Who cares if you miss short?  The problem is azimuth, not distance most of the time.

lol

That's what they all say until someone is watching and they repeatedly miss.

I have always had a love hate relationship with grenade launchers. Used properly, they're pretty awesome. But that means knowing the range to within 10 meters and using zero'd quadrant sights, which nobody used with the M4. The PSQ-18 was an abortion of a sight. I never got to play with the M320, they seem to be have better sights and accuracy. I'd like to see that cool M32 sight on the M320, just a red dot sight calibrated to range. But the grenadier should have a decent small laser range finder issued to him.

That's why I didn't say anything about the limited range vs our current engagement distances.

320 is a bulky hunk of shit, but it works.
I don't know anyone that would take a new 320 over a new 203. The 203 was just better.
The 32 was awesome if you could hump it, but the cool sight was a piece of shit that never really worked when you needed it, hence the force.

<-- carries a 320

Difference between missing 50 yards and 400 yards is a little more significant.

320, another 500 dollar gun that cost 10,000 dollars because HK.

Something I feel is worth mentioning about the SF AROC.

It requires a proprietary buffer and spring as well as a proprietary barrel extension.

The proprietary buffer and spring pose their own problems.

IMO if the military changes the buffer and spring, they should change it so something that's actually compatible with other items in inventory. That would make logistical sense to me.

You can't use the SF buffer with a mil spec spring, or a mil spec buffer with the SF spring. And if I remember right, it changes the disassembly procedure of the rifle. That makes it a no-go.

SOCOM should've adopted the LMT E-BCG as a solution. The lower cyclic rate, lower unlocking pressure, better venting for suppressor use, and enhanced bolt life are worth it, IMO.

It's even already been tested by SOCOM, and I'm like 99% sure it runs in mid length guns.

Never got a chance to shoot one, I got out just before they got issued out, but the only things I've heard about the M320 were very good things, as long as its standalone and not attached the M4 rail. Its sights are superior, especially when you consider that with the M203 the quadrant sight, when zero'd and not broken were the only sight worth a damn, will not be used on an M4 because carrying handle is replaced by an optic, so there will only be a standard leaf sight which pretty much sucks. And often the optic's height still interferes with the use of the Leaf sight, preventing any sort of good sight picture unless target is pretty far away. And the short breech of the M203 meant that many cool 40mm rounds couldn't be used. And the flimsy mounting system meant heavy recoiling, faster rounds couldn't be used either. The basic M320 sights are superior to the M203 leaf sight, it has the option of a more solidly attached IR laser sight that wont lose zero like the M203 version simply from opening/closing the breech. Maybe the M32 RDS sight sucks, I never used them either, but its on the right track in terms of concept for an effective day/night sights that are easy range adjustable. Something like this would be even better, with it a GL gunner can use it with naked eye or with NODs on, no need for IR laser unit.

M32 is also badass in concept because it allows for barrage fire, which greatly amplifies the effects of HE. A bit complicated maybe, but the Russian GM-94 pump action grenade launcher works more reliably, and I have no idea why we can't have one of them made up, something better than the 60s era China Lake pump action. As well as developing a better 40 GL round with an improved modern electronic fuse that would allow for far more explosive filler and better casualty radius. Worst part of 40mm isn't just how hard it is to hit anything with it, but that when you drop an HEDP round right at some dude's feet it might not even seriously hurt him. 5 meter kill radius my ass.

Also with the M320 the sideways opening breach allows for longer rounds. So in theory we can insert a round that actually sticks out past the barrel end and it can still work. So we're not limited on cartridge length like with the M203, we can no-shit come up with a dialable air bursting more powerful HE round, something about the size as a 40mm Monster can. How awesome would that be?

And now we're circling back to what merits my immediate and undivided attention. Muj lobbing x54r from a clapped out mosin with imitation paki sights at 800m doesn't really qualify. That's more of an "If I feel like it" thing. If it's a sandal wearing gun crew launching 12.7 indirect-style from behind a building with an offset spotter talking them on, that gets bumped up to "Ok, everyone get down and lets figure this out." A belt fed from 300 and in with a handful of AKs and nagants supporting from various positions usually gets my full attention pretty fucking fast.
And if your TL is trying to mark a target on the next ridgeline over by lobbing 40mm rounds into the valley between you and the enemy, maybe he shouldn't be a TL.

This may have been covered, but I can't find the answer. Does the M27 have issues with cooking rounds off since its a closed bolt weapon?

In Armor, we had a name for that.. Threat classification.. Most Dangerous..Dangerous and least dangerous ..

Most Dangerous: Has the ability to kill you and is preparing to do so
Dangerous : Has the ability to kill you but is not actively preparing to do so
Least Dangerous : Does not have the ability to kill you, but has the ability to call someone who does...

I would imagine a similar concept applies to boots on the ground...

Testing has shown that with the M27's basic combat load it wont cook off, at least what other Marines on this board have said in the past (I believe it was R0N).

But yes, based on physics, being closed bolt and no QC barrel it will suffer more from heat issues to include cook offs. So shoot it continuously and it will fail before an M249 open bolt, QC barrel would (assuming it has an extra barrel with it, most times its not carried).

I'm going to say that dude shooting his Mosin at 800 m without ability to see where he's hitting is just annoying harassing fire and should be treated as such. If its a real concern, that's why snipers exist at battalion and even company level in some units, borrow some and have them deal with it, its their job.

On receiving end of HMG fire getting lobbed at you from a long range sucks but it should be treated like catching any sort of indirect, with those on receiving end counting their blessings because even 12.7mm is  less effective than airburst RPG-7s, 82mm HE mortar rounds, or 107mm rockets, or whatever else they shoot. But the same means to deter it exist for infantry squads and platoons taking out targets hiding in dead space from a kilometer or more out, Nothing, because there is simply no realistic way we can arm and train infantrymen to do the job that arty batteries and counterbattery radar units are supposed to be doing; either move out of impact area or hunker down and take it while trying to PID enemy fire location with optics or UAVs enough to get air, mortars, or arty on it to suppress or kill. But doesn't involve us shooting back with direct fire weaponry, that's not realistic.

But the 300 meters and in scenario with enemy dismounts firing small arms, that's the infantryman's mission, the one we need to be gearing up to win because its the only one we can really win.

And AFAIK we'll win that fight better if we're not relying on missing more effectively with spray and pray belt fed ala 20th century TTPs, instead relying on more 21st Century TTPs with accurate fires with bullets in semi and auto fire guided by quality optics on every weapon system, and HE delivering weapons guided with laser range finders, targets found with better ISR, fires coordinated and controlled with better comms for every swinging dick in the squad.

How about this as a US Army platoon:

Same size, because that's restricted by vehicles and all sort of other factors like pay grades authorized, congressional shit, etc. So all same bodies, all same ranks. Just different duties and roles and weapons.

Everyone carries a full auto M4A2, with improved barrel, rail, optic, IR laser, flashlight, sling, Geiselle trigger, bipod, and everyone carries one 60 round magpul drum. So everyone in the squad can do rifleman duties, DM duties, and automatic rifleman duties.

Roles in fire teams are numbered, no more names. TL is 1IC, he carries a grenade launcher, then other dudes are 2IC (also carrying GL), 3IC, 4IC man. The most highly experienced individuals carry the GLs since they are the most casualty producing weapons. Since most squads that deploy don't actually have nine bodies, we shouldn't create an MTOE that relies on those extra bodies being present, so bye bye individual rifleman role in the team.

We ditch the M249. Company supply holds three extra KAC 7.62 LMGs per platoon, so nine extra guns. With 5.56 it means needing large quantities of 5.56 linked stored at company for just in case, that's impractical. 7.62 linked will be available already from dedicated platoon M240L. They are issued out one per squad as needed.

For instances where additional firepower is necessary, we keep the two MG teams in Platoon HQ or weapons squad on their MGs, and we take 3rd Squad and we turn it into another weapons squad, but focusing on HE weapons, the Carl Gustaf for now. That gives us two maneuver elements and two heavily armed support elements. These weapons also are held at the company level, six of them, ready to be issued out to the platoons as necessary.

Everyone in the platoon gets an ICOM, everyone gets Netwarrior or something similar that is secure. Small scale UAVs are made available to the platoon.

Marine Corps seems to be going this way too, at least based on what I've read about Gunner Wade's testings various equipment and differing MTOEs.

ETA: Of course the reality is we'll buy whatever some crooked colonel convinced a dipshit general to buy because its going to land them jobs afterwards. Meanwhile, we'll issue the shit out to trannies and 90 lb chicks and we'll slash field training, and increase risk assessment, and wonder why combat effectiveness plummets.

The M27 has a maximum sustained rate of fire of 36 rounds per minute. Exceeding that will lead to cookoffs in short order.

According to Chuck the IAR is a dumb idea. especially with the way the Army is setup, he even said its dumb in general but moreso for the Army.

Because Chuck doesn't get why the IAR was implemented in the first place and definitely doesn't understand what it ended up turning into. He, like many others, thinks the IAR gunner is supposed to do everything a SAW gunner is supposed to do, identically, using it as an exact same bullet hose manner as the M249 or MK46, but with a closed bolt AR15 instead of an open bolt belt fed weapon. If that was the case, yeah, the M27 is a huge failure. But that is just not how it was designed to be used and that wasn't what was figured out after it was implemented, which was the IAR ended up in a triple role of rifleman's carbine/DM/AR. When the IAR can clean a machine gun range in half the time as an M249 or M240, that's something to acknowledge. And since accurate semi or auto fire is the key to hitting or suppressing, missing loudly and fast is not the way of the future, its backwards thinking from an era when area firing MGs dominated over rifles because rifles had shitty iron sights, low magazine capacity, and often were bolt action. Times have changed in that regard, modern US Army and Marine infantry have a weapon system now that them just as capable as just about every WW2 sniper.

Speaking of optics too, Chuck said optics on MGs are stupid. Meanwhile everything I've experienced with shooting them with optics, or heard from others, has said the complete opposite, that an M249 or M240 on the bipod with even a shitty M145 MGO is an awesome force multiplier turning into essentially a short burst sniper rifle. And Chuck thinks that the optic should be attached to the tripods, like the Cannuck indirect tripod, or the German MG42/MG3 tripod/optic combo, which isn't zero'd to the weapon, which needs an observer to guide rounds on targets using tracers and mils through binos, or else no optics present because tripod isn't available or appropriate to use in the tactical setting. Regiment, Group, and CAG all use optics on their LMGs, Chuck disagrees with all of them.

And he also stated that it was unnecessary to lubricate his carbine in combat, running it bone dry, unless he got into a big ass firefight in which case he'd completely empty a squeeze bottle of lube into the ejection port of his HK416 which is the dumbest manner possible to lubricate metal on metal contact points of the bolt, BCG, CH, and upper receiver.

So Chuck isn't right on everything. He has a shit load of experience and insight but he's not infallible.

I didn't just make up those three engagements and the COA for each...

I got that. Based on what I've heard and read your examples seem rather standard for those who had deployed to Afghanistan. However, believing that a US Army infantry rifle platoon can win all three scenarios is setting them all up for failure. Scenario 1 is the domain of the B4. Scenario 2 is the role of 13R and 11C. Scenario 3 is the only one that an 11B need be worried about winning himself.

Reducing the Rate of Fire is going to have a tremendous impact on full auto controllability, and subsequently, the ability of the upgraded M4 to serve as a) a better Assault Rifle b) work as a tolerably effective Automatic Rifle.

The current ROF is way too high, making it difficult to control and shoot with accurately in FA- even the M27 prone from the bipod is off target at 80m because it's shooting 900rpm. The entire point of Assault Rifles + 5.56/SCHV was to maximize controllability in FA, but we've been running M4's like Battle Rifles in semi auto only 99% of the time. That all traces back to the high ROF.

The SF OBL or AROC can reduce ROF to below 600rpm - greatly enhancing the M4's full auto controllability. This is supported not just by common sense (less recoil per second to compensate for,) but also by the French FA study which found 600rpm or below to be optimal. WW2 weapons like the M3 Greese Gun and STG 44 - the golden era of full auto optimization, were all designed around a sub 600 RPM. The AK74 - purpose built for full auto controllability, likewise has a 600rpm + muzzle device.

A previous ROF reduction system, the MGI RRB buffer, reduced ROF from 1000rpm to 745rpm, which lead to a 50% increase in hit probability in FA at 25 meters:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2039

That level of performance increase, to me, certainly outweighs the risk of new buffers and springs - especially since we have already switched buffers before when the M4(H buffer) was upgraded to M4A1(H2).

As for the LMT bolt, I would be THRILLED if it ends up seriously reducing ROF. Like totally amped. But I've been searching and have yet to see any data that shows it having a significant reduction in rate of fire, much less a 270 RPM reduction as offered by the OBL/AROC.

You don't have to reduce the rate of fire to make it more controllable. Simply optimizing it for full auto bipod fire will make a big difference. Heavier barrel, a longer hand guard to put the bipod farther out like the MG42, and a sturdy high mounted bipod would be way better than the medium weight barrel, medium length hand guard and Harris bipod.

I'm picturing a 16-18" HBAR with full length RIS II and an improved M60 bipod (with a dual sided mount at the end rail slots to the left and right hand rails) in my head. Much excite lol

I do feel there is merit to the slower ROF tho, increased controllability offhand would def be a benefit as well. Which of the two is better I cannot say, but obviously you're more likely to get F/A hits off of a bipod regardless.

As long as it isn't a grip pod. Bipods belong out front, vert grips belong mid rail to mag well. I have a love/hate relationship with that thing lol

I just got done with a Larry Vickers* video where he compared M16A4 on burst, M249 on full auto, and M27 on full auto, shooting 3x shot groups of 3-4 rds per at 100 meters and the M27 did better than both others (using issue Harris bipod, SAW with issue bipod, and magazine monopod with M16A4). Vickers got a <10" group with the M27, 11" without called flyer with M249, 17" w/ flyer, and 15" group with M16A4. So I really think results vary based on who is shooting, what exact position, and how well capable they are at stabilizing full auto using a bipod.

One thing Vickers said about the M27 was he liked the faster rate of fire and since he said recoil was minimal, ACOG horseshoe stayed on target, that it made the high ROF more useful.

Which is similar to a Soviet PPSh, fires super fast, little recoil or muzzle climb, so its ROF ends up being a huge force multiplier. Compare that to Mac 10 or even the MG42, both very high rate of fire but heavy recoiling, so bursts have to be extremely short to work.

Cool story, the MG42's proposed replacement was the MG45, which was even simpler to make and was supposed to have 1,500-1,800 rpm cyclic rate, just to fire a bit faster than MG42 to get more rounds out before felt recoil destroyed shooters position. That's 25-30 rounds per second, necessitating under one second bursts. So pull trigger, the moment your brain recognizes the weapon is firing you let off trigger,  you just fired ~2.5 lbs of ammo.

* Vickers definitely is invested with HK, literally, so maybe take this with a grain of salt. And I don't think Gunner Wade was wanting that stud shooter of his to try for minimum group size either, he was trying to prove semi was better than full auto, which of itself is a hotly debated subject.

Me personally, I think full auto definitely has its place but most full auto fire is wasted ammo with barely any benefit to mission success (though it is hugely fun and cool to watch).

Recoil is recoil and MG42 recoiled like a motherfucker. I've shot one and even mounted to a pintle cemented to the floor it jumped all over the place and that was a 7.62 NATO conversion, not harder hitting 7.92 Mauser.

I love'd the M-79 there was a zen to shooting it accurately...

Yeah, it's called using your sights.

But seriously, there is such a mystique associated with grenade launchers, maybe the low velocity allowing the shooter to visually follow the round, but I swear to God so very many preferred shooting it unaimed and subconsciously thought they could steer the round mid air using their mind.  As if The Force applies to grenade launchers.

This isn't really the case - as previously noted, the M27 is off target at 80m in 3rd burst from the Bipod.

The HK 416 / M27 barrel is fucking beefy. I was shocked when I held one at SHOT with how front heavy it is due to the thick barrel contour:


A heavy barrel is also - as the name implies - heavy. Why would we make the weapon 1/2lb-1lb heavier for a marginal gain in controllability, when we could address the root cause - High ROF - through a bolt/buffer upgrade that is weight neutral.

I don't believe those are M27 barrels. The M27 barrels are like M4A1 SOCOM barrels without the M203 cuts.

This would be just for the automatic rifle, not all of the rifles just to clarify. The extra mass would also help with cookoffs. If you combine the heavier barrel with the lighter hand guard and "DI", total weight wouldn't go up very much. My stripped down rifle with a 16" SOCOM thick barrel, FSB, UBR2, and A5H4 buffer is just under 8 lbs. A low profile gas block would take that down a little bit. A heavier barrel would bring it just above what the M27 is.

I think a constant recoil system would be a good thing but I think a more simple solution would be better. I'm honestly not sure how a rate of fire change would affect things. I would have to shoot the exact same weapon with only the rate of fire changing to know.

The AROC is terribly designed. The fact that nothing is retaining the extractor pin is proof of this.

But what about 5.56?

Squad leader with an M4 and ACOG can't hit a fricking window?

Tracers are a poor man's director.  You can also use a green laser (like the old elevation-of-force tool) in daylight or a PEQ or IZLID at night.

The ROF reducing aspect of the SF system is the bolt carrier - not the bolt. If the SF bolt design is problematic, the OBL (the drop in carrier for regular barrel extensions) can be used with a conventional Milspec bolt.

I know about tracers, nine out of ten times out the wire the mag in my M4 was solid tracers.

The point wasn't where the small unit leader shoots tracers or how accurate they are but what happens after that. Specially whether the squad or team provides accurate controlled fire with discipline at likely and suspected targets near where you marked (lol), or if they just spray and pray cyclic with SAW while rifleman mag dump on semi in under five seconds.

The reality is the latter, but with a slight increase in training and leaders giving a shit, akin to the push the SGM community made on kneepads around ankles, this problem could be fixed and we'd barely need belt feds at all.

Depends on gun and how its being shot. An M249 recoil less than M240 which recoils less than MG42. With less recoil the rate of fire can be increased without detriment, you get something like the Ultimax where you can write your name on one long burst. For non constant recoil weapons without muzzle brakes then slowing automatic rate of fire makes them more controllable, so current M4A1 or FN Minimi variants should probably be under 600 rpm for increased effectiveness.

Not exactly hard data I know, but does demonstrate a controllability change of a lower ROF

[youtube]https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I[/youtube]

But what if you changed muzzle device to SF Warcomp on the M4A1? Then you get the increased rate of fire and just a bit more muzzle climb then the M4 Sullivan modified to run constant recoil.

Besides that, maybe someone can answer, what is the detriment of constant recoil? Seems to be the shit and yet only Sullivan's creations use that operating system. Any flaws in the system? Too sensitive to ammo variety or pressure?

A muzzle device will be a huge help (which is why the SF Warcomp or a T91 Flash/Comp hider is step 1 in any full auto controllability plan.)

But you still want reduced ROF to a) further increase controllability b) give more "gas millage" per magazine.

In terms of Constant Recoil, it's a fantastic system. The only downside that I am aware of is that it requires a longer receiver to allow the bolt to travel a further distance so that the bolt is caught by the pressure of the spring, rather then slamming into the back of the receive as found in a typical weapon like the AR or the SCAR.

The SCAR has a similar box receiver to the Ultimax, so it's a good example. Note the difference in receiver length:

Ultimax MK 8:


SCAR 16:


To my eye, looks about 2-3" longer bolt travel for the Ultimax, which both slows down the ROF to 450-600rpm, and allows for the constant recoil system.

Why hasn't it been used more? Probably incompetence and lack of exposure to the system - the Ultimax is not a common weapon in the US or Europe, which is where our gun designers are.

I don't think it's incompetence or lack of exposure.

We have some of the greatest minds making guns in the US, With companies like Larue, KAC, LMT, etc. I'm sure plenty are aware the Ultimax exists.

I know you keep promoting the Ultimax, but it's really a failed design. No one uses it...well no one of importance. I figure if it's that good it would be in use by at least someone, but the only places that use it are Singapore, the phillipines and I think Croatia. No military worth anything uses the gun.

Also the Ultimax 100 is a open bolt gun, which could lead to failures to fire the first round. I also want to point out that while Sullivan is smart, he's also made plenty of terrible things like the Mini 14 and the Beta-C mags both of which are horribly unreliable, he was also the brains behind Surefire 60-100 mags which are also terrible.

M855A1 needs a gun developed around the cartridge. It exceeds greatly NATO specs and dot mil has not been forthcoming with data.

The commentary on the M27 is completely unfounded;  you will find that M855A1 trashes the M4A1 just the same and not because of nazi ubergun deficiencies.

MK318 mod 0 served the USMC purposes for a barrier blind, yaw independent, green round. M955 for armor.

Big Army should back off the push for this round, and US Congress should back off the desire for conformity with small arms cartridges across branches.

Only 9k psi off a proof load, every round down the pipe.

Insanity.

http://www.smallarmssolutions.com/1/post/2017/11/the-m855a1.html

Another query about this specific Sullivan designed constant recoil AR15. Is it open bolt only? What did he change?

I believe its closed bolt semi, and open bolt full rock and roll. He stated the closed bolt semi was for accuracy reasons. I'm not sure if there is a closed bolt FA option, but something gun Jesus said right before firing made it sound like it might.

And to be honest brother I'm not sure what that gun exactly looks like internally, seems like he tries to keep that on the down low (rightfully so)
But watching a dude with the build of a toothpick shoot that thing, without a doubt that bitch is easier to control offhand than the M4A1 on FA. Would be nice to see that thing match up in the test Uncle Larry did with the M27, SAW, and M16A4

The Surefire OBL / AROC bolt I keep harping on is the core of the system. Sullivan is working with SF to create these M4 upgrades.

The key to it is that the bolt carrier has a spring loaded weight, which slows down the rate of fire, and it has a 0.4" longer travel and correspondingly shorter buffer. This increases the overall bolt travel distance to delay/lessen the overall impact of the BCG/Buffer at the rear of the tube, like a mini version of the Ultimax.

It's doesn't go full constant recoil, but it makes a noticeable improvement as seen in the video.

His open / closed bolt system fires open bolt full auto, closed bolt semi. This is not necessary for the reduced ROF/ controllability, but was added so that the M4 could be used as a dedicated automatic rifle without risk of cookoff.

The new KAC Stoner LMG reportedly uses the Constant Recoil System, if you need more validation:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/27/french-danish-sf-test-kac-stoner-lmg/

Literally everyone who has fired the Ultimax has been blown away with the controllability. Search the google and the youtube - it's the most controllable 5.56 full auto weapon in the world.

The chief failing of the Ultimax was that it came out at a time when everyone wanted a belt fed SAW, not a drum fed. And now we have the pendulum swinging hard to the opposite direction - buyers don't want a belt fed, they want a "automatic rifle" that takes AR mags.

The problem with a Pendulum is that it spends very little time in the middle.

The reasonable middle ground - the 100rd drum - continues to be the odd man out.

What is your solution to making 100-round drums work with LBE? They occupy far more volume per round than box magazines. I'd posit that PMAG 40s would be a better middle ground; they are dimensionally identical to 30s except for length. Much more compact.

I completely agree - PMAG 40's should be used. But they should be used for the regular rifleman, not the automatic gunner. I would say the ideal rifleman loadout would be the "300" - 1 D60 in the gun as a contact mag, and 6 P40's in the chest rig, for a total of 300 rounds.

One of the neat things about 5.56 - and this is one of the things that amazes me that it hasn't caught on - is that it is a narrower, straighter cartridge then it's competitors - and therefore, can fit more rounds per inch into a magazine - a 42rd AUG magazine is almost identical in dimensions (9.25") to a 30rd AK magazine (9") - a 40% increase in ammo capacity relative to mag length.

AUG in a AK chest rig - 5 42rd mags = 210rds, the same as 7 30rd mags:


Talk about a basically "free" advantage over the enemy, who are all using 30rd weapons.

Yet despite this being fairly obvious, the original AR came with 20rd magazines - despite the whole point of 5.56 being a full auto weapon that you could carry a lot of ammo with. And now we carry 30rd/7.25" long magazines, even though the last 60 years of AK use around the world has shown a 9" long magazine works just fine.

But getting back to drums - if your regular rifleman can use 40rd mags, then it doesn't really make sense to have the Automatic Rifleman - whose primary job is firing lots of rounds in full auto - to use the same mags. Otherwise he isn't really bringing anything "new" to the squad - his special weapon is no longer really that special.

In terms of carrying drums, you could either have them run basically the way the SAW gunner carries boxes of belted ammo now - in big ass pouches on his chest.

Or, what would be a lot more comfortable in the prone, is just have them carried in a messenger bag style bandolier with a QD belt attachment to keep it from flopping around when he runs. The Ultimax messenger bag (which is a little dated by today's tactical nylon standards) holds 4 drums, + 1 in the gun. That would require 12.5 PMAG 40's...

The advantage of the bandolier is that it can be rotated forward next to the weapon when firing in the prone, so the SAW gunner can easily access fresh drums without moving around to get to the pouches he's lying on.

Are people really suggesting a fucking COMP on a Infantry rifle? Especially since we like to fight at night?

That data is just flat out wrong. The M4A1 averages 9,000 rounds bolt life with M855A1. Chris Bartocci is saying it gets 3,000 rounds bolt life with M855A1.

Know what else is interesting?

Chris Bartocci used some of my data I posted of M855A1 feed angles with various magazines, issue is he used the wrong ones.

Look familiar....it should


Now normally I don't get mad when people use my photos, but most either contact me, or make sure to attribute the data to me, not Chris though.

Not only does he make it seem as if the data is his, but he also attributes said photo to poor feeding which it is not. That photo was the feed angle of M855A1 out of a Pmag M3, that photo shows the abosulte best feed ramp strike possible. Don't believe me? Well here's the uncropped version and my thread.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Unscientific_M855A1_magazine_feed_test__Updated_with_even_more_unscientifically_photos_/17-684147/

So not only was he wrong on that, but I have actual government testing showing the M4A1 averages 9,000 rounds on it's bolt with M855A1 and the M27 averages 9,300 rounds bolt life.

Where do you stow the empty drum mags? Also a 100 round nutsack is much smaller than a 100 round drum, especially when empty.

Take that AUG magazine and feed from the top like a BREN.  Win.

A SOCOM small arms repairer told me he expects 6000 rounds from a bolt and barrel with A1. Then he told me he doesn’t give a shit because he has 700 barrels in stock and changing them is easy.