A couple people had expressed interest in this topic, and I have a bit of extra time for a couple days, so here goes:
Bona fides: I am a former infantry NCO and sniper, hunter, competitive shooter, reloader, hobby gunsmith, sometimes firearms trainer and currently work in a gun shop, mostly on the paperwork/compliance side. Back in the day, was a qualified expert with every standard small arm in the US inventory circa 2003 (M2, 4, 9, 16, 19, 249, 240B, 21, 24, 82 etc.), and today hang around the 75th percentile of USPSA classifications. I've shot Cap-and-Ball, Trap and Sporting Clays badly; Bullseye and PRS somewhat better and IDPA/USPSA/UML/Two-gun with some local success. Been active in the 2A community since the mid-90s, got my first instructor cert in high school, and have held a CPL for almost twenty years now.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in every aspect of firearms, there's huge areas that escape my knowledge base, but if you've got questions I'll do my best to answer.
Technical questions
Gun control proposals for feasibility
Industry
Training
Wacky opinions
General geekery
Some competition links (not my own) just for the interested.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=U5IhsWamaLY&t=173
https://youtube.com/watch?v=93nEEINflXE
https://youtube.com/watch?v=utcky0zq10E
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Given your military experience and qualifications, what's your take on the NGSW? I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts on the LMG and service rifle aspects of it, as well as your thoughts on the entire program.
Wacky opinion time!
I'm quite skeptical of new service guns, just because there's been a new one every year for three decades and a grand total of not one of the goddamned things has replaced our inventory of M4s, 249s and 240s. Some see limited use by high-speed units, some get orders from specops etc.
The most interesting thing about the NGSW system is the optic. The rest is yet more MIC bullshitting and wasting money. All these "new infantry arms" are a boondoggle for arms manufacturers. Billions of dollars to not replace the M16, or to marginally improve some esoteric aspect of the platform. The M5 is not going to be the standard infantry arm of the US military. It's too heavy, the performance isn't a big enough improvement, and there is no way in hell they're going to ditch the 5.56 and 7.62. It might see limited use as a DMR. That's my best guess anyway.
The 249 is the weak link in the three, and replacing that would probably be the easiest, but once again, it needs to match the ammo for the service rifle, which is not going to be 6.8.
The 240 is damn near perfect. The only way you could possibly improve it is to reduce weight.
Understand that the media push around "new service weapons" is a marketing strategy for the civilian market, not the military. SIG is trying to sell a pile of eight-thousand-dollar AR-15s with experimental ammunition that you can't even buy yet, and an optic system that won't be available to civilians for some time and will be probably another eight grand when it is.
What was your opinion on the Textron submission?
I don't really have one. I ignore most of these trials and the media hype that goes with them. It's all marketing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link