|
|
Post by CAC001 on Oct 16, 2006 18:14:04 GMT -7
This thread is for the discussion of futuristic weapons, such as the XM8, M4-S, and SCAR. Pretty much the guns that were candidates for replacing the M16 assault rifle. Have at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wheziestmoney on Oct 28, 2006 21:19:53 GMT -7
ive been doing a little research on the SCAR. and i have come to this conclusion, it is a very decent gun with quite a few capabilities. Rifle, Carbine, Grenadier, Long-Range. there are very few things this gun could have a problem with.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAC001 on Oct 28, 2006 21:23:41 GMT -7
How does it fire grenades? Will it take an M203 like the Armalite series? |
|
|
|
Post by Demolition Lover on Oct 28, 2006 22:31:24 GMT -7
MR-C, prototype rifle for the US Military. Some people are saying it's going to be a great gun, I'm looking at it saying "meh." I can only find significant and correct information of it from wikipedia, and it's just a prototype. One that is boasting fourty-five rounds and 900 RPM. Also it's caseless. For the lack of other information given on the rifle, and the fact that it's been a prototype for one year, I think it may very well be the next XM8. It has a nice idea, and a nice design, but from what I can gather it's probably sitting in someone's trash can right now. Granted, I would definately be looking forward to this gun, but it just lacks the background. Also, caseless technology may be a good idea but it's got some severe stumbling points. Overheating is on the top of the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger85 on Oct 31, 2006 18:17:20 GMT -7
YOu can mount the new EGLM grenade launcher onto the SCAR.
Also the M4 may be staying for another trip. Why, one word 6.8mm. They are upgrading the M4 to shoot the larger 6.8mm round. whhoo
The MR-C to me looks like a gun that could go either way, it could succed, or it could suck. TO me the gun looks like they are building a submachine gun, not a rifle. It shoots a smaller round then the M16 even. They should call it the MSMG-C. But I still think it could succed if built properly.
Metal Storm, 1 million rounds a minute. For those of you who here this and go wow, I wouldn't. It is essentially a bunch of bullets, or rockets lined up in rows. They are lauched by a the pull of the trigger or ddetonator. Then you leave, you cant reload the million rounds in there, that would take way to long, and weigh a lot. I would much rather take an Ak over Metal Storm
|
|
|
|
Post by itsahak on Nov 1, 2006 20:38:33 GMT -7
if the 6.8 had come out two years earlier, they might never have even looked at replacing it. A much better round for its job. The only bad part about those that own the 6.8 here in the US, is that 90% of the ammo made is going over to Iraq. You can't hardly get it here, and what you can get is really expensive!
|
|
|
|
Post by cac007 on Jul 18, 2007 18:13:34 GMT -7
This may be off topic to some of the guns we have been speaking of in this forum but it is in the future of our weapons.
I was watching a show and they have a new pistol that you have to wear a watch that if it was taken from you it would make the gun useless so in a case that you were firing at someone and someone knocked your gun out of your hand or if the gun was possibly stolen from you then the gun would be useless and wouldn't fire it's quiet interesting I think. It runs on a frequence that alows the gun to activate and be used. But if the frequence is to far away it will deactivate it. I think this is a great way to have a gun because if you were at war if the enemy had killed one of your squad members the enemy couldn't pick up your allys gun and use it unless they got the watch off of the dead ally which would give the troops enough time to kill the enemy if he tried to get the watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAC006 on Jul 19, 2007 10:55:43 GMT -7
on the subject of i guess kinda learning about futuristic weapons ther is a show on discovery channel called future weapons and there are also some shows on the military channel that profile furturistic weapons
|
|
|
|
Post by cac007 on Jul 24, 2007 22:02:41 GMT -7
If I may add great show
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger85 on Jul 31, 2007 9:54:49 GMT -7
The idea of a watch that enables the wearer to be the only one to fire the weapon has been around since the early 90's.
|
|
|
|
Post by cac007 on Aug 9, 2007 14:15:05 GMT -7
ya but there actually putting it out on the feild now
|
|
|
|
Post by stinger85 on Aug 9, 2007 22:12:22 GMT -7
A watch that enables the shooter to be the only shooter of the firearm is good only for police situations. On the battlefield, it would just be a pain in the ass. Your weapon gets destroyed, oh wait, I have to get the watch from the supply sergeant, that is counter productive.
|
|
Doc1
Private
When you get out there you only have 2 friends, God and your M-1.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Doc1 on Jan 29, 2008 21:57:47 GMT -7
In combat situations, your personal possesions are the first to go. Then your gear and weapons. Your weapon now a days is not to valued by the enemy ( unless it is an m21 or any other long range weapon or launcher.)
|
|
Doc1
Private
When you get out there you only have 2 friends, God and your M-1.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Doc1 on Jan 29, 2008 21:59:18 GMT -7
That last post of mine was off topic and I appologise for that. I was reading the watch conversation and foregot what the topic was.
|
|
|
|
Post by CAC001 on Jan 29, 2008 22:02:47 GMT -7
That's okay, I guess it was a bit relevant though. You can use the 'Modify' button above your post to edit it, rather than double posting.
|
|
