/k/ - Weapons

Equip for the country you are going into.

If you take only Battle Raifus into Vietnam you are going to have a bad time.

If you take only ASSault Raifus into Afghanistan you are going to have a bad time.

>>537277

That would be very expensive unless you went with a rifle that can be caliber swapped very easily, and even then any given army would need to create new departments in order to manage and facilitate that.

Do you have some information to suggest that battle rifles were somehow a negative impact in vietnam? so far as i know the m16 was superior for the environment only because of increased controllable volume of fire per troop, i wasn't aware that the australians suffered much in vietnam due to their rifles.

>>537275

>>Cuckpup

>>537272

Depends on where you are fighting, Afghanistan is 500-600m, Flat areas and Jungle can go out to 300m, Urban is within 200m.

>>537280

Not really, if you already have an inventory of battle rifles, update them or replace them over time, already in a war where you are fighting in a mountainous region? slowly build inventory for other wars.

Or you can build specific weapons for specific units first and slowly build inventory for the rest of the service.

The US has it on easymode since they have private businesses everywhere making guns.

It wouldn't be a terrible idea to have arms based on the theater, but logistics doesn't work that way. The more simple it is the smoother it goes and, as it is today, it still screws up.

Throw another caliber into the mix and you've got people expecting one thing and getting another, from armorer level to grunt level.

>>537284

>The US has it on easymode since they have private businesses everywhere making guns.

US made guns are expensive and the US goes for the lowest bidder that doesn't present a clear and obvious hazard, so that doesn't work in our favor. It's why most of our shit is made elsewhere and shipped over.

>>537286

>it's not as expensive as you'd think

>US

hahahahahaha

>>537287

Well not expensive for anyone who doesn't have (((certain elements))) in charge of their arms industry. Although even then everyone gets jewed but not to the extent Burgers are

>>537291

Many current US soldiers are conscript-tier because they signed up while not wanting to be soldiers, they just want job security and an "easy" paycheck.

Watch some recent combat footage and you'll see all sorts of retardation and wiggerness while they magdump into a cluster of trees and wait for fire support.

It isn't the weapon, it isn't even the severely lax training people receive, it's the people themselves who are shit and require everything to be dumbed down beyond retard-level for it to work.

>>537291

Post more sexy images of jungle weapons Hungarian daddio.

>>537277

>>537280

By that logic the entire assault rifle concept is garbage, because it's pretty normal for SMGs to have their sights fixed to 200m, and capable of firing farther as well.

So all your army would need is submachine guns in 5.7 and machine guns in 6.5mm and you'd be covered in any eventuality.

>>537294

Seems to be a plausible explanation based on the available footage and accounts from people who served. Watch this video and remember that they are fighting goatherders with firearms collected from the previous century.

>>537298

Unfortunately that's all I've got. But consider that a bullpup could be as long a a jungle carbine, but with a full-length barrel. Also, the jungle carbine was specifically modified for full-auto fire, despite being a battle rifle that could do semi-auto in normal configuration.

>>537300

Or use both bullpups and machine guns in some 6.5meme cartridge.

>>537277

I don't think 762x51 did all that bad in Vietnam. Sure, it wasn't optimal for those conditions, but it did it's job well enough.

>>537287

>it still screws up.

It's an exercise in futility to expect any military to do something and not fuck up to some extend.

>>537287

Wasn't talking about right now in peacetime, I'm talking in a wartime economy.

>>537300

>By that logic the entire assault rifle concept is garbage

Yes.

It's worse than that, small arms are all generally garbage in war, period. They have never gave anyone any advantage in wars since a bit before Napoleon.

Artillery and ordnance it was makes the battlefield.

You can sent your infantry with spears if you have considerably more 155mm than your adversary you will still win. That's the reality the grunt always refuses to admit because by being directly into the action he's under the impression he's doing something.

There are stats available of how many hundreds of billions of rifle cartridges were used in recent wars and it's pretty clear that 99,9999% of them aren't hitting squat.

That's the reason why all European armies were so reluctant to adapt semi and full auto rifles from 1900 to 1939 despite the tech existing BTW, they honestly though that the more ammo you give to the infantry the more they will waste for exactly the same results. And if you go over the numbers they weren't that wrong.

Sure CQB is a thing and there is a need for it, the infantry has to mop up whatever is left but for legit actual CQB action you have thousands if not tens of thousands of >>537301 vid related.

Guys emptying ammo in the general vicinity of were they think the enemy might be, hoping to scare them away.

Infantry fights are either a game of chicken or waiting game to see whoever actually has the superior firepower (support ordnance).

If we were actually smart we'd mass issue something like the Milkor MGL to soldiers as a primary and a 6.5 meme round SAW (or a MK48) every 4 guys for fear factor, issue something like the Russian PP-2000 or the MP9 as a sidearm for those extremely rare CQB occasions (I'm curious about how B+T universal sidearm thing is gonna turn out, if they make a version with a fun switch that might be exactly what is needed) add a sharpshooter in the mix with a decent .338 semi-auto and be done with it.

>>537275

>wanting more (((bulpups))) made by (((brits)))

>>537315

Bullets are generally used to corral the enemy into a spot, then high explosive is thrown to that spot to kill them.

Bullets only hit anything if the enemy is dumb, and refuses to get out of the way.

>>537315

This actually makes quite a lot of sense. Even in urban battlefield the main killers are crew served weapons. According to some internet user a Chechen fire team during Grozny battle consisted of:

1 RPG gunner to attack AFVs

1 Marksman(SVD)+1 Machine Gunner(PKM)+1 Assistant/Rifleman to pin down the infantry supporting the AFVs.

The Russian counter was the "troika" fire team:

1 Sniper

1 RPG Gunner (carrying mostly thermobaric rounds)

1 Machine Gunner

2 Riflemen/Assistants (most probably ammo bearers for RPG gunner and machine gunner)

Given the nature of urban warfare most of the contacts would be sudden movement to contact/ambushes where initial volume of fire is very important so favours PDWs like P-90 with high rate of fire and large magazines. After the initial phase the opposing parties will seek cover and resort to sporadic behind cover shooting as they assess the situation. In this phase, the team with readily available firepower can blow the opposing team to kingdom come before they react with a flanking maneuver or supporting fire. RPGs may be heavier than UBGLs but they have the advantage of much greater firepower and "shock" effect. The PDW also allows the infantrymen to carry more ammo for suppresive fire or additional ammo for the MG or RPG. Targets beyond effective PDW range or behind cover can be engaged by the MG or sniper rifle.

The amount of firepower carried by a 1970-80s PLA infantry squad is quite interesting:

10 men divided into 3 cells

1. Squad leader (SMG with 150 rnds and 4 grenades)+3 men RPG team

2. 3 men RPG team

3. 3 men LMG team (Gunner with LMG with 3000 rnds and 2 grenades, Loader with 200 rnds and 2 grenades)

Each RPG team consists of 1 RPG Gunner with RPG, 2/3 rockets, 2 grenades and pistol while the 2 loaders/assistants have 3/5 rockets and 2 grenades each.

Also, an upvote for PP-2000. Russian weapons like GM-94 (thermobaric grenade launcher), VSS, VKS (12.7mm sniper rifle) etc are ideal for such formations.

Truly the way to go in the future is to replace all standard issue raifus with standard issue flamethrowers.

>>537294

Please keep in mind that magdumping into treelines is not abnormal or necessarily due to retardation. it's fairly standard to train squads to shoot at all potential space within an area of cover/concealment rather than where they think a hostile target may be or is.

>>537291

by the way Magyar, do you have a reliable source on the draftee/volunteer ratio of grunts? im doing some googlefu and cant find anything of substance other than the word of (draftee)vets. it seems very plausible from some of the things im reading, but i like data.

>>537272

>Average distances in actual wars we've had in the middle east are around 500m.

<Citation needed.

>We shouldn't equip our soldiers for "average combat distance" if we don't want them to die or call fire support precisely half the time.

Fire support has always been the killer. Although one can argue whether this fire support is cheaper and more responsive battalion mortars or an expensive JDAM dropped by a B-52. The thing is US forces are averse to casualties so are happy to call in an air strike rather than traditional infantry close in and destroy. See French operations in Mali to see how it can be done.

>We should equip them for the maximum range at which the enemy can engage with the majority of his small arms.

The Ukrainians do not want battle rifles and they are the ones who have faced anything close to modern warfare. They want more tanks, anti-tank missiles, UAVs and MRLs. Similarly, the rebels did not have a small arms "overmatch". They used the same small arms as the Ukrainians and they are no better than Western ones except maybe the PKM/PKP.

>>537411

Also note that I have no idea how reliable these sources really are.

>>537320

First of all, bullpups are a thinking man's weapon. Second of all, the chief developer of the EM-2 was a Polish man who emigrated to the UK due to the second world war.

>>537291

>posting my airshit L1A1

good goy

>>537423

Are you using Grenadiers as point-men and forward scouts? what made you choose a two fireteam squad rather than three? it seems strange to me to launch grenades on contact rather than pin the enemy, are you trying to displace enemy forces more then eliminate them?

>>537471

>Are you using Grenadiers as point-men and forward scouts?

No, but I have urban combat in mind, and there you can suddenly walk into enemy groups in virtually any moment, or they can walk into you. Greeting them with some smoke or explosions seems like a good way of pinning them down.

>what made you choose a two fireteam squad rather than three?

8 people fits neatly into a vehicle, and I think it's easier to coordinate them. Also, I think it has pretty much everything covered, so the third fireteam would be just a copy of the second one, therefore I don't think you'd gain any new capabilities if you formed two bigger sections from 6 fireteams instead of three smaller ones.

>are you trying to displace enemy forces more then eliminate them

Kind of. The squad both pins down the enemy with gunfire and tries to displace them with grenades. So the enemy has to choose between staying in place and risking that a grenade injures or kills them; or they can abandon their position and risk getting shot. It should be noted that the 6.5mm projectile should have rather good penetration, and because of that even in a city they have a lot less reliable cover to choose from. In the end it doesn't matter if they are killed, injured, or simply run away, you still win the firefight and either keep holding your territory or gain some more ground.

>>537484

So will these troops be using magazine or belt fed weapons? it seems to me that the magazine fed rifle is rather heavy for a carbine of its length, with only 20rds capacity. i found what i read to be very interesting, so thank you, but the magazine fed rifle leaves me a bit unsure about the concept. im also a bit suspicious that having a separate chamber and barrel will lead to additional potential weapon stoppages than with a conventional system.

In regards to the powder it seems that they use a proprietary blend of existing powders, compacted into the case. What concerns me about this is that the ammunition developers do not actually know what this blend consists of, and have experienced data loss when working with contractors before.

the whole program seems to be angling toward every rifleman being a machinegunner, but you seem to be angling toward every rifleman being a grenadier. i worry that, with the additional pressure involved with sealing the gas sytem and firing a weighty rifle grenade, you may infact rupture the casing and cause either a castrophic failure or atleast a significant jam.

>>537518

Okay, i see how i got confused now, the LSAT program also has a detachable beltfeed system similar to the URZ, so i wrongfully assumed you wanted some other feature.

>>537490

>Imagine being so desperate to refute someone that you cant even finish reading their post.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East tbh fam.

>the SVD in 7.62x54 and the Zbroyar in 7.62x51

>where "battle rifles" are things like M27 IAR, Mk12 SPR and the SAMR

Well one can argue at length on the proper definition but "battle rifles" usually means FAL, M14 and such. SVD and Zbroyar are sniper/designated marksmen rifles more analogous to M110, M21 and M24.

>Their reliance on 7.62x39 also plugs the gap to battle rifle a lot better.

The only advantage 7.62x39 mm has over 5.56x45 mm is more energy at distances below 200-300 m roughly translating to better "stopping power" (FMJ bullets). High energy bleed means it has no advantage beyond these distances and certainly no utility as a "battle rifle".The 7.62x39 mm was designed for short range engagements based on World War II experience-stalingrad urban combat.

https://www.swggun.org/5-56-vs-7-62/

>The much lighter 5.56 round can maintain a much flatter trajectory than the 7.62 round and as the yardage increases so does the difference in bullet drop. By the 500 yard mark, the 7.62×39 round has dropped nearly 50 more inches than the 5.56×45 NATO round.

>The muzzle energy shows a distinct advantage for the 7.62×39 cartridge. The 7.62×39 has an average kinetic energy of 1,525ft.lb while the 5.56×45 rounds have an average energy of 1,311ft.lb. We also see that the rounds for each cartridge groups fairly tight.

>Out to the first 100 yards, the 7.62×39 rounds still have an advantage in kinetic energy (ft.lb) over the 5.56 NATO rounds though the gap between the two cartridges shrinks considerably. The heavier 75gr 5.56 round performs nearly as well, and we will see that it maintains this force much better than the 7.62 rounds.

>At 200+ yards, the 7.62×39 rounds begin to bleed off their energy and are very similar to the 5.56 NATO rounds, with rounds of both cartridges falling below the 1,000ft.lb mark. Another interesting point is that from this yard marker to 500 yards, the two best performing rounds are 5.56×45 rounds.

>>537490

Regarding Afghanistan:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/15/addressing-overmatch-part-1-rule-nothing-no-one/

From the comments section

>In 2017 (till July), seven Americans have been killed in action in Afghanistan. One was killed by indirect fire. Three were killed by an Afghan soldier at close range. Two were killed on a compound raid, almost certainly at close range and possibly by friendly fire. One was killed by what was just described as small arms fire which may have been caused by an “overmatching” PKM or may have been from an AK or another weapon, we don’t know.

>Therefore in the past six months, the dreaded PKM scourge has POSSIBLY killed a single American. This is the threat that justifies reequipping the entire US Army with 7.62 rifles, even though the data shows that close combat is the place where Americans are dying, where a 5.56 rifle is what you want. Maybe the 2016/2015/2014/etc. data shows different, but strangely in these discussions no one actually posts the numbers to pack their assertions up.

>And this is Afghanistan, one of the best suited places in the world for long range engagements. Do any of these guys with their nice powerpoint decks believe that Iraqis would have had a better time in Mosul going street to street, room to room if they traded their AKs and M16/M4s for 7.62 rifles? The US may have been able to pass off the heavy lifting in Mosul and Raqqa to local forces, but it wasn’t able to in 2004 and there’s no reason to believe it will be able to in the future in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, East Asia, Africa, or any of the places in the world that are both heavily urbanizing and potential hotspots the US may find itself fighting in over the next 20 years.

>I checked data for 2008-2012, and it’s the same. Something like 13-16% of all hostile KIAs (i.e., not green-on-blue) are from all small arms, combined. Who knows how much of that was PKMs, but from what I can tell the predominant amount of small arms casualties occur at very close range (300m). So if we are generous and say HALF of those casualties were from PKMs more than 600m away, we’re talking 6-8% of all hostile KIAs. Might be a problem, but probably not something you want to change your entire infantry small arms configuration over.

Part 2:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/07/22/gearing-lose-next-war-overmatch-part-2-bullets-backbreakers/

Should bring back the .303 :^)

>>537423

For the point man isn't something like GM-94 better than rifle grenades-lower recoil, easier to aim and fire form prone/behind cover, follow up shots. However, this means lower HE than a rifle grenade and instead of 6 kg for 24 rifle grenades now we have a 4.8 kg GM-94 plus 4/5 grenades. So, maybe replace the assault rifle with a SMG/PDW but that messes with logistics.

For rifle grenade recoil:

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=9q3XrvcbBFc

GM-94:

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=iNj7ROtFW0M

Also how do you propose carriage of 24 rifle grenades and 15 RPG rounds, considering they are quite bulky. I could not find exact numbers but these pics suggest 6-8 max for rifle grenades:

https://78.media.tumblr.com/9bb3698cbdc017146ae8dda2a2302361/tumblr_mh41ryzOAQ1rcoy9ro1_500.jpg

http://www.combatreform.org/idfriflegrenadier.jpg

For RPGs we have the 3 round pack for HEAT rounds, I do not know how smaller HE-FRAG (OG-7V) rounds are carried:

http://www.fighting118th.com/forum/everything-customs/9251-ideas-rpg-carrying-pack.html

In comparison, a 40 mm grenade (for M203) carrying vest can be used to carry 18 or 24 rounds.

>>537500

Both are really needed.

A belt fed weapon gives long enough suppression time for a team to change location. A mag fed weapon covers up gaps in reloading nicer when used by a well coordinated team.

I do think that belts will abandon the disintegrating links meme or casket mags might improve enough to make them obsolete.

>>537555

.300 lapua mag is better.

>>537566

I just don't don't like the idea of guys walking around with 9lb SBRs, It almost seems to make the weight savings from Telescopic rounds worthless. The only thing a mag fed 6.5mm rifle seems to bring to the table is more firepower when compared with the same weight system in 5.56. however Im also not entirely convinced on the honesty of the figures being doled out for these weight savings, 33% seems more like what they've rounded to than what they have. Im also not convinced that the telescopic and to a lesser extent the polymer elements of the round even create anything close to the majority of the weight savings. I would be willing to bet that you could put compacted propellant into a much shorter non telescoping metal case and still get the majority of the weight savings, without dicking around having to design and produce entirely new rifles for an entire army.

Personally i would not issue current telescopic rounds for anything other than beltfed, even if you subdivided those belts into 30-rounder measures, but maybe im just being a naysayer.

>We should equip them for the maximum range at which the enemy can engage with the majority of his small arms.

You mean bolt actions?

No thanks.

There's a reason why literally every military that has value has ditched .308 and instead gave the .308s to the, you know, marksmen.

Shit, even Hitler was convinced it was a terrible idea after being shown how effective the assault rifle is.

>>537653

The purpose of suppressing fire is specifically to prevent movement, disengagement included. suppressing fire is necessary exactly because you do not have a full picture at any time of the exact composition of enemy forces, just one section of a field of fire being neglected can result in allowing an individual enemy to cause significant harm to the engaging or nearby force. not only this, but the united states army isn't even one of the armies most reliant on suppression in their doctrine, warsaw nations were geared up for dumping far more ammunition downrange than what is used by americans.

>americans

the two US posters that commented were in disagreement you'll find.

>>537646

6.5mm has more energy than 7.62 NATO at range, while having less recoil than 7.62x39mm…. thats what it brings to the table.

>>537652

>You mean bolt actions?

No I don't. In fact I have no idea how you arrive that conclusion, how you connected more range with a bolt action system. You might have schizophrenia.

>>537586

>>537587

The Telgren design surely makes rifle grenade easier to carry as seen in pic (http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/FNC/MECAR_TelgrenLoading.JPG). Rest of the grenades (especially types such as smoke, illumination, WP) can be of Polyvalent type so carriage in disassembled form (ie without tails attached) would be easier (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RBhBWYJ4GOU/U0GxGz_Q64I/AAAAAAAADeM/f_vM825jMt4/s1600/MDF+Polyvalent.jpg and https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PY0enYhCeSI/Txmfuf-7ppI/AAAAAAAACL0/VueE-HWKw2w/s1600/image013.gif). A few larger HEAT rifle grenades could be carried in traditional quiver style.

>the Hungarian AMP-69 uses rocket-propelled rifle grenades

Did not know about that. What was the rationale behind it? For a HE-FRAG grenade fired indirectly rocket propulsion will lead to greater dispersion. For a HEAT version something like LAW/AT-4 is way more useful rather than something like RAAM.

>>537754

>No I don't. In fact I have no idea how you arrive that conclusion, how you connected more range with a bolt action system. You might have schizophrenia.

Not that anon, but bolt action rifles are usually considered more accurate than auto-loaders. True snipers, not designated marksmen, use stabilized bolt-action rifles and put quite a lot of math into each shot before they pull the trigger. Extreme distance shooting has more to do with calculating wind drift and bullet drop than spotting an enemy with eagle eyes.

>>539282

I've barely been following this thread, but … autoloaders are good out to a thousand yards nowadays. And with a heavy grendel bullet, it still has the energy to pierce a refrigerator. I don't know at what distance 55gr glorified .22 shots lose that much energy.

Too, the bolt actions you're speaking of, are pushing five hundred grain bullets at two thousand feet per second. Given each shot is $5, the shooters have to consider what it will take to get that first shot right where they want it.

I do know that side-charging AR15s are considered slightly less accurate, because the extra cut to make room for the moved C.H. lets the upper receiver 'wiggle' a tiny bit. Over the course of that thousand yard shot, the 'wiggle' is magnified enough to matter.

I've also heard that most snipers prefer single-shot rifles, because the recoil can ever so slightly deform the rounds in the magazine. And since each round will get a different amount of 'hammering' each one will be different from the last shot, and each shot consecutively worse … until it's time to reload.

But again, we're talking about people aiming at 1/10th MOA targets and smaller, two miles distant. Minute-of-man at roughly a kilometer is nowhere near that demanding … and still a big step up from how most people see the AR-15 and it's 14.5" pinned-and-welded barrel

>>539282

>bolt action rifles are usually considered more accurate than auto-loaders

By whom? This used to be the case back in WWI, but by WWII the difference became negligible. MG-34 machine gun even had a dual sniper rifle function

Some snipers today prefer bolt actions because they deal less with recoil anticipation, because they're generally lighter, simpler and more reliable systems, as well as bolt actions giving more control over the rifle (no brass flying around etc). Nothing to do with mechanical system directly affecting accuracy.

Look up the effective range of full auto M2 Browning, semi auto Barret M82, and bolt action Tac-50. Welcome to the 21st century.

>>539356

>effective range

Typically you have to hit something for it to have an effect.

>>539356

Multi-lug rotating bolts with none of the harmonic fuckery that comes from gas pistons

>>539380

>Barret M82

I recall this being known more for its inaccuracy at distance more than anything, Anon, leaving it to mid-range antimateriel work.

>>539380

NOTHING gets my dick harder than a revolver cannon! Make it a fucking tround and call it the trevolver. Go on you filthy slut, do it!

>>539392

>cherry picking

Same cartridge. The full auto, semi auto, and bolt action have the same effective range.

The capability of quality of manufacture post WWII ensures range is maximized regardless of platform.

>>539557

Never got the tround concept, what's the point?

>>539580

I don't know the specifics, but in practice, it was a round that allowed a firearm to have a revolving chamber while also being able to be fed with a magazine and eject the spent casing.

The triangle shape of the tround increased reliability with Dardick's gun and theoretically, it allows for more rounds able to be stacked compared to standard, cylindrical rounds.

Watch video related for an in depth explanation.

>>539580

>>539380

>>539356

>>537754

>cherrypicking

.50 BMG is an inherently inaccurate cartridge due to its design and the production quality of military-spec ammunition, and no purpose-built military weapon has ever been made in .50 BMG with the intention of sniping in mind. The only way to make it accurate is to handload it with more advanced powder loads and projectiles than any military is willing to finance, and you either have to buy a civilian rifle for this or pay the thousands it takes to build a long-action rifle yourself to handle the task.

The M2 Browning is not sniper-accurate, because it doesn't need to be. The Barrett M82 and M99 are not sniper-accurate, because they don't need to be, and neither is the M98B. The Tac-50 is not sniper-accurate in sniper configuration, all sniping work done with it has been done using custom rifles from its large aftermarket. The AS-50 is not sniper-accurate. And yes, before you ask (because you do not know what the fuck you're talking about), military snipers are allowed to purchase and customise their own guns in the modern age.

Most of these guns get 2-3 MOA in military configuration. That is because that is all you need for machine guns and antimateriel rifles, which is and always has been all that you need for those roles. The M2 is used to lay down area fire and against light armoured vehicles and aircraft, occasionally against equipment and fortifications, and all the other rifles listed are antimateriel rifles, whose purpose is not accuracy, but high energy deliverance at close range. When a soldier pulls up carring an M82, he isn't a fucking sniper, he's there to remotely detonate a minefield or destroy an enemy radio installation or cripple a truck's engine. .50 BMG is only made for the military in FMJ, armour piercing, and explosive rounds. No military spends the money for match grade lathe-turned solid brass long-boattail OTM bullets because that's fucking dumb.

>muh effective range

Effective range is not the same thing as accuracy, you dumb fucking nigger. Do you even understand what these words mean? Effective range of a cartridge is the maximum distance to which a bullet will fly before it loses too much momentum and goes subsonic, at which point it will destabilise and become ballistically ineffective. Effective range is the distance at which a bullet will probably start to tumble - no longer flying straight, impacting on its nose, and not properly deforming, which is important because deformation is 80% of what makes a bullet dangerous. In many cases, depending on the design of your gun, cartridge, and load, you can actually have the bullet lose its effectiveness far earlier than the stated effective range of the standardised cartridge; an easy example of this is 5.56x45mm NATO when shot out of the M4A1's 14.5" barrel. The M4 can't adequately stabilise heavy ammo, so it uses low-weight bullets with poor energy retention, and it pushes these bullets to very substandard velocity to begin with… if you understand anything at all about ballistics then you'll be able to intuit why 5.56 has proven so useless in most of the open-area combat in the Middle East. But guess what? The M4 is designed to be a short to mid range rifle, not a long range one, and none of the .50 BMG military weapons in stock configuration are designed to be pinpoint accurate long range weapons either. Just because the cartridge is capable of throwing lead at something two miles away does not mean it can hit any target anywhere like a goddamn laser.

And no, semi-automatic and automatic firearm actions ARE inherently less accurate than bolt actions. Please google the terms "barrel harmonics", "inertia", "gas pressure", "recoil impulse", "breech locking"… you are so ignorant it's impressive. Are you twelve years old or just a fucking fudd? Or are you Spergkraut back to spread his autism again?

>>539583

I don't know the name of the sniper in question, but there was one … he used the vehicle-mounted machine gun, with a single round of 50BMG available at a time, and iron sights. And he had the most confirmed kills from that theatre … if I remember the story aright, when the enemy heard wind he might be on that hill … they would spend a couple hours shelling the entire hill, hoping against hope to disable him, because nothing else was effective against those iron sights.

Kinda makes you go hmm, doesn't it…? I think most guns are more accurate than you are. But the difference between you, and snipers, is they can approach closer to what the hardware can do, than you can.

>>539582

Yeah but it decreased interchangeability massively. Also I don't see how it increased reliability since the round could only go in one way, whereas with a cylinder it's omni directional, and can roll/slide with less friction.

>>539583

Nigger pick any other cartridge. .223? OK compare M16 with MSSR with any .223 bolt action. They're all going to hover around the same effective range. Lapua mag? Full auto and semi auto rifles in Lapua Mag still have 1 MOA accuracy, we just don't use them because we don't want to fire five dollar bills full auto.

>sniper accurate"

>ahurrrrr ur spergkraut, no wait ur vietnam, omg i cant argue

>long spiel about m4 completely unrelated to topic

>effective range is the distance at which a bullet will probably start to tumble

Effective range is the maximum range at which a weapon can be accurate enough to achieve the desired effect.

http://www.definitions.net/definition/maximum%20effective%20range

Are you the autist who doesn't know what a compound helicopter is? Throw yourself in a burning thorn bush retard.

>>539618

>OK compare M16 with MSSR with any .223 bolt action. They're all going to hover around the same effective range.

>effective range

You keep using this term like it means "accuracy" when it is, by the words in the phrase, the distance at which it remains effective as a projectile.

You're retarded. Accept this. Take the loss, move on, and read a book.

>>539621

>>539624

Your argument

>no semi auto rifle is superior to a bolt action, given same cartridge and other variables

To which I responded by equalizing other variables (like cartridge) and showing that it's fucking wrong.

>You keep using this term like it means "accuracy"

Read the full comment, it includes a provided link. Effective range is based largely on accuracy. A .50bmg bullet doesn't stop being deadly at 1500m.

>You also admitted to being a 4chan user in the OP

What the fuck are you talking about you quad faggot, I didn't start this thread.

>im going to jump into an argument without reading a single post and completely flip my shit

Suck start a shotgun.

>>539658

Are you going to trust me, or your eyes? I'm the guy in question, I should know.

>>539684

He's got a point, I've failed myself far more times than someone on the internet has!

>>539684

>Are you going to trust me, or your eyes?

How can you be real if our eyes aren't real?

Go back to cuckchan you piece of shit