You guys are thinking way too much like shooters. I do know that one of our BNs here was testing the MAWLs though. Really didn’t expect to see those so soon.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The 14.5 middy questions have been answered by the Crane study:
NSWC-Crane Mid-Length Gas System Testing Shows Increased Performance & Service Life For M4 Carbines
All i know is that that set up i suggested is exactly how i have my sr15 14.5 built out based on my last decade of shooting and changing shit haha.
Also anyone who talks about the lowest common denominator is doing everyone else a huge disfavor in this hypothetical scenario. You never cater to stupid, or you shouldnt. Its a lesson the military world should have taken from the civilian business world years ago. Perform or find a different job. The op asked for the best hybrid warfare set up we could come up with using kac guns as a base, and then some of you come in here and state doesnt matter what you give them the derp will win. Just remember we have dudes enlisting now with college degrees and i havent met a marine yet that couldnt shoot. Cater to the mission and let your ****ing people do their jobs and teach their subordinates how to use their kit. Im tired of catering to stupid.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I hurt a lot of feelings with my 14.5 SR-15 on a pretty regular basis, doing everything from close-range speed to long range precision.
It’s super easy to maintain; just needs spring replacement at the round counts that most others will need bolt and barrel replacement.
Since I work at KAC I won’t belabor the point, but it was the product that brought me here, and it’s the constant improvement that keeps me here.
#kacmasterrace
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Catering to stupid in a stupid way is making people wear two PT belts during a formation run in Afghanistan. Catering to stupid in a smart way (aka being realistic) is recognizing that a COMP M5 or ACOG would be a much better option than expecting every grunt to learn how to effectively use an LPVO AND not **** it and/or the mount up. Again, it all depends how much of a magic wand we’re waiving here.
I’d love to see all of the hopes and dreams in this thread come true, but I’ll get issued a KAC gun before you have the majority of every line company proficient on the care and use of an LPVO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We’re an all voluntary military… Hell even if we weren’t… if you’re so damn stupid that you can’t effectively work an LPVO then maybe front line combat isn’t for you. Hell you shouldn’t even be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. And yes, I was in the military and am currently a firefighter… I am very well aware of what stupid is capable of. Not issuing a phenomenal force multiplier such as an LPVO because someone may break it is a cop out solution for a lack of quality training and discipline. Also what the hell is there even to break about an LPVO that there isn’t on an ACOG or an M5? The only “care and use” I gave my Razor 1-6 was shooting it and changing the batteries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Razors are pretty notorious for having extreme durability, I’m not sure there are many that compare. But I was really talking more about the rings/mount. And even if not breaking, disassembling and remounting properly. I would say that they could be given to leaders like SL and above, but often the senior guys are just as bad. Either way, this is enough of a drift I think.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly! The lowest capable soldiers will not be competent with ANY equipment configuration. Whereas giving average and above capable soldiers more functionality is a force multiplier. Either a fixed or variable LPO seems optimal. But I also agree that if equipment is standardized then go with mounts that can’t be futzed with.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I’m sure that if the giant magic wand was to be waved (it would be a giant magic wand for any of this to happen) the low power variable daylight optic could be specified with a unitized optical tube and mount. Think VCOG except with the Nightforce ATACR 1-8 optics packaging inside. Put two or three 1/2” nuts on the mounting portion with multiple recoil lugs to interface with the picatinny upper. Torque to snug with a 1/2” driver in a pinch, but 55-65in-lbs with a torque wrench would be ideal. Then paint marker the nuts and upper for witness marks.
Make sure the turrets have caps so Pvt. Schmuckatelli doesn’t inadvertently knock his zero off, but can still dial if needed after taking the caps off. Equip the caps with safety cables retaining the caps to the optic body so they cannot be lost.
Not much more needed to private proof the optic.
Train everyone to run the optic on 1X as a default and crank on more magnification as needed. It’s not rocket surgery, I’m sure even the below average crayon eaters in a platoon can be adequately trained to operate an LPV.
Agreed. Well said. The ATACR is so dope.
I don’t see the need for an LPVO for the majority of combat arms folks. The Acog does everything required. Maybe there should be greater emphasis on marksmanship and training. When the majority of folks can shoot to the capability of current equipment then we can talk LPVO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry to resurrect this thread but I’m very curious as to why people picked 11.5" or 14.5".
I picked the 14.5 because it’s does EVERYTHING pretty damn well. I, like Failure2Stop, have shaken it out to 800yds on steel, but it can still ride next to you in a vehicle and be compact enough to to entry work. Also, with today’s powder and ammo, the 14.5” barrel is giving most of what the 5.56 has got velocity wise. Example: my LPR is 18” and with Speer 75gr Gold Dot I’m getting 2610fps muzzle velocity. My 14.5” is giving me 2604fps. These are 20 shot samples over a Magnetospeed, so I’m pretty comfortable with the accuracy. 6 FPS doesn’t make that extra 3.5” worth it. Now, the LPR is a .5 moa barrel, but that’s a different subject. Point is, with today’s ammo, the 14.5” is doing everything damn well, and the perceived benefits to shorter or longer barrels really starts to go away.
Just my opinion from a guy that has them both, and has used an AR in civilian law enforcement for 20 years. It seems like more and more often our Military guys are fighting in structures and kicking doors. They’re doing what we’ve been doing with rifles for years. Even still, the times when they need to push out, the 14.5” will get you to the limits of what the 5.56 can do.
A 14.5” or 16” make sense as a general purpose carbine, especially when you consider that sometimes you are going to have to fight your way across open areas to get to the buildings that need to then be cleared.
I will be “that guy” and say SR-47s.
I am more partial to the 16", but that’s just me.
I think the 14.5"/16" question would be better addressed if their new hypothetical rifle would be linked with new hypothetical ammo. If we’re sticking with M855 I’m thinking the 16" is the right answer.
For those saying LPVO are beyond the grasp of the average INF guy - you’re failing to understand just how important PID is in today’s warfare. There simply isn’t a LPVO made that matches what I’d “want” for today’s infantry. It’d be something like a 1-8x or 1-10x sub 28oz, with heavy emphasis of 1x performance, with a one piece integrated mount. Someone prior to me hit that point and are absolutely right for wanting a one piece mount with 1/2" nuts ala Geissele and Badger mounts, but I’d want no concern of it having to be “leveled” or trued - this issue is negated if the mount is integrated. I’d want a BDC with ranging capability similar to an ACOG reticle because the military uniquely shoots ammo issued that is made to a singular standard, through identical weapons made to similar standards, across the near entirety of the force. A mil based reticle is unnecessary and an LPVO is going to add significantly to first round hit probability. Oh - and, absolutely not on adjustable turrets, even if they do have a zero lock. Capped and as low profile as an engineer can make them. Guys aren’t going to be dialing - ever. Recipe for disaster when dudes are tired, under trained, and engaging targets fluidly at different distances.
Having your joe’s be able to see INTO windows, INTO treelines, INTO shadows is a big ****ing capability on today’s battlefield. Being able to see if a dudes got a radio in his hand while he observes you, vs a bottle, is a big deal. Seeing if a guy has a farm tool or an RPG is a big deal. 4x is plenty for rounds on target within the performance envelope of the M4 platform, but in today’s world the INF spends a lot of time doing things OTHER than shooting. Further you give up a lot running an ACOG as an occluded eye gunsight in CQB. Running a magnifier and an aimpoint is not the same capability provided by, for instance, a Razor G2.
Using today’s standards:
KAC Mod 2 Mlok 16"
SF 3 prong? KAC QDC FH? (4 prong is more prone to damaged tines)
NF NX8 w/ offset T1 for redundancy
Geissele Super Precision Mount
SF M600DF
MAWL
Dual mode pressure switch with white light lockout
Magpul MS3 padded sling w/ QD attachment points
Magpul Gen 3 mags
You do make a lot of good points. One of my biggest reasons for not wanting an LPVO is the mount, so an integrated one would solve that. Only thing I’d probably disagree on is the OAL and T1. I think 14.5 is a great length, sans NFA so it works for mil. Plus with all that shit, that’ll just be more weight. Same with the T1. Offset irons maybe, but that’s a far less streamlined package and IME, backup sights never get used anyways so might as well cut down on the weight and bulk. Granted I’ve never deployed and obviously haven’t seen someone’s optic go down in a firefight. But again, IME, BUIS aren’t even zeroed. Finally, I’d pick either the Razor for the better eyebox or the ATACR.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LMG, OP.