Well, not for Uncle Sam, probably anytime soon, but what about overseas?? Any other armed forces ever
tested or considered the Middie AR for issue purposes?? Seems logical to at least run some of these thru
their paces, in light of the “so-called” M4 controversies. Personally, I can’t think of any downsides to
such a move…as only the gas pipe and hand guards would be the only non-standard inventory items,AFAIK.
The advantages we see on semi-auto weapons in this configuration, should be even more apparent in the
select fire variations…or not??? What says the M4 tribe on this one?
seen some with a few boys from the 75th rangers in Bagram back in 04. They where configured as sniper rigs.
Also if you think about it I suppose the the SPR rifle is a Middy sort of isnt it?
SPR is rifle length.
Ok I been wrong before thanks for setting it strait.
Jon
seen some with a few boys from the 75th rangers in Bagram back in 04. They where configured as sniper rigs.
Yeah, remember the Recce configurations is so named because it’s the Navy SEALS Recon Rifle aswell.
A few SF units have 'em, but I doubt middies will ever see general issue with any remotely respectably sized military.
Put simply, the relatively minor benefits do not justify the added trouble and expenditure.
Personally I’m perfectly content not having to fight Uncle Sam for mid-length gas system and pencil barrel availability.
I always wondered the same thing. I dont think they would feel the benefits would out weigh the costs of replacing or retrofitting every M4 in inventory.
The SEAL Recon Rifle uses a carbine-length gas system on a 16" barrel (most likely for logistics and parts-availability). Some units with have custom-built uppers that use middy gas, but the standard Recce rifle itself uses carbine-length.
That makes sence. But why not get all the new M4’s that are coming on line in a middy configuration?
Will maintenance be an issue since the handguards gas tube and so on are different?
I’m going to stick my neck out and speculate that in the future, the Middy will see even more acceptance
than it already has, especially as a SF application type weapon. Then perhaps with the passage of a bit
more time, as a more of an issue type weapon. I’d agree with the OP that this will most likely start
beyond our borders, but as time has proved, the wonder weapons all tend to fade away, while the AR
gets more firmly entrenched. Point: in a dozen years, you could be seeing a lot of military Middies,
possibly even in US service.
I asked a similar question awhile back and, was told the fitment of the M203 and the bayonet would not be correct.
I am probably wrong but I understood that the new grenade launcher was going to be fitted to the rail system. I think I also read somewhere that they are going to stop even training recruits to use a bayonet.
I read this as well but its only the Army, the Marine Corps will continue to do bayo training.
The 82nd had some prototypes built, 18" with mid-length gas, 9" rail, FSB with ACOG optics, they saw range time. But they never went forward with the project, IIRC they were intended to replace the m14 in the weapons squads, but it was decided to keep the M14’s.
That was the Army. They were going to replace the majority of the time previously spent training with bayonets with supplemental physical fitness conditioning due to the large numbers of incoming “unfit” recruits (read: fat, emotional kids who can’t run 100ft without gasping for air).
The little hand-to-hand combat they will be receiving is a mix of various defensive martial arts.
Sorry, 82nd…The commercial market got the gold mine and you just got the shaft! Ain’t no way I’d
want a '14 over any AR config. If forced to go 7.62mm, gimme an AR10, or SR25, or even a decent
bolt gun.
It depends how you look at it. Somewhat of a paper tiger if you ask me. If your going to be shooting m855 anyways there is gonna be little to none real world accuracy gain with a stainless barrel over chrome lined. A 3.5" longer barrel will give you better velocity, better terminal and a longer effective range but again , I see little real world advantage when shooting m855 in the 300-500 meter gap which is SDM doctrine. An ACOG is an ACOG, not a sniper scope. Get in the wind out towards the effective range, without an external windage knob it can get a little tricky holding over when your in effect aiming into space. Issue MK262 ? That would be an improvement. At the end of the day, we need better marksmanship training first and foremost.
Just my take, you want versatility at the squad level. I wouldn’t want a scoped sniper rifle at the squad level. Marine Corps maybe but I wouldn’t know, the Army 9 man squad its a bad fit IMO. Its never really discussed when the SDM topic comes out but the SAW has the longest effective range. You lose target discrimination, point taken but there is always gonna be trade-offs no matter what. In a sense the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle is somewhat of a misnomer, its more of a Platoon Designated Marksman Rifle. In the Anti-Armor Section you have more unique weapondry, Javelins,AT-4’s,M-14’s,ect. Thats the logical place for specialized weapons. At the Battalion level you have a Scout Platoon, with 7.62 rifles. Still it is an absolute imperative to have people capable of taking advantage of the advancements, that should be the focus.
I like the M14 in theory, a lot more than in fact. While I’ve owned a fair number of M1a’s over the
years, I’ve never had a genuine GI forged receiver weapon. I doubt it would make a huge difference
on the firing line, in the short term. I sorta disagree with the OP that that the M14 is useless, as it
can be a highly accurate weapon at any given time. It most certainly has issues staying that way
for a variety of reasons. I’d also have to say that better hardware can and should be had. But as
stated here…training is the key, and then, in the case of 5.56mm, the quality of ammo. Sorry about
wondering off topic!
[QUOTE=emfourbinator;675249]I like the M14 in theory, a lot more than in fact. While I’ve owned a fair number of M1a’s over the
years, I’ve never had a genuine GI forged receiver weapon. I doubt it would make a huge difference
on the firing line, in the short term. I sorta disagree with the OP that that the M14 is useless, as it
can be a highly accurate weapon at any given time. It most certainly has issues staying that way
for a variety of reasons. I’d also have to say that better hardware can and should be had. But as
stated here…training is the key, and then, in the case of 5.56mm, the quality of ammo. Sorry about
wondering off topic![/QUOTE]
As to the M-14, I think if you wanted an accurate semi-auto iron-sighted 7.62 rifle it is probably the best ever mass produced. Once you get away from that, is when shortcomings are found. The newer stocks and optics mounts fix/mitigate allow it to utilize modern equipment AN/PEQ series, optics, ect. Still it wasn’t designed from the groundup for that purpose. Without question it can be effective but its not “ideal”. There has been alot of small arms innovation since it was conceived.
Getting back on topic. I think a Colt m4a1 rebarreled with a 16" Mid-Length Chrome-Lined barrel,suppressor, 12" Free Float Rail, Geiselle non-adj select fire trigger, longer stock maybe an EMOD or something along those lines,AN/PEQ series,IR Light,Harris Bi-pod would be ideal.
My preference for an optic would be an ACOG with I think it is imperative to have range finding within the reticle. The DMR concept is all about rapid and accurate engagement of targets past 300 meters.
And here they are:
That big 18" Middie needs a MIAD and a UBR, and then you’ll have absolute perfection. Of course it will be
loaded with '262 …for the win! Again, I’d look for this to go “Official” somewhere else before Uncle
really bites on it.