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

[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?

[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 packs

The great (?) State of Georgia hearby nominates Firefly as the next president of the United States of America!!!!

(The crowd goes wild!!!!)