How much shorter can service rifles get? Everybody is shifting towards using either bullpups or SBRs, and Israel is even taking it a step further by adopting a bullpup SBR as their standard rifle.
>>28388894
there was talk about armies switching to rpg's or similar airburst weapons due to urban warfare becoming more and more prominent, and service rifles becoming secondary weapons to protect rocketeers.
If that holds, we would see mp7 like things as sidearms, or maybe as underbarrels for grenade launchers
>>28388894
Israel is actually lengthening the X-95.
>>28388996
To how long? 15 inch barrel?
>>28388894
in theory you could achieve higher g for the projectile from a shorter barrel.
but it would mean the ammunition gets way more expensive. the weapon must withstand higher stress on all parts and the recoil will be more punishing.
so why do it? the only point to sbr rifles is they share parts and ammunition with the long service rifles and can substitute for submachine guns. this is logistically advantageous. nobody wants to throw long guns away for infantry.
>>28389031
>nobody wants to throw long guns away for infantry.
The M16 is being completely retired in favor of the M4. There is a clear shift to shorter rifles in terms of both barrel length and overall length.
>>28388894
>How much shorter can service rifles get?
maybe someone go full retard and adopt the 9x39 as their service caliber
>>28389051
>>28389044
The M16 will still be used a decade from now. There are a number of active units that still don't have M-4s.
>>28389044
i never got this tho, but apparently they switched to 14.5 inch barrels from 20 inch because the ballistic performance was not that punishing.
and you must also consider the was the us infantry operates when engaging over distance they would use vehicle mounted weapons saws and designated marksmans with battle rifles or something like the m27 over longer ranges.
doesn't really mean every army will find this a rational compromise tho. personally i would rather have a g3 than am4.
>>28389136
>i would rather have a g3
Noguns spotted.
>>28389136
>I never got this
Lighter is better than heavier, and currently the only way to make a rifle lighter without sacrificing reliability is to make it shorter.
>I would rather have a G3
No you wouldnt. At least not as an issued military weapon. Thing weighs almost 3 times what a loaded M4 does.
>when ounces matter an additional 10lbs is worth it guise
>>28388996
Pretty sure that's only true for grenade launcher and sharpshooter variants.
>>28389063
I refuse to believe that's not some airshit photo.
>>28389070
I said there was a "shift" that doesn't mean instantaneous change. The F-16 is being replaced by the F-35, but the F-16 will still be in service for a while just because of how long it takes to build and deliver new planes.
Realistically 22-26 inches is about as short as you can get without ending up with something that isn't super awkward. You still need room for both hands and a cheek weld minimum.
Everyone could run around with bullpups and MP9s with the CBJ treatment but it all comes out about the same.
Also the MP7 can go fuck itself
>>28389136
>personally i would rather have a g3 than am4
#neverserved
>>28389341
Just a photoshoot.
http://wall-e81.livejournal.com/12724.html
>>28389136
>personally i would rather have a g3 than am4.
>No really guys, I want a rifle that weighs three times as much that can carry half as much ammo!
>>28389393
>g3 4,1 kg 17.7"
>m16 3.26 kg 20"
>m4 2.88 kg 14.5"
you suck at math. g3 weights 1.4 times m4
>>28389371
thank god for that i wasted enough time of my life even without that.
but i do shoot stuff no m4 yet tho but more interested in the m14 anyways.
>>28389261
>when ounces matter an additional 10lbs is worth it guise
i would argue i wouldn't even feel the difference
and it's like 1.5 lbs if you insist on a loaded m4 and an empty g3.
put a scope and a tactilamp on your m4 and you are at the same weight where g3 is.
>>28389044
The m4 is still a rifle, a long gun, you fucking retard. Even if legally sub 16 inches is a long gun, true sbr ar15s are 11.5 and shorter
>>28389136
Point target effective range of an m4 is still 500 meters
>>28389546
Many places in the world, like iraq or afghanistan, 500 meters ain't that much.
>>28389063
Seems like it would be neat for urban operations in a active city. Shootin from cars, moving rapidly from cover to cover. It's cute cute.
>>28389546
Context is important, anon. If we were comparing the M4 to a pistol, then yes the M4 would be a long gun. But I was clearly comparing the M4 to the M16.
>>28389553
while true, reaching out for kills even on a squad level is not the basic rifleman's job, they are there to act as beaters for your mg(s) and possibly dmr if they are given a rifle and not just a title.
>>28388981
This sounds pretty fucking dope desu
>>28389005
I don't know. All I know is they were displeased with the ballistic performance out of the current length barrel. But if I were to guess then yes, around 15in seeing as IWI already has that model in their roster so to speak.
>>28389326
It is true that those versions have longer barrels but from what I was told all carbines will receive a longer barrel.
I
>>28389610
it also suppressor ready and California legal
>>28389031
This is the dumbest thing i have ever heard a kid say on here “higher g's" really this is why i stay away from fucking kinder k i its become cancer thanks to the fucking idiots that post shit this retarded as advice heres a protip about barrels they lose velocity as they get shorter relative to the cartrige its chamberd for
>>28389527
Someone get this kid a 18X contract.
>>28389703
yeah the bullet does not retain gs out of barrel that was poorly worded what i meant is that you can develop a cartridge that can put the same weight of projectile to the same v from a shorter barrel and you can develop a gun for that round.
but it will be vastly more expensive than the current service rounds.
>>28389661
So 9x39 is a 7.62×39 case with a 9×19 bullet and it is subsonic.
Says it has twice the muzzle energy of a subsonic 9mm.
Sounds rather interesting. What are the drawbacks, are there just other rounds that do this better?
>>28389876
Shouldn't the stock be further up?
Isn't the tavor heavy as fuck for it's size?
>>28389481
Garand style actions are shit and as obsolete as 1911s
>>28389907
it's for use with a face shield
>>28389899
>a 9×19 bullet
nope, the bullet is new design( i was new in the 90 but still newwer than 9x19) and much more bigger and heavier than 9x19
the drawback is it drop pretty fast, the optic and sight for 9x39 gun only go to 400m
>>28389985
What's the deal with face shields? Why do slavs wear the mask?
>>28389876
>>28389876
>>28389661
There is literally what appears to be a mounting point on the back of the fucking receiver what the fuck?
>>28390004
not just slav but many police force use ballistic face shield
you cann't have a proper cheek weld with face shield so they lower the stock
Anything shorter than an SBRd bullpup is kinda silly.
>>28389070
I still have an M-16, but I'm in the USMC so we're a little behind the curve.
>>28390033
it have a small 1913 rail in the bottom of the pistol grip
you can take down the stock in the end of the receiver and mount it into the pistol grip
>>28390033
that's the normal stock mouting point
>>28389907
It is so the operator can wear their K6-3 helmet while shooting.
>>28390035
Why is that mag so curvy?
>>28390082
It's a 7.62x39 mag
>>28390082
It knows what men like.
