09-09-2017, 03:19 AM
Select-fire is one of the ISCR requirements. SCAR had the requirement because they wanted a modular system that could change between the calibers, so the select-fire would be there for 5.56 NATO in the lower group, not because SOCOM was asking for select-fire 7.62 NATO.
Everybody knows that select-fire 7.62 NATO is retarded from a lightweight service rifle.
It's uncontrollable in the FAL, the G3, the M14, the AR10, the SCAR (without a brake), and any other non-belt fed weapon. It also eats through your minimized basic load faster than you already can't afford to do on semi.
Why are we having this regressive, bad idea conversation over and over again?
Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.
The only thing that would make sense would be a 2-round burst FCG in that size of a gun for movers, shooting suppressed, with a suppressor engineered for the cartridge and system.
Again, we're back to fighting with the weight and recoil of an albatross cartridge that has no other place than a DM role in the Rifle Squad.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they know we're headed into a full-scale war, and want to distract rifle makers with the ISCR from something better so they can keep a staple cartridge for the more important systems fed well (mini-guns, vehicle-mounted co-ax MGs, M240s).
If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed. Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find. The Russians have to be laughing at us right now.
Everybody knows that select-fire 7.62 NATO is retarded from a lightweight service rifle.
It's uncontrollable in the FAL, the G3, the M14, the AR10, the SCAR (without a brake), and any other non-belt fed weapon. It also eats through your minimized basic load faster than you already can't afford to do on semi.
Why are we having this regressive, bad idea conversation over and over again?
Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.
The only thing that would make sense would be a 2-round burst FCG in that size of a gun for movers, shooting suppressed, with a suppressor engineered for the cartridge and system.
Again, we're back to fighting with the weight and recoil of an albatross cartridge that has no other place than a DM role in the Rifle Squad.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they know we're headed into a full-scale war, and want to distract rifle makers with the ISCR from something better so they can keep a staple cartridge for the more important systems fed well (mini-guns, vehicle-mounted co-ax MGs, M240s).
If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed. Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find. The Russians have to be laughing at us right now.
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com