millions of dollars from the defense budget that could be used for R&D.

[Beiruty]

something like this one: http://www.akfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

There's no reason to switch platforms entirely—not when upgrades to the AR/M4 platform exist with gas pistol systems, and in some cases, the ability to fire from an open bolt on full auto. There is something to be said for a "universal" platform able to handle different calibers by doing a barrel change in the field. "AR/M4-like" weapons with those capabilities already exist.

This is not a pride issue. Despite my sometimes florid rhetoric about AK-based rifles, I don't actually hate them, and I'll likely buy one some day. But the AR platform is not really complicated either. It is a fairly simple machine, really. Upgrading it serves the same function as changing to a whole new platform, but for less cost. In case you haven't been following the news lately, our nation is in a financial tailspin right now. Completely throwing out a perfectly good and serviceable design with a long history of success doesn't really make sense. It would cost less to change out the upper receivers on M4s for a gas pistol design than it would cost to replace the entire rifle. That new upper could incorporate some of the multi-caliber features of rifles like the ACR, Masada, FN SCAR, or the LMT MRP. Plus, then you don't get rid of the institutional experience with the basic platform.

And by the way, I'll bet that a sub-MOA AK74 would suffer from the same issues that a sub MOA M4 does. Accuracy comes from well-made ammo and tight build tolerances. The very things which are virtues on an AK47/AK74 would work against that accuracy. This is not a slap at the AK platform, but it is generally accepted wisdom that the AKs accuracy is merely "acceptable" (particularly for CQB) where the M4's accuracy is very good out to 500 yards (or more) if its cartridge were up to the challenge—which mostly it isn't.

My biggest issue with the AR/M4 isn't the design; it's the caliber. 5.56 NATO is an excellent varmint round. But if the varmint you're hunting is hiding on the other side of a cinderblock wall in rural Afghanistan, it isn't enough cartridge. The 7.62x39 cartridge is very good for what it was designed to do, it has its own limitations too. It is very good for closer in stuff, but not so much at distance because of accuracy issues with the platform. Apparently, shooting the 7.62x39 cartridge from the AR platform has some reliability issues, so that really isn't the answer either.

In my opinion, the best solution is an upgraded M4, as described above, with a gas piston, which can fire from an open bolt on full auto or when it has been fully immersed in water, and which has an interchangeable barrel assembly which can accommodate at least 2 standardized calibers. The 2 calibers ought to include 5.56 NATO at the small end, and a 6.5mm or 6.8mm cartridge at the top end. The rifles ought to be issued with the 6mm-6.5mm barrels for infantry, and the 5.56 barrels for MPs and other security personnel. Spec Ops units should have some other barrels made available to them along with the standard medium caliber rifles, perhaps chambered in calibers like .300 Whisper and .458 SOCOM or .50 Beowulf.

And as in today's military, there should be a separate 7.62 NATO chambered sharpshooter's rifle. As much as I love the M1A/M14, it pains me to say that it would be better for this sharpshooter rifle to be based on the AR10, for the sake of standardizing the manual of arms as much as possible across the small arms spectrum. It would be great to be able to have a 7.62 NATO barrel that would graft onto the standard infantry weapon, but the magazine size differences would dictate a change to a whole new lower receiver, and at that point the entire money saving exercise would be moot.

Besides the whole question of the efficacy of the 5.56 cartridge in a battle rifle, it repeats a mistake of the past. We always tend to fight today's wars with weapons which were designed to solve yesterday's problems. I believe that is true about the 5.56 cartridge. Yesterday's problem was fighting a jungle war. Over and over again, we have heard from troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan that the 5.56 cartridge falls short in urban warfare (where the round can't punch through walls), and in desert and mountain warfare (where the cartridge doesn't have long enough legs). The 7.62 NATO cartridge fixes that problem, as do the larger more powerful sniper calibers such as the .338 Lapua or the .50 BMG. But for most infantry units at the squad/platoon level, the 7.62 NATO is going to be the more readily available weapon to bring to bear against long range targets. Unfortunately, the military seems to have institutionally walked away from the 7.62 NATO as the caliber for a basic infantry issue weapon. A 6.5 or 6.8mm cartridge will have much of the range of the larger .30 caliber cartridge, but have the more desirable loadout weight of the smaller 5.56 cartridge.......if we can just get past any institutional biases. We've been able to do that with things like vehicles and electronic gadgetry, but when it comes to the basic weapon of an infantry soldier, it is strange how hidebound the military can be.

As AndyC pointed out in another thread, the AK platform is the perfect weapon for mass human assaults on a defended position. When you want to hurl 10,000 peasants at a fortress and throw a million bullets at the defenders, and you don't care how many survive as long as you take the fortress....then the AK is what you want. But if you're trying to keep your kids alive, and mass assaults by the peasantry isn't how you fight wars, then maybe the AK isn't your weapon.

If we were smart (which we aren't always), we would have these new rifles and the larger caliber already in the pipe for deliver to soldiers who are fighting this war. But even if we can't, it would at least make existing rifle inventories last decades longer for future uses, as barrels can be easily swapped out when they get worn, and because there would be two easily changeable configurations, depending on whether we're going to send our boys and girls to fight in a jungle or a desert or a city or a rural environment.

God willing, we won't have to send them anywhere at all. But that's my take on it.

[Zoomie]

The design of then BEAR receiver looks great. Its always good to hear about a company applying their skills and innovating in new territory.