Which KAC rifle would you (hypothetically) equip every US infantry rifleman with?

[BallisticHarmony]

This is assuming that all of the logistics, retraining, and of course budget issues have already been taken care of. Fresh slate for a new standard infantry rifle. This acquisition is with the long term in mind, meaning that it would need to perform adequately in any environment or future war zone.

Which optic would you equip it with? What other attachments would you want as part of the package? Any thoughts based on combat experience are of course much appreciated.

11.5" SR-16 Mod 2 CQB
(https://www.knightarmco.com/14121/shop/military/sr-16e3-cqb-mod2-m-lok)
14.5" SR-16 Mod 2
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12634/shop/military/sr-16e3-carbine-mod2-m-lok)
16" SR-15 Mod 2
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12010/shop/commercial-firearms/sr-15-e3-mod-2-m-lok)
18" SR-15 Mod 2 LPR
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12013/shop/commercial-firearms/sr-15-e3-lpr-mod-2-m-lok)
9.5" SR-30
(https://www.knightarmco.com/11995/shop/commercial-firearms/sr-30-m-lok)
9.5" SR-30 DSR
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12008/shop/commercial-firearms/sr-30-dsr)
14.5" SR-25 CC
(https://www.knightarmco.com/14711/shop/rifle-partsaccessories/sr-25-upper-receiver-kit-cc-14-5-m-lok)
16" M110K2 (CC)
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12584/shop/military/m110-k2-mlok)
16" M110K3 (PC)
(https://www.knightarmco.com/12587/shop/military/m110k3-mlok)
14.5" M110K5 (DSR) (https://www.knightarmco.com/12592/shop/military/m110k5-2)

[hotrodder636]

Went with the 11.5”. I would put a T2 on it and supress. Great overall size with acceptable ballistics for a 5.56 gun at 11.5”. While i love my SR15, having this system in an SBR would be excellent.

Upon reading the entire question...this is for infantry...I would defer to the below length...it would be better suited for general use.

[Furbyballer]

Sr 16 14.5in with NF atacr 1-8, sf 1500 lumen scout light, and mawl da. Top it off with a kac qdc cqb can. Pefect set up from 0 to 700 with ease.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Coal Dragger]

Well I was going to go with a 14.5” or 16” SR-16 (depending on ammo used and desired MV), and pretty much everything Furryballer just said. So I’ll just go with what furryballer said.

[ABNAK]

Well I was going to go with a 14.5” or 16” SR-16 (depending on ammo used and desired MV), and pretty much everything Furryballer just said. So I’ll just go with what furryballer said.

I would have to go with 14.5" or 16", with 16" being the one I'd lean towards. I don't see a reason to equip Infantry with 11.5" barrels, especially given the gamut of environments (and the subsequent ranges needed for each) that regular grunts could encounter.

[Serious Account]

Sorry for being off topic but are there any real world data of the SR-16 performance on the field? I don't know of any major military organization officially adopted the SR-16.

[Furbyballer]

Sorry for being off topic but are there any real world data of the SR-16 performance on the field? I don't know of any major military organization officially adopted the SR-16.Not a mil organization but i can tell you lots of oga use them and the secret service.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

I’ll never advocate an LPVO for widespread military use. There are far more Soldiers that don’t understand the Aimpoint than those that do, and it really can’t get any easier than a CCO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coal Dragger]

True, but then again there are plenty of Marines who grasp the concept of an ACOG to good affect. As long as we’re waving magic wands here, I’d make sure Pvt. Snuffy got good range time with really experienced instructors who can actually teach the ins and out of using that LPV optic, along with more solid training in actual rifle marksmanship.

[Pappabear]

I went 16 in SR15. I really like the well hated ACOG with RDS on top or off set. If on top , off set irons. And what other goodies the boys need. Lasers VFG...

After you have everything from 10.3 MK18 to 20 inch SPR, the 16 is a good compromise.

PB

[Wake27]

True, but then again there are plenty of Marines who grasp the concept of an ACOG to good affect. As long as we’re waving magic wands here, I’d make sure Pvt. Snuffy got good range time with really experienced instructors who can actually teach the ins and out of using that LPV optic, along with more solid training in actual rifle marksmanship.

It does depend how much wand waving we're doing.

[pinzgauer]

True, but then again there are plenty of Marines who grasp the concept of an ACOG to good affect. As long as we’re waving magic wands here, I’d make sure Pvt. Snuffy got good range time with really experienced instructors who can actually teach the ins and out of using that LPV optic, along with more solid training in actual rifle marksmanship.ACOGs now the norm in my son's Airborne rifle company.

[crusader377]

I went with the 16" SR15. Reason why is overall reliability combined with a good balance of effectiveness and compactness using standard FMJ ammunition. I almost went with the 14.5" option but I'm still a little skeptical of the 14.5" middy reliability in extreme environments especially cold weather performance and a service rifle adopted by the U.S. military must be able to operate reliably world wide due to the expeditionary nature of U.S. military operations.

[elephantrider]

I’ll never advocate an LPVO for widespread military use. There are far more Soldiers that don’t understand the Aimpoint than those that do, and it really can’t get any easier than a CCO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, issuing LPVOs w/ current COTS type mounts to general forces would be an absolute shit show. I've heard horror stories of soldiers who cannot grasp how to mount, or use a CCO correctly (mounting them impossibly low, w/o the needed spacer). If LPVO's were issued they would have to be configured something like a VCOG, or the mount/rings would have to have a keyed interface with the rings so that they cannot be mounted wrong. Even with that, LPVOs have eye relief that has to be accounted for.

[BallisticHarmony]

Exactly, issuing LPVOs w/ current COTS type mounts to general forces would be an absolute shit show. I've heard horror stories of soldiers who cannot grasp how to mount, or use a CCO correctly (mounting them impossibly low, w/o the needed spacer). If LPVO's were issued they would have to be configured something like a VCOG, or the mount/rings would have to have a keyed interface with the rings so that they cannot be mounted wrong. Even with that, LPVOs have eye relief that has to be accounted for.

Maybe my confidence in grunts is higher than it should be, but I find it hard to believe that people could be that stupid and helpless. And obviously boot camp and training exercises would incorporate education and training on any new optic. LPVOs, if enough time was given on how to properly find DOPE, would increase the standard infantryman’s battlefield effectiveness far more than a different caliber or barrel length.

[Wake27]

I've had Soldiers that didn't know they had to turn the CCO on. Not infantrymen, but the two stupidest people that I've ever met in my life were at OSUT so I wouldn't put it past them.

[Coal Dragger]

Well picking gear based on the lowest common denominator, while typical, is still not a good idea.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

14.5 SR-16 Mod 2. As a general issue infantry weapon that needs to be appropriate in a wide variety of environments, the 14.5 Mod 2 is probably the best rifle put into production to date.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[556BlackRifle]

I went with the 14.5 SR16 Mod 2. IMO it's a good compromise between CQB and an 18 - 20 incher at distance and not too bad when door kicking.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Sr 16 14.5in with NF atacr 1-8, sf 1500 lumen scout light, and mawl da. Top it off with a kac qdc cqb can. Pefect set up from 0 to 700 with ease.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is win. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say your IQ is substantially higher than a majority of the rest of the people on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

This is win. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say your IQ is substantially higher than a majority of the rest of the people on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You guys are thinking way too much like shooters. I do know that one of our BNs here was testing the MAWLs though. Really didn’t expect to see those so soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mack7.62]

I went with the 16" SR15. Reason why is overall reliability combined with a good balance of effectiveness and compactness using standard FMJ ammunition. I almost went with the 14.5" option but I'm still a little skeptical of the 14.5" middy reliability in extreme environments especially cold weather performance and a service rifle adopted by the U.S. military must be able to operate reliably world wide due to the expeditionary nature of U.S. military operations.

The 14.5 middy questions have been answered by the Crane study:

NSWC-Crane Mid-Length Gas System Testing Shows Increased Performance & Service Life For M4 Carbines

http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/14/nswc-crane-carbine-mid-length-gas-system-testing-shows-increased-performance/

[Furbyballer]

This is win. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say your IQ is substantially higher than a majority of the rest of the people on this board.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAll i know is that that set up i suggested is exactly how i have my sr15 14.5 built out based on my last decade of shooting and changing shit haha.

Also anyone who talks about the lowest common denominator is doing everyone else a huge disfavor in this hypothetical scenario. You never cater to stupid, or you shouldnt. Its a lesson the military world should have taken from the civilian business world years ago. Perform or find a different job. The op asked for the best hybrid warfare set up we could come up with using kac guns as a base, and then some of you come in here and state doesnt matter what you give them the derp will win. Just remember we have dudes enlisting now with college degrees and i havent met a marine yet that couldnt shoot. Cater to the mission and let your ****ing people do their jobs and teach their subordinates how to use their kit. Im tired of catering to stupid.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Failure2Stop]

I hurt a lot of feelings with my 14.5 SR-15 on a pretty regular basis, doing everything from close-range speed to long range precision.
It's super easy to maintain; just needs spring replacement at the round counts that most others will need bolt and barrel replacement.
Since I work at KAC I won't belabor the point, but it was the product that brought me here, and it's the constant improvement that keeps me here.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

I hurt a lot of feelings with my 14.5 SR-15 on a pretty regular basis, doing everything from close-range speed to long range precision.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180807/ea1cf60e1cfc1987e069078926562ecb.jpg

#kacmasterrace


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

All i know is that that set up i suggested is exactly how i have my sr15 14.5 built out based on my last decade of shooting and changing shit haha.

Also anyone who talks about the lowest common denominator is doing everyone else a huge disfavor in this hypothetical scenario. You never cater to stupid, or you shouldnt. Its a lesson the military world should have taken from the civilian business world years ago. Perform or find a different job. The op asked for the best hybrid warfare set up we could come up with using kac guns as a base, and then some of you come in here and state doesnt matter what you give them the derp will win. Just remember we have dudes enlisting now with college degrees and i havent met a marine yet that couldnt shoot. Cater to the mission and let your ****ing people do their jobs and teach their subordinates how to use their kit. Im tired of catering to stupid.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Catering to stupid in a stupid way is making people wear two PT belts during a formation run in Afghanistan. Catering to stupid in a smart way (aka being realistic) is recognizing that a COMP M5 or ACOG would be a much better option than expecting every grunt to learn how to effectively use an LPVO AND not **** it and/or the mount up. Again, it all depends how much of a magic wand we’re waiving here.

I’d love to see all of the hopes and dreams in this thread come true, but I’ll get issued a KAC gun before you have the majority of every line company proficient on the care and use of an LPVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Catering to stupid in a stupid way is making people wear two PT belts during a formation run in Afghanistan. Catering to stupid in a smart way (aka being realistic) is recognizing that a COMP M5 or ACOG would be a much better option than expecting every grunt to learn how to effectively use an LPVO AND not **** it and/or the mount up. Again, it all depends how much of a magic wand we’re waiving here.

I’d love to see all of the hopes and dreams in this thread come true, but I’ll get issued a KAC gun before you have the majority of every line company proficient on the care and use of an LPVO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We’re an all voluntary military... Hell even if we weren’t.... if you’re so damn stupid that you can’t effectively work an LPVO then maybe front line combat isn’t for you. Hell you shouldn’t even be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. And yes, I was in the military and am currently a firefighter... I am very well aware of what stupid is capable of. Not issuing a phenomenal force multiplier such as an LPVO because someone may break it is a cop out solution for a lack of quality training and discipline. Also what the hell is there even to break about an LPVO that there isn’t on an ACOG or an M5? The only “care and use” I gave my Razor 1-6 was shooting it and changing the batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wake27]

We’re an all voluntary military... Hell even if we weren’t.... if you’re so damn stupid that you can’t effectively work an LPVO then maybe front line combat isn’t for you. Hell you shouldn’t even be allowed to operate a motor vehicle. And yes, I was in the military and am currently a firefighter... I am very well aware of what stupid is capable of. Not issuing a phenomenal force multiplier such as an LPVO because someone may break it is a cop out solution for a lack of quality training and discipline. Also what the hell is there even to break about an LPVO that there isn’t on an ACOG or an M5? The only “care and use” I gave my Razor 1-6 was shooting it and changing the batteries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Razors are pretty notorious for having extreme durability, I’m not sure there are many that compare. But I was really talking more about the rings/mount. And even if not breaking, disassembling and remounting properly. I would say that they could be given to leaders like SL and above, but often the senior guys are just as bad. Either way, this is enough of a drift I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NWPilgrim]

Well picking gear based on the lowest common denominator, while typical, is still not a good idea.

Exactly! The lowest capable soldiers will not be competent with ANY equipment configuration. Whereas giving average and above capable soldiers more functionality is a force multiplier. Either a fixed or variable LPO seems optimal. But I also agree that if equipment is standardized then go with mounts that can’t be futzed with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Coal Dragger]

I’m sure that if the giant magic wand was to be waved (it would be a giant magic wand for any of this to happen) the low power variable daylight optic could be specified with a unitized optical tube and mount. Think VCOG except with the Nightforce ATACR 1-8 optics packaging inside. Put two or three 1/2” nuts on the mounting portion with multiple recoil lugs to interface with the picatinny upper. Torque to snug with a 1/2” driver in a pinch, but 55-65in-lbs with a torque wrench would be ideal. Then paint marker the nuts and upper for witness marks.

Make sure the turrets have caps so Pvt. Schmuckatelli doesn’t inadvertently knock his zero off, but can still dial if needed after taking the caps off. Equip the caps with safety cables retaining the caps to the optic body so they cannot be lost.

Not much more needed to private proof the optic.

Train everyone to run the optic on 1X as a default and crank on more magnification as needed. It’s not rocket surgery, I’m sure even the below average crayon eaters in a platoon can be adequately trained to operate an LPV.

[BallisticHarmony]

I’m sure that if the giant magic wand was to be waved (it would be a giant magic wand for any of this to happen) the low power variable daylight optic could be specified with a unitized optical tube and mount. Think VCOG except with the Nightforce ATACR 1-8 optics packaging inside. Put two or three 1/2” nuts on the mounting portion with multiple recoil lugs to interface with the picatinny upper. Torque to snug with a 1/2” driver in a pinch, but 55-65in-lbs with a torque wrench would be ideal. Then paint marker the nuts and upper for witness marks.

Make sure the turrets have caps so Pvt. Schmuckatelli doesn’t inadvertently knock his zero off, but can still dial if needed after taking the caps off. Equip the caps with safety cables retaining the caps to the optic body so they cannot be lost.

Not much more needed to private proof the optic.

Train everyone to run the optic on 1X as a default and crank on more magnification as needed. It’s not rocket surgery, I’m sure even the below average crayon eaters in a platoon can be adequately trained to operate an LPV.

Agreed. Well said. The ATACR is so dope.

[jpmuscle]

I don’t see the need for an LPVO for the majority of combat arms folks. The Acog does everything required. Maybe there should be greater emphasis on marksmanship and training. When the majority of folks can shoot to the capability of current equipment then we can talk LPVO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DocMaynard]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I'm very curious as to why people picked 11.5" or 14.5".

[Vegasshooter]

I picked the 14.5 because it’s does EVERYTHING pretty damn well. I, like Failure2Stop, have shaken it out to 800yds on steel, but it can still ride next to you in a vehicle and be compact enough to to entry work. Also, with today’s powder and ammo, the 14.5” barrel is giving most of what the 5.56 has got velocity wise. Example: my LPR is 18” and with Speer 75gr Gold Dot I’m getting 2610fps muzzle velocity. My 14.5” is giving me 2604fps. These are 20 shot samples over a Magnetospeed, so I’m pretty comfortable with the accuracy. 6 FPS doesn’t make that extra 3.5” worth it. Now, the LPR is a .5 moa barrel, but that’s a different subject. Point is, with today’s ammo, the 14.5” is doing everything damn well, and the perceived benefits to shorter or longer barrels really starts to go away.
Just my opinion from a guy that has them both, and has used an AR in civilian law enforcement for 20 years. It seems like more and more often our Military guys are fighting in structures and kicking doors. They’re doing what we’ve been doing with rifles for years. Even still, the times when they need to push out, the 14.5” will get you to the limits of what the 5.56 can do.

[Coal Dragger]

A 14.5” or 16” make sense as a general purpose carbine, especially when you consider that sometimes you are going to have to fight your way across open areas to get to the buildings that need to then be cleared.

[Firefly]

I will be “that guy” and say SR-47s.

[soulezoo]

I am more partial to the 16", but that's just me.

[RadioActivity]

I think the 14.5"/16" question would be better addressed if their new hypothetical rifle would be linked with new hypothetical ammo. If we're sticking with M855 I'm thinking the 16" is the right answer.

For those saying LPVO are beyond the grasp of the average INF guy - you're failing to understand just how important PID is in today's warfare. There simply isn't a LPVO made that matches what I'd "want" for today's infantry. It'd be something like a 1-8x or 1-10x sub 28oz, with heavy emphasis of 1x performance, with a one piece integrated mount. Someone prior to me hit that point and are absolutely right for wanting a one piece mount with 1/2" nuts ala Geissele and Badger mounts, but I'd want no concern of it having to be "leveled" or trued - this issue is negated if the mount is integrated. I'd want a BDC with ranging capability similar to an ACOG reticle because the military uniquely shoots ammo issued that is made to a singular standard, through identical weapons made to similar standards, across the near entirety of the force. A mil based reticle is unnecessary and an LPVO is going to add significantly to first round hit probability. Oh - and, absolutely not on adjustable turrets, even if they do have a zero lock. Capped and as low profile as an engineer can make them. Guys aren't going to be dialing - ever. Recipe for disaster when dudes are tired, under trained, and engaging targets fluidly at different distances.

Having your joe's be able to see INTO windows, INTO treelines, INTO shadows is a big ****ing capability on today's battlefield. Being able to see if a dudes got a radio in his hand while he observes you, vs a bottle, is a big deal. Seeing if a guy has a farm tool or an RPG is a big deal. 4x is plenty for rounds on target within the performance envelope of the M4 platform, but in today's world the INF spends a lot of time doing things OTHER than shooting. Further you give up a lot running an ACOG as an occluded eye gunsight in CQB. Running a magnifier and an aimpoint is not the same capability provided by, for instance, a Razor G2.

Using today's standards:
KAC Mod 2 Mlok 16"
SF 3 prong? KAC QDC FH? (4 prong is more prone to damaged tines)
NF NX8 w/ offset T1 for redundancy
Geissele Super Precision Mount
SF M600DF
MAWL
Dual mode pressure switch with white light lockout
Magpul MS3 padded sling w/ QD attachment points
Magpul Gen 3 mags

[Wake27]

I think the 14.5"/16" question would be better addressed if their new hypothetical rifle would be linked with new hypothetical ammo. If we're sticking with M855 I'm thinking the 16" is the right answer.

For those saying LPVO are beyond the grasp of the average INF guy - you're failing to understand just how important PID is in today's warfare. There simply isn't a LPVO made that matches what I'd "want" for today's infantry. It'd be something like a 1-8x or 1-10x sub 28oz, with heavy emphasis of 1x performance, with a one piece integrated mount. Someone prior to me hit that point and are absolutely right for wanting a one piece mount with 1/2" nuts ala Geissele and Badger mounts, but I'd want no concern of it having to be "leveled" or trued - this issue is negated if the mount is integrated. I'd want a BDC with ranging capability similar to an ACOG reticle because the military uniquely shoots ammo issued that is made to a singular standard, through identical weapons made to similar standards, across the near entirety of the force. A mil based reticle is unnecessary and an LPVO is going to add significantly to first round hit probability. Oh - and, absolutely not on adjustable turrets, even if they do have a zero lock. Capped and as low profile as an engineer can make them. Guys aren't going to be dialing - ever. Recipe for disaster when dudes are tired, under trained, and engaging targets fluidly at different distances.

Having your joe's be able to see INTO windows, INTO treelines, INTO shadows is a big ****ing capability on today's battlefield. Being able to see if a dudes got a radio in his hand while he observes you, vs a bottle, is a big deal. Seeing if a guy has a farm tool or an RPG is a big deal. 4x is plenty for rounds on target within the performance envelope of the M4 platform, but in today's world the INF spends a lot of time doing things OTHER than shooting. Further you give up a lot running an ACOG as an occluded eye gunsight in CQB. Running a magnifier and an aimpoint is not the same capability provided by, for instance, a Razor G2.

Using today's standards:
KAC Mod 2 Mlok 16"
SF 3 prong? KAC QDC FH? (4 prong is more prone to damaged tines)
NF NX8 w/ offset T1 for redundancy
Geissele Super Precision Mount
SF M600DF
MAWL
Dual mode pressure switch with white light lockout
Magpul MS3 padded sling w/ QD attachment points
Magpul Gen 3 mags

You do make a lot of good points. One of my biggest reasons for not wanting an LPVO is the mount, so an integrated one would solve that. Only thing I’d probably disagree on is the OAL and T1. I think 14.5 is a great length, sans NFA so it works for mil. Plus with all that shit, that’ll just be more weight. Same with the T1. Offset irons maybe, but that’s a far less streamlined package and IME, backup sights never get used anyways so might as well cut down on the weight and bulk. Granted I’ve never deployed and obviously haven’t seen someone’s optic go down in a firefight. But again, IME, BUIS aren’t even zeroed. Finally, I’d pick either the Razor for the better eyebox or the ATACR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Torquetard]

LMG, OP.

[BallisticHarmony]

You do make a lot of good points. One of my biggest reasons for not wanting an LPVO is the mount, so an integrated one would solve that. Only thing I’d probably disagree on is the OAL and T1. I think 14.5 is a great length, sans NFA so it works for mil. Plus with all that shit, that’ll just be more weight. Same with the T1. Offset irons maybe, but that’s a far less streamlined package and IME, backup sights never get used anyways so might as well cut down on the weight and bulk. Granted I’ve never deployed and obviously haven’t seen someone’s optic go down in a firefight. But again, IME, BUIS aren’t even zeroed. Finally, I’d pick either the Razor for the better eyebox or the ATACR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's interesting that USSOCOM has officially gone with the ATACR over the NX8. I would think that the weight savings would be important to them.

Edit: Offset irons would be incompatible with the MAWL.

[RHINOWSO]

Unless the training level comes up dramatically, I'm happy with FN & Colt variants for the Mark 1 Mod 0 grunt for 1/4 the price of the KAC.

[Failure2Stop]

Unless the training level comes up dramatically, I'm happy with FN & Colt variants for the Mark 1 Mod 0 grunt for 1/4 the price of the KAC.

If I was making 1,000,000 rifles on contract, I'd be able to bring price down pretty significantly.
And even then, once you add up the reduced cost and down-time/repair time of service life components, the immediate unavoidable cost of handguard upgrades (which are already planned upgrades), back-up sight modernization (planned upgrades), the cost balance tips toward a better out of the box rifle. Not saying that KAC is the only company that can provide most of that (FN has been working toward PIP M4s for a while), but KAC can certainly deliver all of that. There are also intangibles such as reducing the time and expenditure needed to get the vast majority of users qualified on the every improving qualification standards due to better individual manipulation capability, better triggers (that have passed military durability safety standards), lower recoil effect, and improved accuracy. Then there are the next echelon of intangibles including improved integration of handguard mounted targeting/aiming devices, improved signature/flash reduction, improved suppressor integration, improved Mean Rounds Between Stoppages, and improved individual item confidence. All of these are already expressed capability desires, and they all come with a cost above that of the as-issued M4.

[Wake27]

I think it's interesting that USSOCOM has officially gone with the ATACR over the NX8. I would think that the weight savings would be important to them.

Edit: Offset irons would be incompatible with the MAWL.

I assume that they vastly prefer the increased performance over the four ounces. Good point about the irons though. I wonder how well an offset T1 would work?


If I was making 1,000,000 rifles on contract, I'd be able to bring price down pretty significantly.
And even then, once you add up the reduced cost and down-time/repair time of service life components, the immediate unavoidable cost of handguard upgrades (which are already planned upgrades), back-up sight modernization (planned upgrades), the cost balance tips toward a better out of the box rifle. Not saying that KAC is the only company that can provide most of that (FN has been working toward PIP M4s for a while), but KAC can certainly deliver all of that. There are also intangibles such as reducing the time and expenditure needed to get the vast majority of users qualified on the every improving qualification standards due to better individual manipulation capability, better triggers (that have passed military durability safety standards), lower recoil effect, and improved accuracy. Then there are the next echelon of intangibles including improved integration of handguard mounted targeting/aiming devices, improved signature/flash reduction, improved suppressor integration, improved Mean Rounds Between Stoppages, and improved individual item confidence. All of these are already expressed capability desires, and they all come with a cost above that of the as-issued M4.

I wish I was in charge of swiping that credit card.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RHINOWSO]

If I was making 1,000,000 rifles on contract, I'd be able to bring price down pretty significantly.
For sure. It would be great if these decisions were made to allow this kind of thing and the advantages it would provide.

But I see that weapons purchasing is like my time in the Navy, when you'd get 12 new bare bones aircraft with no bells or whistles, then only get enough kit to rock with 6 or 7 of them.

Ugh, did I mention I hate the military contracting process? :D

[RadioActivity]

Yea, I couldn't see making offset BUIS work with an IR laser. You could do something like the BUIS as found on an elcan, but for weight/reward I think an offset T1 is going to be the direction I'd go. I'd offset that weight increase by going with the NX8 over the ATACR, if pigeonholed into today's tech. I could see swapping in an ATACR but you'd have to make sacrifices like running those wonky BUIS that integrate into the optic. Also after reviewing the ATACR came to the conclusion it has a few inherent design flaws (relating to diopter settings, perhaps it's a personal eye issue) but it's probably the most durable LPVO available just given NF's reputation.

[Firefly]

Put me in President and tomorrow’s soldier will have SR-16s and jet packs

[pinzgauer]

Put me in President and tomorrow’s soldier will have SR-16s and jet packsThe great (?) State of Georgia hearby nominates Firefly as the next president of the United States of America!!!!

(The crowd goes wild!!!!)