Comments on: Could This Be Your Next Carbine?

By: devin

devin — Thu, 15 May 2008 00:05:35 +0000

“Big Daddy“
If only such a weapon as you described at the end of your article existed…

By: ssgt

ssgt — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:32:16 +0000

Alot of talk about a new rifle for our troops. The key is a cartridge that hits harder than the 223 at further distances. 2nd the harder hitting round must be light enough for troops to carry hundreds of rounds. Its no good for troops to carry a 7.62mm rifle into battle(hump 50 miles)if they cant take enough ammo w/ them to win the fight. Flat shooting (1000 yrd)6mm-6.8mm ammo is the future. Casings that are smaller in diameter than the 7.62 are needed to inable troops to carry hundreds of rounds into battle. Once you have the perfect balance of firepower and weight, build the rifle to fit the cartridge.
One thing is for sure the 223 is too light of a bullet for extended open area(middle eastern)battle.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:02:42 +0000

If you just wound a terriorist he is most likley just going to walk around the corner prime a grenade and wait to take you with him. Kill em with the first shot. Over killing is the best kind of killing and the most effective. 50. cals for all!!!

By: Rhyno327/lrsd

Rhyno327/lrsd — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:21:41 +0000

If the Hk 416 is already being used, by certain groups, that is telling. Wat is needed is a weapon that is meant for regular Army and Marine Corps formations. Is the Masada the one? It sounds good, but I bet Hk and FN can mass produce weapons quicker and it will be cheaper. The M-8 was said to have problems when heating up due to firing on full auto, the handles got very hot, and one guy said the barrel [polymer covering] almost melted. We need an upgrade, but, why don’t we look to the past? The M-14 is being used more and more, its called the EBR, when modified. You want mobile firepower? How about all those M-60’s laying around? The SEALS used a “chop M-60″..well, get the armorers on it. Watever happened to the Stoner 63? Light, uses 5.56, spits out almost 700 per minute. They may be just stop gaps, but it will put firepower in our boys hands. Still love the M-14…

By: Steeley

Steeley — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:46:24 +0000

I might be interested in the Masada when it comes out chambered for the 7.62 NATO. In 5.56 it’s just well-engineered turd polish. Probably make a fortune on ‘em, though..

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:22:48 +0000

The beauty of the 5.56 x 45 mm is that once you have bumped into an enemy and shot him or one of his buddies the wounded man’s blood trail will lead you right back where he came from then you use something bigger to kill “them” with.
A dead enemy soldier simply lies around stinkin’ up the place.
A wounded enemy soldier bleeds all over the place till he gets back, screams a lot and dies a slow gory death.

By: mrnmrsbecker

mrnmrsbecker — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:06:36 +0000

m16 ar15 series junk from the word go we need a piston rifle,the only folks able to pull off a pistonless design were the cetme hk folks,smaller caliber with high velocity is the trend and mainstay objective 1 is put enemy outta comission wounded or dead no diff in a fire fight,smaller caliber = more rounds to the pound,im thinking hk or fn will be service choice shortly.

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:07:56 +0000

The Military has several better carbines that they could upgrade to. It’s not the question of quality and duribility it’s all politics and money. They should at least upgrade our special forces with new carbines.

By: Paul Aguilar

Paul Aguilar — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 15:25:40 +0000

Men, it’s time to do a simple “taste test”. Let’s gather reps from all the insurgent groups around the world. Have them examine a table full of all the automatic/semi-automatic rifles produced by all weapons mfgs globally. Since they have no affiliation with any established nation it would follow they’d pick the most effective weapon for their application. No politics, no kickbacks just pure effectiveness. Then we will see what rifle is best for a given theater.

By: Sgt_ROK

Sgt_ROK — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:45:42 +0000

People, have you all lost sight of the real deal. It doesn’t matter what is good for the service, only who gets the money! This weapon above, like many others before it, might be exactly what is needed. However, the congress will not allow it simply because the money is not in it for them. The congress knows nothing of warfare, only back pocket issues. What is actually good for the country is of no concern to them.
The M-16A1 was my original weapon of issue. As a hunter, I was not fond of the .223 for my own personal defense. As mentioned above though, the ability to carry more ammo has a definite advantage. The lightweight characteristics of the 5.56mm round were described to me as such, when the round enters the body, it travels through out the body causing more damage than a typical straight through type of round. However, the aspect of having to treat an entry and exit wound over one does provide advantages due to the time spent on the bf treating the casualties. More man-hours needed to assist casualties, less man-hours fighting. If the issue 5.56mm could be beefed up, such as the addition of HP or higher grained bullets, it would provide a more destructive round.
According to the vid’s pertaining to the Magpul Masada, this weapon is something many of us veterans could only dream of. Issues of reliability do come to the front however. Once a contract is approved, will the weapon still perform as above, or will congress have their way and destroy the capabilities to render us ineffective as many times before.