/int/ - International

It looks cool, makes sense, but some arguments of Gun Jesus make sense as well. Rule of cool, optics gonna get expensive and at larger engagements profitable loot.

>SIG So, increased number of friendly fire cases?

It would be an ideal rifle for a European army fighting a defensive war on the European plain. In fact I'm surprised that he considers 500m and taking into account wind as a push. But is the US going to be doing that or is it going to be continuing to fight colonial wars and preparing for SHTF scenarios of capturing into Pyongyang or pushing a Chinese landing out of Taiwan. The kind of stuff where lots of ammunition is used on offensives in often built up areas where ranges will be 300-400 metres. And how is this going to mesh with the US doctrine of overwhelming firepower for suppression. Just seems like the kind of thing the US has been trying to do for decades simply because it feels it needs to change the platform by now.

Fire fights are mostly about suppression and volume of fire. The M7 is just a necked down 7.62 so it is limited to a 20 round magazine and the ammunition is heavy so you can't carry as much of it. It also kicks more than 5.56. So it's worse in a firefight. As a DMR maybe it would be good.

I've no idea. I just think the war time bullet is oddly complex, but apparently they can shoot normal bullets too so who cares. I remember some years ago when yanks were waring in the middle east they said the durkas with AKs out-range their 5.56 rifles. Finland still used big commuism ammo at that time and it was justified by saying it has better penetrating power in forests with a lot of bushes and branches. apparently these weird bullets are designed to penetrate modern body armor but i wonder if this bigger caliber was a reaction to the middle east wars too?

About the vehicle pen, that could be interesting but the issue is that those vehicles are already proof against .50 cal(and newer vehicles against 20mm as well) Yes, in theory it's just a 10mm plate but they are angled as well.

It is like x10 more expensive than M4 and uses weird ammo. It is also much heavier. Soldiers complain about reduced magazine capacity (20 vs 30 rounds). Short 11-inch barrel + suppressor creates extreme back-pressure, it accelerates parts wear and increases malfunctions in full-auto compared to battle-proven, lighter and much simpler M4. Marginal gain against Level IV armor at 500m doesnt justify all these shortcomings imo.

>>29260 >>29402 The magazine holds 25 rounds, not 20, and I think the armor piercing effect is being portrayed wrong. It's not about vehicles, the army was concerned a 5.56 (and also a 7.62 depending on the type) could no longer pierce modern body armour, especially not when the sky is full of drones and the distance between the shooters might increase. The .277 Fury (6.8×51mm) is a reaction to this. It is much better than all 5.56 and many 7.62 rounds. The M250 also uses it and the M240 and others will get conversion kits, so a large number of weapons are being standardized on .277 Fury. Basically 5.56 is considered dead and 6.8 is the new minimum considered to be effective. Being able to possibly pierce vehicle armour over a distance of 500 meters is a welcome side effect. The M7 can an also officially be changed to 6.5x48mm (long-range accurracy) and 7.62×51mm, which improves availability and versatility of ammunition on the battlefield. The M4 can't do that.

>>29260 The new rifle comes with a fancy computerized scope. In theory, greatly raising hit probability also raises the firepower by quite a bit. >>29564 This tbh.

>>29564 Body armour doesn't actually seem to be a serious factor in combat. Yes it helps save lives but it doesn't seem to win battles. Fire and manoeuvre wind battles.

>>29627 >In theory, greatly raising hit probability also raises the firepower by quite a bit This is a quite important point and one of the things that give the average wectern soldier higher combat effectiveness than durkas and other turd worlders. You actually need to aim, at least when you can see them. Accurate fire suppresses much better than spray & pray and even kills some of the other dudes over time.

>>29633 I think that's mostly true as well. Nobody runs into the line of fire of a machine gun "because I have body armor". It's just the very last line of defense and statistically saves some lives.

>>29633 > Body armour doesn't actually seem to be a serious factor in combat. Before the Ukrainians got better armour, one of the biggest threats to them was the Russian Dragunov sniper rifle. Body armour makes a huge difference.

Ian's take on the subject from a couple days ago.

>>29966 He knows a lot about the mechanics of firearms themselves but he is often bad at evaluating doctrine and he looks at conflict through the lens of sports shooting which may as well be looking at combat through the lens of Hollywood action movies. He says that studies from Korea show a soldier is unlikely to spot a figure standing up at 300m, but that's his sports shooter perspective, in actual combat the vast majority of the time you are not putting shots on a target, you are firing at the general vicinity of where you think the enemy is in order to keep his head down. He also didn't mention the new optics systems which will help to hit targets at that range anyway. So I think it would still be useful to have a rifle that can be used at longer ranges but I don't think 6.8mm is the right way to go. In my opinion it would have been better to adopt an intermediate, intermediate round or to use that high pressure steel base technology but with 5.56.

>>30024 >He knows a lot about the mechanics of firearms themselves but he is often bad at evaluating doctrine Exactly this. >He says that studies from Korea show a soldier is unlikely to spot a figure standing up at 300m, but that's his sports shooter perspective And historian too. And what do you know, he has no concept of a target beacon popping up on your HUD right as it's spotted by a drone overhead, however many meters far in the distance. Ian looks back at fugging WW2 and Korea. :-D >in actual combat the vast majority of the time you are not putting shots on a target, you are firing at the general vicinity of where you think the enemy is in order to keep his head down. >He also didn't mention the new optics systems which will help to hit targets at that range anyway. Yes, and suppression is far more effective when your buddy's head is actually taken off when he pops out of cover, prompting you to reconsider your options. In any case we'll see, it wouldn't be the first burger doctrinal blunder. But I think many of these internet personalities speak without having the full picture tbh.

>>29245 I'm with Gun Jesus on that one: It's already outdated by the time it will see first contact. I know that this is the case for most military equipment developed during peacetime but Ukraine war is right there to watch and learn. None of those guys on either side say >man I wish I had less ammo and a heavier rifle just so I can shoot that APC and hope my rounds penetrate and do something I'm pretty certain that instead this is just some military funding corruption thing where lobbyists secured themselves a fat paycheck by bribing the right officials. P.S.: I wish more modern militaries would finally realise that bullpups are objectively superior and only dumb fudds think otherwise.

>>30024 > but with 5.56 How would that work if one of the design points is that all current 5.56 and even some 7.62 rounds are not deemed effective enough to penetrate body armour? In the end it's all about kinetic energy. A standard 5.56x45 delivers just 1,800 kJ and a NATO 7.62x51 around 3,500 kJ. The 6.8x51 .277 Fury borders 4,000 kJ, more than twice as much as a 5.56. Nothing you could do to a 5.56 would narrow that gap significantly. Those additional ~1.2 millimeters of diameter simply increase the area (and thus volume) by more than 50%.

>>30089 Using the steelbase like they are in the M7 would enable higher pressures which would deliver more energy thus penetrating more(and shooting longer distances) or could be used to deliver a heavy bullet at the same speed. But as I said, I disagree with the importance of armour penetration in the first place.

>>30089 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ECrL_4GPc

>>30222 >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90ECrL_4GPc > Target is an already heavily damaged, rusty piece of armor in unknown condition > 10 meters distance > target is not fixed in place and deliberately moved/rotated between shots What is that supposed to show, that the guy is incompetent? The 6.5x25 CBJ is rated up to a maximum of 300 meters, the High Energy Transfer variant just 50 meters. If only delivers a maximum of 800 J after all. The .277 Fury still delivers those 800 J after more than a kilometer. If you have to be at minimum 300 meters from a target to be effective, you can also start throwing rocks. 6.5x25 was designed for law enforcement and the CJB variant is the show-off.

Why does the barrel have so many holes?

>>31635 It's the barrel shroud, not the barrel. Saves weight >>29237 Completely unnecessary

>>31646 >>31635 Also allows air to circulate and cool off the barrel.

>>31635 to attach tacticool gadgets to the gun with microtransactions