When I was watching the press briefing that announced the Army’s new XM5 rifle, there was one big thing that stood out to me: our role in making it happen. And by “our” I literally mean you and me, the civilian firearms owners who buy firearms and accessories.
During the press briefing, Brigadier General Larry Q. Burris, the Army’s Soldier Lethality Cross-Team Director, said . . .
…we arrived at this point in record time because we leveraged middle-tier of acquisition rapid fielding authorities to enable speed and flexibility…working with our partners in tandem in a process that would have traditionally been linear, and may have taken 8-10 years to complete. And we arrived at this point in only 27 months, and that’s simply remarkable.” He also said: “It is necessary for us to develop capabilities at the speed of war. Necessity drives invention. In this case, necessity drives innovation.
As the United States pivots away from fighting low-intensity conflicts against non-state actors and even “goat herders” and turns to face the growing threats of near peer competitors like China and maybe Russia, we’re seeing the need to come up with a better rifle that gives U.S. troops not just a fighting chance, but an overwhelming advantage. The M4 was starting to run into its limitations even in fights against the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents, so it was definitely time for a change.
But, the United States doesn’t have ten years to slowly design a new rifle, come up with new things like the XM157 smart scope, and then test several designs to see which one is the best. To face the future, we need to quickly get something new going so there’s time to build ammo production capacity to feed it and take other steps needed to get the new platform into action.
Let’s imagine what this would be like if we were a country with little to no civilian firearms ownership.
Companies like SIG SAUER would exist, but their only customers would be military and law enforcement. They might make some dumpy bolt-action .22 or single-shot 20-gauge for whatever civilian market there may be, but that would do little for their revenue and nothing to push them to always be coming up with new and innovative designs to sell to us civvies.
Would they have designed the SIG MPX submachine gun? Probably not. If you look up that weapon’s users on Wikipedia, it lists one team of the Hong Kong Police Force, a counterterrorism unit in India, limited use by police in Thailand, and a few cops in the United States.
That limited user base of military and police sales wouldn’t justify a new design in a market segment that already has good, proven options like the H&K MP5 that could be modified a bit to serve new users. Instead, SIG kept going and improved the MPX design into the MCX, which is now the military’s chosen rifle.
Fortunately we don’t live in a country where gun manufacturers don’t sell to everyday citizens. U.S. civilian firearms sales dwarf purchases by most governments. The .gov might pay more per unit than civilians can, but we’re the ones who drive many new designs and innovations because there’s always some gun company working to get our money before another gun company can.
When the Army needed a new gun, they reached out to gun manufacturers, who had designs ready to test and improve upon. The original Next Generation Squad Weapon competitors included names you see in your local gun shop like FN, Desert Tech, Federal, Winchester, Beretta and, of course, SIG.
If China’s defense ministry decides the People’s Liberation Army needs a new gun, they’ve got to get a state-owned enterprise to come up with a new design — something likely to take years — and then start testing and improving upon it.
The results speak for themselves. Russia is still using a gun with a basic design from 1947 and ammunition from 1974. China recently adopted a new gun, but it looks like an AR knockoff of some kind with some, so they didn’t even come up with their own design. The ammo? From the 1980s.
The ammunition situation alone is instructive. While a few commercial calibers are a lot more popular than others, there is a seemingly infinite variety of “boutique” calibers people use in the United States. Some of the time, civilians come up with their own “wildcat” cartridges that they make at home to solve certain problems, get some small advantage, or otherwise improve things for a very small niche need. Some people do it just for fun to see what they can get away with.
The .40 Smith & Wesson came from an FBI agent who handloaded reduced power 10mm ammunition at home for testing. That would have never happened in a country where handloading at home doesn’t happen (legally).
Would SIG have poured a bunch of money into an innovative new high-pressure cartridge design if they was zero commercial market in the event the military chose something else? Maybe, but it would have been be a lot more risky from the perspective of the investors and bean counters. So, just being able to sell a new, innovative caliber to the rifle-buying public probably freed up R&D dollars at least a little that the Army could take advantage of without having to fund it entirely.
We also solved another problem with the transition: the future of the 5.56 round. The civilian market will also be used to keep 5.56 ammunition production up in the future. Civilians own tens of millions of AR platform rifles in the US. As military needs for 5.56 decrease over time, Winchester will still be able to sell more Lake City ammo to civilians, while they must keep military capability up in case of a major war.
So, we’re going to be supporting the military’s backup capability of 5.56 production in the future, making sure they can acquire a whole bunch of ammunition for troops still carrying the M4 as well as allies who don’t adopt the new cartridge.
Don’t underestimate the power of the American civilian firearm market and what it means for innovation and, yes, military readiness. The Army’s ability to choose a new rifle design in just 27 months was unquestionably aided by the demand for new and effective firearms by people like you and me.
Oh I’m fairly certain the USA will still go after goat herders & low hanging fruit. Look who’s presidon’t…
It didn’t take them long to transition into spending $$ on another war, did it? Voters were fed up with the lies used to get us involved in endless wars. Trump promoted peace and an end to our constant wars and the establishment hated him for it. It drove the Bush family to support Hillary and the Puppet. Don’t look now, but we’re in a proxy war with Russia. The establishment is loving it for multiple reasons. I asked this at the very beginning, and I’ll ask it again. What’s the end goal here? It’s painfully obvious the goal isn’t to save lives and communities. Are we or are we not the world police? How do we pick and choose which country to stand up for?
Constitutionally?
The only country we can constitutionally stand up for is the USA. We shouldn’t even have a standing military. If we only had civilian militia then there would no argument for gun control at all as we would all be the national defense.
My point exactly. The government’s choices are far less complicated (and dangerous to liberty, etc.) when it limits its options to its specific, enumerated, and delegated powers.
OK, not quite “exactly”. The government’s powers do include concluding treaties, and the fact that the Founders had just won our independence in alliance with France supports the understanding that treaty-making powers include military alliances (when they are beneficial / necessary to the defense of the US). Making handouts of billions of our tax dollars, much less our blood, because a politician’s “heartstrings” were tugged by a sob story? Not authorized, nor even remotely implied by any syllable of the Constitution.
The end goal in Ukraine is much the same as the USSR’s goal in arming the NVA and Viet Cong or our arming the Mujahidin. To weaken the adversaries conventional forces and reduce their capability of projecting hegemony. Of course if they really wanted to weaken Putin they’d reopen American oil and gas production and bankrupt him. All that Russian oil and gas is state owned and it’s the high prices that are funding his aggression. But AOC wouldn’t approve of that.
“To weaken the adversaries conventional forces and reduce their capability of projecting hegemony.”
And we’re willing to fight until the last Ukrainian. How brave of us.
Remember how brave and virtuous we were by extending (and possibly instigating) the civil war in Syria? Our CIA was just collecting intelligence and was totally not involved in an attempted regime change. The end result was over half a million dead Syrians, multiple millions of displaced Syrians, and destroyed communities. The Obama Admin state and intelligence departments did that. What did we gain? Why the fk were we meddling in the first place? How did that help American citizens? Isn’t if funny how that ended up being a proxy war with Russia as well? Hmm…
We can either give/sell weapons to the victims of aggression or we can leave them to their fates at the hands of their aggressors. The Ukrainians have every right to lay down their recently gifted American arms and submit to Putin’s will, but they won’t. Imagine that. Apparently they believe defeat is worse than death.
There’s a third option. We could do everything in our power to prevent it from happening in the first place. Then, when something like that happens, we could do everything in our power to peacefully resolve it. We shouldn’t be viewing the situation as a chess board. We should view it as life having value. (Remember Syria. Saving life wasn’t the goal in Syria, but it should have been.) When something is valuable, you do everything in your power to save it.
The Ukrainian president was elected on the promise to END violent conflict in eastern Ukraine. As soon as he began to fulfill his promise, a segment of bigoted, anti-Russian Ukrainians promised to end his life if he worked for peace. The Ukrainian Notsees would settle for nothing less than making ethnic Russians second class citizens. So what did we do? Did we have the majority of Ukraine and Zelenskyy’s back? No, we didn’t. We, along with NATO, took the side of the Ukrainian Notsees. The only way Zelenskyy could have peacefully resolved the matter was with the help of the (currently) most powerful country in the world. The establishment didn’t want a peaceful resolution. They wanted war with Russia.
Come to think of it, the Ukraine situation today is the result of seeds planted by the Obama state and intelligence departments. Look who’s in charge of our foreign policy now. It’s the same people.
Except Russia was always going to invade Ukraine, Dude. They’re hell bent on returning the USSR, and are willing to expend the last Russian to do so. We have every right to arm Ukraine against that.
Putin will die one day, who will take his place? The communist party. It’s the only party with strength inside Russia outside of Putin. We need make sure when Russia returns to communism it does so broken and weak.
‘…nothing less than making ethnic Russians second class citizens.’
Given the history of the region I can’t say as I’d blame them for the sentiment.
Ron,
Russia was already broken and weak compared to us. Outside of their nuclear arsenal, they don’t pose a significant threat to us. And if they decide to use nukes, then we use our nukes. So why would they use their nukes against us? It isn’t 1950. We’re no longer fighting wars to stop the spread of communism. We failed miserably at that. The commies are already here.
So what are we fighting for? We’re fighting for control of a vassal state. It’s funny how the “anti-imperialist” Democrats are fully on board for this. It isn’t about standing up for a sovereign nation. That’s just the selling point. There are plenty of other conflicts in the world that we didn’t insert ourselves into.
Every decision made by our government should be for the benefit of the American citizens. “We” aren’t fighting Russia in Ukraine so we don’t have to fight them here. That’s another selling point and a lie. This conflict and the fallout from it isn’t strengthening our country. It’s making us weaker and more vulnerable.
I don’t think it was a foregone conclusion that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. I think there was a series of choices that led us to this point. How did expanding NATO since the 90’s help us? Are we so arrogant to believe that we’re allowed to expand an anti-Russia military alliance, but Russia has to disband their own military alliance? Are they just supposed to shut up and take it, because, as dprato said, “if I am strong enough, I can claim anything I want?” As it turns out, we aren’t the only country in the world with dreams of alliances and vassal states.
Russia was giving us time to give them security assurances as they were building up forces on Ukraine’s border. What was the response of the Puppet Administration? They had a chance to push for peace, and they didn’t even try. As a matter of fact, they basically taunted Putin. NATO did the same. Just prior to the invasion, when Russia asked for assurances that Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO, the NATO Supreme Commander tweeted that we should expand NATO! Is that how you throw ice on a potential invasion? Talk about irresponsible!
Why do you think the dems used Russia as a smear against Trump? Why did the the establishment lose it’s mind when Trump said he wanted a mutually beneficial, peaceful relationship with Russia? It makes more sense now, doesn’t it? The truth is, our relationship with Russia has been mismanaged since the early 90’s. It didn’t have to be like this. It doesn’t have to be like this.
Gov. It is really a question of standing on your feet and fighting or living on your knees at the hand of your oppressor. The Ukrainians have made the choice of FREEDOM!
The end Goal of the Republican/Democrat/Wall Street War Uni-Party is always personal enrichment and power. They get this by stealing money from you and future generations and by walking over the dead bodies of our children. Once you know this, you can see all the games they play with their Media Support and in Congressional Antics etc. Wars are good, as long as they don’t have to fight in them.
I find it interesting that some commenters blame the US for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, because we didn’t support the Russian invasion enough. WTF?
For me the answer is simple. Big fish should not be permitted to eat little fish just because they want to. There was no real provocation for the Russians to invade the Ukraine just because they want to restore the old Soviet Union. Should the US, China and Russia sit down and divide the rest of the world into 3rds and each take 1/3 to rule just because they can? I think not and this arbitrary notion that if I am strong enough, I can claim anything I want is absurd.
The proxy wars with Russia have been ongoing for decades – they didn’t stop with the “end of history” and we didn’t stop funding them when we started spending the “Peace Dividend” – the recent unpleasantness in Ukraine just put those proxy wars back on the front page.
Only the United States Army would adopt and field a $8,000 smaller caliber AR10, Plus the $5,000+++??? Optic. As part of the deal you get a new 80,000 PSI chamber pressure and lose all NATO Compatibility. So what am I missing here. Do we really want to have a “do- over” of the M14???
Anyone who thinks Non-Sniper/DMR troops are going to see, identify and successfully engage enemy soldiers at 1,000 meters needs to read some history books and take a close look at the actual line infantry and their poor training and capabilities, not just the “High Speed-Low Drag” guys. News Flash, Special Ops and Snipers don’t win wars, sorry guys. They are useful and force multipliers, but the regular ground pounders are the key to victory.
The latest M4 variant still works and does what it was designed to do, provide infantry with an effective weapon optimized to zero to 250 meter engagements and perhaps to 500/600 meters, depending on the operator and terrain, etc. It does this in a lightweight package with lightweight ammo and low recoil. One day the 5.56 will be obsolete and that day is coming, when body armor is issued the same as BDUs. Luckily the Russians and Chinese are still fielding troops with empty plate carriers, for now.
Hardened Cores in Fast Rounds are what goes through armor. Today only the M995 Tungsten Rounds (Not M885A1), 338 Lapua AP and 50 Caliber Ball ammo can penetrate modern LVL IV armor. Therefore we need a high velocity, small diameter, non-tungsten round that can go through LVL IV Armor at least up to 200 meters. A return to larger caliber, heavy, hard recoiling rifles and heavy ammo is the wrong answer, which begs the question, what needs are they answering with this 6.8×51 round???
Mauser6863 Here is the dichotomy of the problem you pose. The M-14 was an excellent battle rifles. Still is. The fact is that Spec Ops and other units in the Army, Navy and Marines use the M-14 as a rifle for “designated marksmen”. As to the rest of your post, I have to agree with most of it.
The M14 was the rifle with the shortest service rifle in US History. The design is based on the M1 Garand which was state of the art in 1923 and throughout WW2.
Please remember that Gen McArthur vetoed the selected 276 Pederson Round in the M1 Garand and wanted 30-06 only as we had large stocks from WW1 and he wanted a 1,000 yards capable rifle for troops. So instead of a 10 shot 7 lb rifle, we got a 8 shot 10 lb rifle. In both WW1 and WW2 the average infantry engagement was 200 to 300 meters, which is the same today. A full power 30-06 AP round is defeated by LVL IV Armor.
Ounces equal pounds and you can never have enough ammo. When units are deciding how many “Fart Bags” to carry on patrol to save weight, you know low ammo and rifle weight are critical.
While that is all well and good, the M-14 is a 7.65 mm (.308 ) round, not the 30-06. The reason that the military went to the 5.56 is because they could carry more round. The 5.56 is effective out to 500 yds. It is a good round but it is not as powerful as the 30 cals.
Personally I trained on the M-14 in the Marines at Paris Island. It is an excellent rifle. The M-14 is mag fed. The difference between the 8 and 10 rounds? In my opinion they should have made the M-14 mags to accommodate the extra two rounds, if you are so concerned about the two rounds. As to the rifle being heavier, OK, yep, it is heavier than the M-16 (M-4) but it still packs a more powerful punch than the 5.56. IN the infantry weight is a factor to be sure but so is lethality. Another draw back of the 5.56 is that it is easily deflected by even a twig of a tree. Not so with the 7.56 NATO.
I still prefer the M-14 to the M-16.
Well I would say that you are wrong, especially about twigs. Here’s some Pine Boards for you to consider. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvXkcafF9Jw
Mauser6863 That pine board “test” is not a a real test about deflection. I agree that there is a lot of penetration in the 5.56 from my EXPERIENCE with the round, it is easily DEFLECTED by even a twig in the jungle or wooded areas. Penetration is DIFFERENT from deflection. Penetration shows the depth the round will go; while in deflection, the round maintains most of its speed but is thrown off its aimed course.
How about a tree. I will still take a M4 or a AK74M over a M14 or a M1 Garand any day. Anyone who uses foliage for cover is a fool and all of these shots are in the margin of combat accuracy and all will kill. In Korean, soldiers reported that the M1 Carbine, firing basically a hot pistol round, failed to penetrate heavy winter clothing – these are a called “Misses”.
https://youtu.be/HBzqIGYuubU
Mauser6863 That’s your choice. I agree that the M-1 Carbine is not much of defensive weapon. I like it for short range hunting predators but not much more. The M-14 is a 7.65mm NATO. It is an excellent round out to 800 yrds. In an accurized M-14 it’s good to 1000. Trying to compare the M-1 Carbine to the M-1 is not a comparison at all. They take two COMPLETELY different rounds. A M-14 shooting through brush in combat is totally different from shooting a Beretta 9mm. It’s grapes and oranges. He never did use the 7.65 NATO which is a rather “fast” round was not included.
If you like the M-4 or the aK74M more power to you. I’ll stick with the M-14 every day.
“one day the 5.56 will be obsolete and that day is coming”
Yes, so for once, let’s get in front of that change.
The time it takes for adversaries to fill those plate carriers is measured in months, not decades.
If what we’re seeing taking place in Ukraine (after filtering out the propaganda on both sides) I’d say that what we’re sending to equip then with, M4s mostly I’m guessing, is proving to be effective. The question is, would we still consider Russia to be a peer adversary of the US after getting their asses mostly handed to them while invading a neighboring country ? Also, what would China be fielding if they started trouble in Taiwan which we would be answering next ?
Especially when China makes most of the ceramics in production in the lower to mid range plates.
Well keep in mind this is the same group of people who thought it was OK to leave $80 billion worth of military equipment in Afghanistan and turn over the air base to the Taliban terrorists.
Meanwhile they can’t wait to pass laws that will deprive American Citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. If anyone can explain the logic of what this Administration is doing in any aspect of Government, I wish they would tell me because I can’t figure it out and I am no dummy.
5.56 tungsten m995 is stopped by ESAPI revision G and later plates. 7.62 tungsten m995 is stopped by XSAPI plates and occasionally by later model ESAPI under mitigating conditions (distance angle light cover etc). 338 AP is amazing but have fun carrying it. The 6.8 selected appears to be much more powerful than 995 or 993 with a higher sectional density so it has a decent chance to penetrate plates we use that the Chinese are capable of and currently producing.
Body armor makes the new rifle necessary for the standard ground pounder.
like ike said beware of the military industral complex
While true investments in rifle and related products are a drop in the bucket compared to where money is actually spent and does somewhat become available to us.
All of this is well and good, I never really liked the rounds used in AR’s. I prefer 7.62×51 rounds. 6.8×51 may be the right choice and I hope that it is. I do not know why we did not use AR-10’s though. Is there anyone that could explain the decision?
The MCX Spear has a 13″ barrel. It shoots an extremely high pressure round. At that point, a suppressor is pretty much mandatory. Using an AR-10 like that would mean more gas in the face and a dirtier rifle which would hinder reliability. That’s my opinion. I have no idea if this was the logic used for the decision.
It is a folding stock piston driven gas system that is closer to AR-15 weight in terms of weapon and ammo unlike the heavier 7.62 AR-10. When you fix the chamber pressure capability you get better range performance than an AR-10 at AR-15 weights
From what I understand, the very first AR-10 barrels were horrible and blew up under testing. Mr. Stoner did not approve of those barrels but his moron boss did. That didn’t look good, everyone passed on the AR-10. Well, not everyone, ArmaLite sold them to other countries after making better barrels. Military went with the M14 (7.62), which didn’t last long. US finally decided to go light, there were tests that showed shooters in general were better with 5.56 vs. 7.62. Stoner redesigned, rest is history.
Sorry, I think the history geek side of me misread your question.
Same reason they didn’t switch from the Gerand to the superior FN/FAL Paratrooper (STG 58. I believe) with side folding stock and slick integrated in the forearm guard bipod, and 30 round mags in 308 to boot, Instead of the M-14 to begin with?
POLITICS and the corruptibility of those who made the ‘decisions’.
Yup, it would be nice if we could pay off those prices with 2008 Zimbabwe dollars. I have handled a friend’s 100 trillion dollar bill yesterday. If this regime continues we may get right there.
My 18″ 6mm ARC on a standard AR-15 frame out performs the commercial 277 Fury, 7.62×51 and 5.56×45 calibers. It didn’t cost anymore to build than a standard AR-15. The AR 50kpsi limit does frustrate powder tippers but live with it. It is right on, if you don’t train the troop you should not expect unwarranted results. But diversity is important. Artillery is better than infantry. No wait, that’s racist isn’t it. Oh well, maybe we need more training…
I highly doubt you get to a $100T bill in the US. You’ll get a “revaluation” long before that.
I’ve been to Zimbabwe multiple times over a couple of decades. They’re the type of country that can survive idiocy like that because for a variety of reasons. The US can’t.
The better comparison, overall is either Argentina or Weimar. An advanced country where most people are well above subsistence and the culture isn’t overall agrarian. In such a place currency is more important because it facilitates the transfer of stuff from one place to another in an orderly manner, that is from farms to cities. Once you get a certain ratio of city:rural the reliance on a legit currency skyrockets. We’re well past that point. (This is part of why Harare has grown more rapidly in the last 10 years than in previous decades, because the Z$ died, finally in it’s 4th iteration, in 2009. Since then they’ve mostly used the Euro, keeping the Zimbabwean Central Bank out of currency control. The increase in stability has allowed for urban growth.)
The US is headed towards a revaluation. The current dollar cannot survive. It’s too indebted, the Fed’s in a corner and the pols can’t admit what this means so they’ll just do more of the same until they can’t. That’s part of what a digi-dollar is about. It’s a revaluation scheme that also give the government nearly perfect control over everyone.
Realistically, I don’t see a digidollar being a thing either. There are simply too many headwinds at this point. I don’t pretend to know the future but I don’t see a future with digital fiat.
Going forward, Zoltan Polzar is probably right, you’ll end up with commodities backed currencies that attempt to fix the current fiat system but retain the flexibility for long-distance payments. I believe he refers to that as Bretton Woods III.
IOW, I’d expect to see a multipolar world with currency competition between currencies issued by governments and other actors which are pegged to a certain amount of something key, like natural gas, oil or some major food commodity. Based on the current trajectory of things, I doubt gold and silver make a comeback other than as an asset class for storing wealth.
Of course, such a system is favorable to producers over consumers (the inverse of fiat) and savers over spenders because the currency is linked to something tangible. Some countries will do quite well, right off the bat, and then fail later. Others will fail at first and then get the hang of things. Others will just fail into the fall of their government and then try to figure things out. My guess is that the US falls into group two or three.
Historically speaking the position the US finds itself in today is not unique. It has two statistically probable outcomes and most people wouldn’t like either one. In fact, a lot of people wouldn’t survive either one.
There is, IMHO, a third path which is objectively the best. I also think it’s the least likely for, essentially, the same reason that the FBI is targeting the people who attend school board meetings. Because this country is soft, lazy and ignorant and has been since at least the end of WWII. The inability to admit this has created the problems and the ability to resolve them starts with such an admission.
And that’s political impossible. The first person to say “Pensions are wiped out and Social Security is being cut by 80%” will get crucified. Knowing this, they won’t say it and those systems will collapse when the world moves to BWII and the dollar implodes.
It’s sad since it doesn’t have to be that way but I see no other outcome because 85% of Americans won’t admit to there being a problem at all and we have lots of big problems across a host of fronts.
Or maybe Geert Vander Bossche is right and we won’t have to worry about those problems because we’ll have far, far, far bigger problems.
We survived Jimmy Carter, Obuma the Phony…
It’s not 1980 for about a zillion reasons.
Anyone who says that this is like Carter is either not paying attention, failed basic arithmetic or has normalcy bias so bad that they’re not worth talking to.
Let’s just skim that surface.
When Paul Volcker decided to raise the Fed rate to “crush” inflation he had an inflation rate that maxed out at 13.5% for a yearly average of 12.52%. Calculated exactly the way Volcker’s Fed did the calculation, today you’re north of 17%, at about 17.3%YoY right now. Oh, and it’s still rising btw.
Now, your interest rate has to exceed the rate of top-line max inflation in order to break the beast, typically by 5-10%. Volcker split the difference at 6.63% over inflation.
So take 17.3×1.0663 = 18.45 (rounded). Your minimum Fed rate is 18.45%, but IRL well into the 20’s because you’re going to have to deal with the inflation that hasn’t yet set in from printing nearly 1/3rd of all dollars ever to exist in the past two years, which should give you a minimum inflation of 50% in the end if you don’t take those trillions back out of the money supply.
But even if you stick with 18.45% that means a real loan rate around 20%. I mean… LOL! Do I really need to compare that to muni and corporate bonds to give you an idea how completely screwed that means you are?
Now, they’ll argue they don’t have to do much “BeCuAuZe dA vElOciTy iZ lOW!” Bullshit. Price food, housing and fuel and get back to me there JayPow. “BuT muH MetRicZ!”. Your metrics mean nothing, Sir. Velocity has always been a joke of a calculation because it doesn’t account for most real-world transactions.
The truth, JayPow, is that you’re just old, stupid and think this is is a linear scalar calculation when it’s not and never has been. Which is why you’ve been running real inflation north of 8% YoY for 80 years but you claim <2% for 100. You can't math for shit or you're a liar, Mr. Powell. But CNBC sure loves to parrot your nonsense.
Besides, what's the currency half-life at 2%YoY under your own calculations? 35 years. Christ, you're dumb, insane or evil. Historically speaking, that's a expected currency collapse every ~50 years you moron. Maybe take a look at the history of currency over the last 200 years, you know, a brief afternoon read and then get back to me.
Further still, there's that whole thing about calculated the bond rates that can be afforded. You go into default territory at 4%, complete destruction if you go north of 5%. But you need something on the order of 18.5% (and rising). Whoops.
This is against a backdrop as follows: In 1980 you had about ~$998B debt on a ~$3T economy. Now, you have ~$30T debt on a ~$20.5T economy. You can’t raise rates more than maybe 75bp (0.75%) at a crack and you can get away with that maybe three times annually without destroying the capital economy, which is all you have left after 30 years of offshoring the real economy.
TL:DR; A “Volcker Moment” is mathematically impossible. So what options do you have left?
You can 1. let inflation destroy the 0.03% of the dollar that remains in 1913 terms, 2. raise the rates and default immediately, 3. raise rates and shift short term bonds to long term bonds (a default by another name) 4. stiff bond holders through “privilege” (default by yet another name) or 5, attempt to print your way out of this corner, making it all worse.
Now, would you like to add in geopolitics, international FX, commodities, and the situations in Europe and Asia for bonus points? I’ll warn you now, they don’t help you because they’re all negative.
Then, for double bonus points, shall we speak of leveraged debt?
Then, for super bonus round, perhaps we can do unfunded liabilities?
And when we’re done let’s discuss current policy trajectory from Biden, shall we?
You maximized the economy in a singular direction. This caused a loss of flexibility. A strong wind cometh and you’re screwed.
Well, here comes the hurricane. Fiat’s boned and the USD is fiat. The opponents to the USD being the world-reserve are already lining up, even among our allies like Israel.
Wave goodbye.
===
So, all that said, is it your contention Mr. Beverly, that the Biden administration and the Fed under Yellow/JayPow are going to take a situation that is demonstrably and objectively many times worse than Reagan hand and pull a rabbit out of the hat given the, quite literally, historically unprecedented money printing that took place from 2020 until today and still continues? That they will accomplish this against the current backdrop, which is objectively worse and objectively getting worse still?
And, you contend that these people are serious? That they’re going to run off their balance sheet when they’re actually increasing the rate that they buy bonds while blathering about tapering?
And you contend that they’ll pull this off with the current commodities issues centering on food and fertilizer due to that Russia/Ukraine thing and the current situation in China vis a vis lockdowns that are going to cause another supply shock bigger than 2020? That’s already baked in, just look at the maps of ships piling up outside Chinese ports.
And you further contend that all of this will be done correctly against the backdrop of the EU and ECB issues which we’re now starting to see the leading edge of?
If that’s your contention, then whatever you’re smoking, I’d like to try some.
We only ‘lost’ Viet Nam because we had no intention of Winning it in the first place. Our Military Industrial complex needed to prolong it as long as possible for maximum profit in munitions and equipment. Otherwise our troops could have taken down the so-called ‘enemy’ in less time than Putin is going to take down Ukraine for its own purposes if we didn’t have so many ‘engagement’ restrictions and prohibitions. As it was, we killed and wounded at least a million of ‘enemy’ combatants during that psycho war, until it was no longer deemed profitable monetarily or politically so we ‘ended’ it and let them do what the fuck they wanted with it.
Quite true on your points but the digital dollar or ‘coin’ is coming soon, to a theater near you, whether we like it or not, or give a shit one way or the other. Ten percent of the economy works with it in one way or the other already and steadily climbing. Banks, who have been using virtual digital money already for real estate and busisness wire transactions and transfers for decades and they love the idea.
Of course the G salivates over the idea of digital coin almost more than they do about registering all firearms to eventually confiscate them, because banning cash, stopping the printing at the mint and making cash worthless for transactions will eventually have the same effect of ‘universal background’ checks on private guin sales because the G will only permit universal ‘coin’ use with a back door access data base on everything you purchase or sell with the new universal U.S. digital currency.
Any valuable commodities like metals or Art will become Non Fungible assets also negotiated or transacted using digital currency, as it already is doing in the stock market. This for that physcial trades might still be allowed in the short term but with limits exluding all physcial gold and firearms. You’d still be able to trade but all trades over a few hundred dollars would have to be documented by law. Banks are already spying on you with your cash withdrawals and deposits with their SAR Suspicious activity reports.
Yeah, there will be resistance. A lot of people will be upset about having no more financial privacy left. But since our modern life already has been steadily eroding our 4th/A rights to the point where our slatternly slothful narcissistic hedonism dominates, most will say ‘AW who cares. They know everything we do anyway, and I kind of like how easy it is to shop just by flashing my phone passed the checkout receiver instead of digging out my card and swiping it or writing out a check or counting out cash.
And let’s face the reality. If we can’t even get up unified balls so far to stop all this blatant bitch slapping of our 2nd/A, which protects all the other rights, by having These two-bit Constitution and Rights violating elected officials indicted, arrested, and perp walked under 18-241-242…
How the fuck do we think we’re going to stop the Deep State Bankers and their corrupted government cronies from doing anything their greedy little hearts desire?
Well, our last hope is only six months away. Massive midterm Conservative turnout. Landslide Congress and Senate takeover against the Marxist Deep State. Restore the Original Libertarian Constitutional Republic.
What you discuss here has merit to it but allow me to disabuse you of a few notions regarding the idea that this already exists in the US. It doesn’t.
The idea of coins in this regard is not the current crypto or anything close to it. .gov wants it’s own version that they control. The CCP already has this and has tested it.
It’s a blockchain based coin known as a “Central Bank Digital Currency”.
Privacy isn’t an issue with it because there is none. The entire concept of this thing is that they can control “end user behavior in real time” (their words, not mine).
What they really mean is that if you do something they don’t like all of a sudden you can’t shop online or do anything outside some distance from your house. Fail to make an act of contrition and the circle shrinks. This is called “geofencing”. Your currency doesn’t work in certain geographic locations, in this case, most of them.
Keep screwing around and they can limit you to a single store, say Wal-Mart, in one location. They can control what and how much you buy in real time. Really screw around and maybe that make the one place you can buy ANYTHING a store 200 miles from your house while making you unable to buy gas.
And they can do this to your friends and family too. They can do it to them because of what you did, or didn’t do. Maybe you didn’t wake up and log into Facebook to post “All hail the best leader of the US ever, Joe Biden!” on time. Shame, that.
This gets worse from here on out too, btw. Just ask a number of the major players in .gov about how they’d like your paycheck to go directly to the Treasury and you get back what they think you “deserve”. They’re quite open about that.
But… why allow a middleman? Why not just have your currency issued directly by fedgov?
Now, there’s another set of considerations here.
First, banks and credit cards would screw this up. They’re middlemen who can provide friction in the system on your behalf. They’ll have to go. They’re redundant at best anyway.
That kinda makes the banks and credit card companies your friend. An odd thought, no?
Also, consider that this really is, if it’s allowed, a system where you’ll own nothing. You’ll own nothing because you have no currency. Fedgov has your currency and is nice enough to let you use it for certain purposes that they approve of and at certain times and certain amounts, all controlled in real time. Given that the real value of the country is land… do you think people who honestly believe that all currency is .gov’s property are going to let you let you buy land?
No need for nationalization here. They already own it. And they own you too.
Another particularly nasty part about this is the fact, which has been publicly discussed, of controlling the “velocity” of money. Something the Fed has proven itself not to understand at all. This can be done with expiration dates. You get $100 digidollars today and they expire at the end of the year. Spend, spend, spend little consumer! Save? LOL, for what? The land you’ll never own? The car that destroys the environment?
And then of course there’s the negative interest rate. An interesting concept for sure. It’s their currency, so why not charge you to use it? Well, duh, of course there’s a fee!
And many countries want this tech because it’s time to revalue fiat and take full control. Without that they’re all going to end up like the French aristocracy around 1793.
See, if you look at the entire value of the world you find that it’s probably around $500T. Yet the governments of the world have debt leveraged to well past $2.6 quadrillion. That’s just official public debt at the national level. It doesn’t include states, municipalities or territories. Nor does it include unfunded liabilities.
The world’s governments have, nearly all, spent themselves bankrupt many, many times over. A debt jubilee is an order. A classic revaluation like Argentina just won’t do. No, this is so bad that no one would ever touch fiat again… unless they were forced to.
“…we leveraged middle-tier of acquisition rapid fielding authorities to enable speed and flexibility…working with our partners in tandem in a process that would have traditionally been linear…
— Brigadier General Larry Q. Burris
With plain-talking Generals like Burris, it’s no wonder we lost Vietnam and left Afghanistan with our tails between our legs.
Well Ralph my son speaks Arabic & works at DoD. He(they)had no idea the “Arab Spring” would destroy all of our “nation building” in Iraq. Why did I know that?!? I don’t get paid…
We only ‘lost’ Viet Nam because we had no intention of Winning it in the first place. Our Military Industrial complex needed to prolong it as long as possible for maximum profit in munitions and equipment. Otherwise our troops could have taken down the so-called ‘enemy’ in less time than Putin is going to take down Ukraine for its own purposes if we didn’t have so many ‘engagement’ restrictions and prohibitions. As it was, we killed and wounded at least a million of ‘enemy’ combatants during that psycho war, until it was no longer deemed profitable monetarily or politically so we ‘ended’ it and let them do what the fuck they wanted with it.
The US Army wonV Vietnam. The Dem party THEN surrendered in Paris.
neiowa, AMEN. We did lose the Vietnam war due to political surrender not military. Johnson like Nixon were both paper tigers and placed restrictions on the military which made the war unwinnable.
jfkjr, There is no such thing as the “military industrial complex”. It was a figment of Eisenhower’s imagination.
“Let’s imagine what this would be like if we were a country with little to no civilian firearms ownership.”
How about we let HK answer that question? They built an envious legacy and a lasting international business on making guns civilians in their home country can’t own.
I met with the CEO and other top level leaders at HK years ago. They were genuinely surprised they’re firearms were popular with civilians, much less civilians in the United States. It wasn’t even a market they considered.
How many British subjects own an FAL?
The bread and butter of H&K was for decades the G3 and later MP5, both based on late war Mauser designs. The idea was that a stamped, roller delayed gun was faster and cheaper to make than a gas piston gun like the MP44. The roller delayed system is dirty and has a higher recoil and abrupt extraction. H&K makes nice guns, but the basis of the concept was cheap and fast production. The ergonomics and manual of arms of both, simply suck.
Next we have the failed H&K Caseless G11 which would have been a nightmare in the real world and super expensive to make and field = Failure. After that we got the G36, based heavily on the Stoner designed AR18/180. Then we got the HK 416, again based upon the AR15 and AR18/180. HK makes great stuff, but I don’t see a lot of original innovation. My old P7M8 was a great gun and the cocking mechanism was original to HK and the gas delayed system was taken from the WW2 Volkssturmgewehr VG-1-5. Same for the P9S which used a roller locked system from the MG42.
I’ve been at sporting arms shows and listened to German gunmakers of fine, high-end hunting rifles and shotguns talk about American gun owners.
They view us with contempt and ridicule. To them, we’re a bunch of uncultured, trigger-happy “cowboys,” and in Europe, a “cowboy” is seen not as we see cowboys – their idea of cowboys does not ride a horse, he’s an illiterate peasant who merely schleps cattle around on foot, and has to put up with abuse from farmers who [barely] pay him.
There’s an advantage to understanding German and not letting Germans know this.
In my estimation, we didn’t kill anywhere near enough Germans in WWII. As for H&K: The French didn’t move fast enough when destroying the Oberndorf plant.
I served many years in West Germany during the Cold War. I never met a old German who fought on the Western Front – they, to a man, all said they fought the Ruskies on the Eastern Front.
At 1st I thought many were lying – then I figured out we Americans KILLED them all on the Western Front!
The war was won in the East, the Germans killed around 14 Million Russian Soldiers (out of the 30 million total), which almost matches how many men with some military training they had at the beginning of the war. The Germans thought they had a million. No matter how many the Germans killed, the Russians would always be able to field more men. Average life expectancy of Russian infantry in a combat zone was 14 days. The average life of a T-34 tank in combat was around the same with a 3 months total service life while not in direct combat. The human cost of this “Math” is astounding. The US lost around 400,000 troops globally. Russia had no “Baby Boom” after the War and in the 1970’s those unborn children didn’t have any babies like the US children of the baby boom. Ethic Russians have been on a population decline since. Russian has a GDP of less than Italy and digs its wealth from the ground mostly. They are doomed.
We didn’t need to kill all the Germans. They self-neutered and are allowing the frogs to run Eurp while paying for it. Not a pair in either country.
This is extremely true.
Look at H&K in comparison. Sure, they are over-engineered and super reliable. But they are usually too heavy, and always 10 years behind the evolution curve of civilian self defense and competition guns.
Imagine where the G11 space magic would be today if they also sold a million civilian rifles right alongside it. Or a million MP7s.
New rifle meet the old M14 you will soon be on the rack of historical rifles just like the old guy.
New rifle is 2 lbs heavier than the M4 before the suppressor and optic, and the ammo is much heavier than 5.56. I expect they will have problems primarily with ammo and service life. The Army does need a new rifle, but this is going to be a failed experiment.
It is incredibly hard to find info on this, but between the optic, the rifle, suppressor, loaded magazine, etc. i’m not sure how it comes in under 13.5lbs, just using public information and adding everything up. Which is no lighter than most AR10s
Its not hard, SIG will sell you one for $8,000. Commercial ammo has been out for a while in their CROSS bolt action rifle https://www.sigsauer.com/mcx-spear.html
That SIG website claims that it’s only 8.4 lb. with 13″ barrel and suppressor. Or maybe they removed the suppressor before weighing it, or just lied about the weight (the same way Holosun always lies about the weight of all their optics, understating the weight by 50%, and all the reviewers are too lazy to bother using their own scale to weigh anything, so they simply parrot Holosun’s false claims about the weight of their optics!)
Aha, I dug deeper into Sig’s website and downloaded their Operator’s Manual. Page 25 of the manual is a SPECIFICATIONS page that says on the bottom, in small print of course, “All specification data measured with an unloaded firearm with no magazine, sights or other accessories.”
This means they remove both the magazine and the suppressor before weighing it and measuring its length, just so they can claim that ridiculously low figure of 8.4 pounds and length of 34.1″. Add the suppressor, magazine, and optics, and then you’re probably talking 13 pounds and 40 inches long, hardly suitable for CQB.
See https://www.sigsauer.com/media/sigsauer/resources/operators-manual-spear-4200452-01-rev00-lr.pdf
lol it takes some crazy mental gymnastics to discuss American military procurement as a triumph of the FREE MARKET. The process of military procurement is probably the MOST Chinese-Communist-Model aspect of our economy, in terms of direct government involvement, direction, funding, cronyism, etc.
I doubt very much you have any idea as to what COMMUNISM means let alone the Chinese version of it. You American do talk a load of bollocks sometimes about and especially about Communism.
The citizens of Shanghai are living in the world’s largest prison right now. But to you, almighty enlightened one, we just don’t understand how good they have it.
All that wonderful, delicious communism that hasn’t happened yet but is just around the corner if we only had the proper people in charge.
I know what communism is. I served with many who escaped it and came to the US. They joined our military hoping to return to fight those same Communists who enslaved them. East Germans, former Soviets, Cubans and many others I had the honor to serve side by side with. I learned a lot from them. My Ukrainian coworker was not born during the Soviet era, but his parents and Grandparents have passed along the misfortunes of that era.
I speak to people who have in recent times come from China, to live in the US. Good decent people who feel they have a better chance to succeed here than China. They do not speak well of the Chinese government. Some are disappointed at the direction we are turning here reminding them of what they left.
I believe that it is you Cousin Albert who does not understand Communism. As anyone who really understands it knows it is inherently evil, dehumanizing and benefits only the bureaucracy and those few who control it.
+5
Small arms development won’t change the outcome of US foreign military adventures a whit. The US military will continue to lose every engagement in which they embroil themselves, in grand, expensive style. It would matter if they went into battle with plasma rifles or Red Ryders. It is an organization that has developed an internal agenda of losing.
“would not matter”
Lions led by donkeys.
I understand you’re point, the doctrine of “limited war” has infected the pentagon completely for decades.
However, after watching in detail the complete embarrassing performance of the Russian army, I think a conventional fight between the US and Russia would look exactly like the first Gulf War.
That statement contains an unstated assumption.
That Russia would accept a conventional loss without resorting to other methods such as cyber and nukes.
My bet would be on cyber, though I wouldn’t rule out nukes entirely. Cyber could easily bring this country to its knees in a week flat.
The Colonial Pipeline and JBS meatpacking attacks showed this. And it may be continuing what with the fires and boiler explosions happening in the food processing sectors at an alarming rate but somehow going unreported. And then of course there’s Metcalf.
What have we done to reduce these risks? Sweet fuck all.
Until the Russians felt backed into a corner on their own ground – and then they might deploy nuclear weapons.
I’ve talked to Russians in the 90’s at a little length about this subject. This was when there was an effort by the US State Department to “find productive jobs for Russian scientists and engineers” from their defense industry as a way of preventing their knowledge from ending up on the clandestine arms market(s).
In talking to the two Russians I got to meet, (both of them highly educated in physics and engineering), and several Russian ex-pats who escaped the USSR before The Wall fell, it is difficult for we Americans to understand what 1940-1945 did to Russian mentality about war in their homeland. It drives their hunger for “buffer space” between NATO/the west and Russia. The Russians are content to potentially lose ground in their buffer space countrys – but not Russia.
This is why Putin is seeking Ukraine – he wants it as a buffer, because Russia no longer has eastern Europe as a “buffer.” The Russians are making big noise about what will happen if Sweden and Finland join NATO – and that’s because of the proximity of Finland to Russia’s second largest city – St. Petersburg.
The CIA and our foreign intel apparatus were fooled for decades about the competence of Russia’s conventional forces – mostly because the CIA is largely inept themselves. But we should not dismiss what going up against the Russians on their home turf might look like.
@DG:
Losing ~30 million of your citizens to an “upheaval” will change a country for quite some time. Lex Fridman has talked about this repeatedly, as his family are Russian ex-pats.
The fact that the CIA doesn’t get this (or much of anything else to do with Russia) isn’t due to ineptitude. It’s due to unwillingness to forgo something they can use in budget arguments. It’s been that way since, at least, the 1970’s.
One could fill several large shelves of books with long, well written and impeccably researched books written by Western authors on this subject and another several shelves with Russian writings on the topic.
95% come to the conclusion you’ve stated here. Nearly all the rest come to similar conclusions.
The idea that what we were doing in Ukraine was dumb and that a major conflict within Ukrainian borders was the inevitable result was a mainstream opinion in Russian foreign policy, US foreign policy and international policy circles for the ~21 years preceding this invasion.
It is only the White House and the MSM that pretend otherwise, and really, they’ve only done so for the last couple of months. They can only get away with this because these are esoteric areas of knowledge that most Americans have no contact with.
The Western world is mostly run by spoiled children and has been for decades. We’re going to pay for that, “bigly”.
If Russia wanted buffer space, they wouldn’t keep invading the buffer states like Georgia and Ukraine. They don’t want buffer, they want land that isn’t a frozen waste like Russia.
You are confused with the antics of the demtard surrender monkeys who wave the white flag and can turn any win into a loss. They demtards are french marxists.
What a complete load of bollocks.
There are plenty of Service Arms around the world including UKRAINE that actually has, or in the case of UKraine had, a thriving arms industry that have no references to the CIVIL market when developing Service weaponry – none at all.
And it’s not even as if the US has the best weaponry or the most effective armed services anyway that’s just another con inflicted on the American public . Person -to person I doubt very much that the USA would have have out against the Russians like Ukraine has done. Irregardless of outside help.
Germany, Belgium, Israel the UK, Japan and South Korea Russia, and dare I say it China, have all developed Service rifles of all kinds with no reference to a Civil market which are just as good if not better than those available to the US Services . In Ukraine the problem is keeping up with, as it was in the UK during WW2 demand lack of manufacturing capacity, NOT lack expertise or design capability, the very opposite in fact.
The UK is noiw sending CHALLENGER TWO,tanks to POLAND at a ration of I believe 0ne to three [ in other words for every three TWARDY SYSTEM T72 sent to Ukraine the UK will send ONE Challenger Two to Poland.
The USA could release at least two hundred ABRAMS immediately and Greece the same number of LEOPARD MBT. And that’s just for starters.
One again it’s the UK that’s setting the example here and in ECONOMIC ‘per capita’ terms is by far the greatest ouside contributor to the defence of Ukraine and Ukraine will not. What Ukraine ne3edfs now in terms of Infantry weaponry is not a load of assault rifles [though I suppose they do have need of ammunition. What they need is moe in the lien of ACCURATE simple to operate BOLT ACTIONS and ammunition for URBAN SNIPING.
It is interesting the Russaia has made no attempt to assault any city as yet and to my mind a simply wasting resources shelling Cities and not addressing the facdt that the main Ukraininan Defence Forces are still out ther biding their time. After all over FOUR MILLION of the most vulnerable have left the scene -unprecedented And so far the AZOV Division seems not to have been intimidated into surrender in MARIPOL WE shall see what the next two or three weks brings BUt ALL AMericans should realise that they have never inm nthe Modern Era been called upon to Defend the Nation as Ukrainians have been
The comment section was quite insightful, that is until this comment by Albert.
We will just call Albert’s the “turd in the punchbowl” comment.
TL;DR and you will be better for it.
UK…LOL. I daresay you Europeans(especially the nuclear 2) are coward’s & sissies who don’t dare challenge the ussr er russia on your own crappy continent. Too bad we didn’t stay neutral in 1917…
You guys realize that Albert Hall is Dacian’s sock-puppet, right? TTAG has the craziest trolls
Craziest? I prefer to think of them as “dedicated”.
They could use some rapid burst machine pistols(SMGs) also. The PPSH changed the tune in the urban warfare between the Germans and Russians. The sniper rifles were great also, but they need packable arms with lots o’ rounds to engage the enemy and get in and out quickly.
Time to up-gun America!
When they come for you, your best protection is over matching firepower!
I’m of two minds on two distinct parts of this discussion.
On procurement, I agree that the civilian gun market creates a different ecosystem in which capital can be obtained to fund other projects and that it exists as a good testing environment for certain ideas and objects under certain circumstances. As such, using it as a place to acquire capital and do some specific forms of evolutionary R&D makes sense.
The US civilian market, driven quite strongly by consumerism, is a both broad and a deep place to test things for failure points simply by the number of testing iterations that occur naturally. Of course, this only applies to things which civilians can own and only encompasses the set of circumstances in which testing actually occurs. Where the venn diagrams for these things don’t overlap you’re going to need a secondary method.
That said, I doubt that the concepts stated above apply much to DoD’s process and I am unsure to what extent they are “leveraged” by the arms companies involved. I doubt such a system is something they’re maximizing the advantage of but then there’s the question of if you’d want maximization in that direction anyway.
As for the quote from Gen. Burris, Ralph’s dead-nuts right. That’s a fucking word-salad that uses a lot of words to say basically nothing of import. It’s right up there with the reddit nonsense about resume padding where someone says “I successfully designed and implemented replacement and upgrade procedures for environmental lighting solutions on time and in a manner consistent with budget restraints while minimizing workforce downtime and maximizing safety considerations” which really means “I changed a lightbulb and didn’t fuck around about it. I also didn’t stick a fork in the socket”.
===
Secondarily, on the more macro question of the rifle system itself… I’m not sure I like this “One rifle to rule them all” attitude that seems to be the new hotness. Guns are tools, tools have specific applications. I don’t give a fuck how much you love dat M-14 or the M1. It has advantages and disadvantages, if you attempt to use that firearm in the wrong situation it provides no advantages and accentuates the disadvantages. Sometimes you can get around that with modification and sometimes you can’t. A SOCOM style M-14 isn’t a bad gun but for CQB on board a ship the MP7 will wipe the floor with the M-14, modded though it might be. Sure, its OAL on the SOCOM is shorter than a regular M-14 by nearly four inches but that MP7 is yet another ~12.1″ shorter than the SOCOM so… the MP7 has all the advantages in the hypothetical I’ve listed. Over a long enough time period and enough iterations the MP7-force will exterminate the M-14 force.
This rifle, the XM5, seems to me to be an attempt to have it all. Such thinking is the genesis of my joke about how I just want a toaster slot with a bagel option. The whole thing, to me, brings up the question of “OK, what niche does this thing fit where it solves problems without creating new ones”. When you really look at the details, I don’t really see it. I don’t really care to argue the minutia until the macro question of where this thing fits IRL is answered followed by how it accomplishes that task.
And I think, personally, that the optics package is an attempt to cover up this One Ring issue. But as I previously noted, I can’t see how having an IoT optic is a good idea outside of a range. This is the kind of thinking I rejected in The Utility of Force. Yes, Gen./Sir Smith makes a series of very, very good points but his conclusion, IMHO, is lunacy. You’re not going to fight low intensity conflict forevermore and preparing for the idea that every conflict from here until the end of time will be low-intensity is madness. Your enemy isn’t going to just do what you want them to do. Putin’s pretty well proved that in the last month and a half.
Overall, I’d like to know exactly what the intended purpose of this rifle is and where DoD believes it fits into procurement and the armory. A “DMR rifle in the hands of every soldier” isn’t an acceptable answer because it’s a theoretical advantage you can’t really use. “Armor pen to X-meters” falls into the same category. Those goals might be admirable but they cannot be the overall consideration because you’re going to maximize in a few directions and lose flexibility which is a fucking stupid roll of the dice when you’re talking about life and death combat. It will not be long until the weaknesses are found and exploited.
For example, say this rifle does pen armor reliably to 800m (yes, I’m being a bit hyperbolic). Well that’s just fan-fuckin-tastic now eh? Until the enemy realizes armor’s now pointless and ditches it in favor of more useful stuff and maneuverability while figuring out how to fuck up that nice optic you have there because it’s an IoT device which cannot be made fully secure.
This sort of problem has already shown itself to be a problem in the last 20 years and even where it’s not a battlefield problem yet it’s a downstream issue for the guys on our side who hoof stupid masses of gear and end up with knee and back problems. Medical separation and costly VA issues show up and, eventually, you’re going to go up against some adversary that isn’t a “bunch of illiterate goat herders” and they’re going to find ways to exploit these issues in real time to the detriment of the individual soldier’s survivability, the unit, the service and the country.
In 1988, as a member of the 7th Infantry Division (Light) I participated in a training mission with 1 Para Regiment of the British Army. We had one memorable engagement in which three of us wiped out an entire platoon of them. They had just been issued the SA-80/L85 with an optic. In a very close engagement, we simply sprinted amongst them firing quick bursts. They had been schooled to take only aimed shots. It was over before they could bring their sights to bear. They had previously been on occupation duty and would not pull the trigger without having crosshairs on the target using their weapon mounted optic. We were using the M16A2 with iron sights.
In a later engagement, they maintained stand-off distance and repaid us. Each of us exploited the others weapon system and neither one proved to superior in ALL circumstances.
I agree with you. This weapon system may have a niche, but that doesn’t mean the enemy has to play into our hands.
“If China’s defense ministry decides the People’s Liberation Army needs a new gun” they will steal the basic (and/or specifics) from the US. As every other thing in the PLA arsenal. Then pay their US lackies to not object (Jeoy Obiden Inc., McConnell, entire demtard party).
Then US sportsmen will pay for the factory to build it.
Several of the comments bring up the M14 in comparison to the new rifle and ammunition selected by the Pentagon. I’ve used the M14, M16 & M4 rifles. I have an AR10 and an AR15. I also have the M1A Springfield, which is the semi-auto, civilian version of the M14.
As a combat rifle, a select fire version of the AR10 would work well enough. And, to be honest, I liked the M14 with the caveat that it is nearly uncontrollable in full auto mode for anything but very short bursts. Have not used the rifle or ammo that has been selected so can’t honestly comment on either.
The reasons the US went to the M16 family of rifles was weight and controllability. Lighter rifle and lighter ammo meant an individual soldier could carry more ammo for the same weight. And usual combat infantry shooting is done at under 250 meters. And mostly at under 100 meters. Or at least it was when the M16 was originally developed and fielded. In the last couple fights, many shots were taken at longer ranges. And if we do end up fighting actual modern militaries, we may very well have to have a rifle that can penetrate plate or other body armor.
As far as it goes, basic combat loads and the limits of what a soldier can carry at this point in time should mean little if the logistics and supply chain are working properly. No matter what weapons are used, if the logistics fail, so will the units depending on it.
The Socom 16 version of the M1A/M14 is controllable on full auto due to its muzzle brake. An AR-10 rifle with a good muzzle brake or a properly tuned silencer would be as well. Whether that’s the right choice for the military is another matter entirely.
“The .40 Smith & Wesson came from an FBI agent who handloaded reduced power 10mm ammunition at home for testing. That would have never happened in a country where handloading at home doesn’t happen (legally).”
Umm… not to be a killjoy, but the lesson of the FBI developing the .40 is a long story of “it doesn’t matter what you shoot, you have to hit the aggressor.” It wasn’t that 9mm, .357, .38 and 12 gauge are certainly capable of stopping a human being. The FBI agents simply were not prepared for a shoot-out that day. The FBI wasted good money developing the 10mm only to realize that most agents could not be trained to handle the recoil. Then, the switched to .40 only to realize that there is practically no ballistic difference between .40 and 9mm. After all of that effort, they are back to using the 9mm.
And that is what is wrong with this weapon program. The basic Soldier in the US Army doesn’t get enough range time to be proficient with his/her issued weapon. Getting a new weapon will not make up for lack of trigger time. What this money should have been spent on is more ammunition for training and possible some optics.
You can’t buy mass-distributed marksmanship. You can only achieve that through training.
Yes Sid. That is correct. However, why waste time with all that physcial training either, when you can simply program your DARPA single unit Robot all purpose infantry Squad to handle any contingency in just a quick download? And the Robots and drones virtually never miss. Just the cost of ammo savings over an extended battle would justify the individual Robot soldier unit cost, which would replace an entire human rifle squad with attendant assitstant miniture swarm drones.
Until then, the M-4 will do just fine, especially with the ever-improving AI smart aiming ranging optics continually emerging.
Just to add credence to the above, research the after-incident reports filed after just about any metro police department officer involved shooting. There are hundreds if not thousands of reports with upwards of fifty rounds being fired, with only one or two actually hitting a perp. There appears to be a serious need for more training time and ammunition. Most PDs would be on board with the expense if they were taken to task for accounting for the liability expenses for every errant round.
Both of you make valid points.
I’d point out something that’s been pointed out by quite a few cops over the last number of years though. Namely, that many of the people who join the police force are not “gun people”. This presents its own set of challenges to work with.
People who aren’t into the whole thing will only go as far as is absolutely necessary to meet minimum requirements because they don’t really care. It’s often silly and short sighted but it is true.
There also, IME, seem to be several upper echelon issues going on with police departments where decisions are made for purely political reasons with no thought as to execution. In other cases departments are just given stuff and don’t have anyone that knows how to use it.
My neighbor being given CATs, a holster, HyFins and a IB knockoff is a good example. They were carrying that stuff around on this fairly slick drop-leg rig for six months before they got trained on it.
I’ve seen the exact same thing with shooting and with hand to hand. The department requirements are minimal and so many officers do the minimum. I’m not quite sure what to make of it but I can tell that many police don’t have the logical mindset of “This could get me killed, I should put in work”.
It’s not every department I’ve ever interacted with officers from but it’s a goodly number. I’m really not sure what you do about the situation to really motivate people to do things correctly. I doubt throwing more taxpayer money at the problem will yield acceptable results.
That said, after the last couple of years, maybe this is a good thing?
I made the comment to a coworker. In many of the police audits I have watched as simple foot chase posed a risk to the lives of the officers. They are not physically capable of running.
It would benefit every candidate to enroll in BJJ program and spend several hours a week rolling on canvas.
I see what ya’all mean (just practicing my Texas accent in case the midterms don’t pan out in my state I can blend in better when I move there.)
But in my humble, but comparatively extensive experience in such unfortunate things, I’m glad I see a few fellow like-minded thinkers and observers on this forum, of all places. I thought I was an almost extinct breed.
First off, you guys are correct. Almost no cop–unless they do it on their own time–is trained properly for modern urban violence in routine patrol and police work. And that includes Swat Teams, who are way too overpumped with their almost totally unnecessary no-knock warrants. Especially in an age where violent home invasions are replacing nobody home burglaries and people are very ‘serious’ about defending their lives in their ‘castles’ with ‘serious’ firearms.
The difference between military training and police training is that despite the meme of so-called ‘Police State Militarizing’ of civilian LEOs, which really means only attempting to ‘equip’ the police with similar military weaponry for the perception of advantage, the average Army soldier is very well trained for their MOS (Military Operational Specialty) and better be able to perform to. max standards when required. Otherwise, you are weeded out forthwith. The Military spares NO expense on their training. And they can because it is paid for with universal taxes and is essential to the security of our existence.
Cops, on the other hand, exist and function on behalf of the particular political climate and available local tax ‘budget’ accordingly. Which lately is far removed from Law Enforcement priorities.
Since the core ‘mission’ of Cops–at least back in the day–was to Serve and Protect, Not Search and Destroy, and population ‘control’, the municipalities got away with limited weapons and street fighting training during arrests, while focusing on establishing more of a Surveillance State to limit and restrict Constitutional Rights under the specious justification of advanced ‘crime prevention’ and Public Safety. While the criminal population increased its propensity for severe drug-assisted violence and criminality.
The so-called War on Drugs going on decades now, only accounted for untold wasted Tax-dollars, needless deaths, and actually worsened the problems by making illicit drugs more profitable and worth the risk to deal in. This resulted in a desperately different type of police work dynamics. Cops weren’t physically capable or correctly trained to handle violent explosive street confrontations anymore so they took the easy way out by letting their guns do the walking and talking. The courts backed up this behavior with precedent law of “I was in fear of my life” justification and this became the go-to get out of jail card for feckless cops who fuck up and kill people when they really didn’t ‘need’ to. Loss of reality control on both sides of the fence.
The most recent cop shooting this week in Michigan where the white cop chased and grappled with a black guy recently from Africa and killed him with a shot in the back while on top of him struggling for a taser, it seems, is a clear example of this. Had he been ‘trained’ well enough he was in the perfect position of a rear naked choke to stun him and then slip into a sleeper hold at least twice on the ground instead of pulling his gun at least to hold the guy down until back-up arrived. If he truly believed the guy was trying to seriously hurt him. Yeah, I know Sleepers have been ‘Prohibited’ since their ‘abuse’ became rampant. But they were originally deployed as an alternative to lethal force or bashing someone’s skull in with your Mag-lite? And still are viable if you are carefully TRAINED in their deployment. MMA fighters do it all the time and never kil anybody. They know when to ease off.
But here’s the thing, I saw at least three spots in the action from when the guy took off running where the entire situation could have been ‘De-escalated’ and prevented the unnecessary killing.
And the real problem was how the hell could a minor traffic stop for a stupid plate violation turn into death? The guy didn’t come out fighting. He didn’t even ‘cop’ an attitude with the officer. He acted normal in his response. Maybe he didn’t even know it was a bad plate? The cop never directly inquired. The cop was more interested in being a Billy Club Bad ASS PO-PO and indulging in throwing his ‘authority’ weight around to satiate whatever pitiful power complex he had.
He literally was ‘high’ getting people to OBEY the almighty sacrosanct law of ‘Police Orders’ and suffer deadly consequences if they didn’t! To this cop, the guys crime was not a traffic violation, but it became the absolute unholy egregious high crimes and treason of NOT IMMEDIATELY OBEYING a Direct Police Order!
I’ve seen this more times than I can remember and sometimes it’s it’s a psychological problem pervasive among police departments, especially in big cities, and among a lot of regular people that could and should be resolved in advance by proper vetting and training of recruits in police work.
But it’s not. So it will get worse until some major changes are made.
I just wonder if this cop will ever lament the fact that he always had at any time during the incident the ‘discressionary’ power to exercise the more prudent aspect of that legal discrssson to simply just stop himself from further aggressive force altogether and cancel any attempts at a phsycial arrest, at least until back-up units arrived in a short time?
I hope he won’t be thinking about it in prison. After all, it’s not only his fault.
To tell you the truth, I own both 9mm GLOCKs and 40 S&W GLOCKs . In spite of what some people including some “experts” I don’t see much difference in the recoil of the 9mm v the 40 S&W if any at all. The advantage I see is that the 40S&W has more bullet mass and has more energy on impact due to that bullet mass.
Energy delivered to the target is another important factor in bullet performance and stopping power. With a larger bullet, the .40 S&W brings more force to the target. This is seen when comparing bullets designed for personal defense, such as the Speer Gold Dot lineup, which is made and marketed for personal protection.
Under this brand, we find 124-grain 9mm Luger rounds, as well as 165-grain .40 S&W rounds. The 9mm has a muzzle energy of 364 ft-lbs, while the .40 S&W has a muzzle energy of 484 ft-lbs. This is one comparison, but you will generally find that most .40 S&W products are stronger both at the muzzle and downrange.
Winner: .40 S&W
Same reason they didn’t switch from the Gerand to the superior FN/FAL Paratrooper (STG 58. I believe) with side folding stock and slick integrated in the forearm guard bipod, and 30 round mags in 308 to boot, Instead of the M-14 to begin with?
POLITICS and the corruptibility of those who made the ‘decisions’.
There probably wasn’t “10% for the Big Guy” worked in?
There wasn’t any ‘10% for the Big Guy’?
God bless the US firearms manufacturers.
“If China’s defense ministry decides the People’s Liberation Army needs a new gun, they’ve got to get a state-owned enterprise to come up with a new design — something likely to take years — and then start testing and improving upon it.”
Or, just wait for good ‘ole Uncle Joe to pack up and go home, leaving thousands of them laying around for the Chinese, or whomever, to pick up, take home, and copy at will.
Give us a picture of the real weapon. I thought it was supposed to be a bullpup, not the .308 weapon as shown.
My apologies, I was mistaken. I have been out of the loop, lately. Whay became of the bullpup?
“what”
Comments are closed.