In a strange paradox, ye olde system of individual purchase weapons should come back with units able to BUY what they need from a list of approved STUFF. It happens to a degree (getting NSN) but I can see how this degrades bureaucracy and their reach. I am surprised they would still issue 249s in a LMG role but that could have come out of the convoluted back door mess that was the M60/M240 business.
Video: M27 Critique By Former Marine User
Posted 17 January 2018 - 0820 AM
Not entirely relevant to the M27 discussion, but the point has been made that, if you were making something to fulfil the M27's role today, it wouldn't be an M27. These two knowledgeable people have looked at how you might build an infantry carbine and rifle (initially a rifle and DMR, but later reclassified to carbine and rifle) today using commercially available technology. It comes with all the usual caveats, but I found it really interesting:
Posted 17 January 2018 - 0917 AM
Edited by shep854, 17 January 2018 - 1740 PM.
Posted 17 January 2018 - 1014 AM
Their builds have been completely reliable through the knocking around of several rather vigorous matches, with no maintenance other thsn lube. There are links in the sidebar of the above video.
I have greatly enjoyed following the series. Both are obviously experts and very eloquent, personable and immensely entertaining. My only real problem with their concept is they haven't addressed fitting bayonets because they assert that bayonets are obsolete. I have heard various (and quite possibly all ) arguments to that effect over the years, but honestly remain unconvinced. The best I have heard is that, given the choice between something heavy that takes a bayonet and something light that doesn't, light will almost always win out.
Posted 18 January 2018 - 1250 PM
And then carry a sword?
A skeletonised, carb9n fibre one with a ceramic edge.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users