That rifle is just an expensive LR308. I'm all for the military buying what it needs, but why spend so much for a weapon that isn't even better than what we already use and can produce domestically for a lower cost and better part compatibility? Just like the M27 IAR, there are so many other rifles that would fit the role of a volume of fire DMR replacement for the SAW gunner such as Colts M16A2/A4 LMG, LWRC IAR, or Ares Shrike (Fight Lite MCR), all of which can do the same role better and at a cheaper cost.
Because the defense industry is a business, and it's not about what's best for the troops, it's about what's best for business.
Usually. Sometimes it's not even that but just politics. And many politicians think blindly throwing money at the military is just as effective as listening to the experts who know what actually need funding and what doesn't. Then the special interests get back in, and things get really messy.
Because the defense industry is a business, and it's not about what's best for the troops, it's about what's best for business.
Well the people making the decision to buy or not are not in the industry business or influenced by it. I think the person signing these contracts is thinking in the best interests of our boys, but it just seems that the gov has a tendency the last couple years to buy foreign by default regardless of what is already in production domestically. I'm not sure if it is a bias in the same way the Magpuls were previously banned because they were vocal against gun control (gov doesn't want to support companies that are "controversial" to national politics), or if it is just some guy that really like H&K weapons (they were high end back in the 80s, but not anymore). I don't know, maybe there is a factor I am missing such as H&K actually sells these things dirt cheap or something. I know many LEA's got very generous prices from H&K way back when which is what caused many to adopt the MP5 as the go to SMG even though the Colt AR SMG was at a lower MSRP and more compatible with our existing aftermarket.
Usually. Sometimes it's not even that but just politics. And many politicians think blindly throwing money at the military is just as effective as listening to the experts who know what actually need funding and what doesn't. Then the special interests get back in, and things get really messy.
Usually. Sometimes it's not even that but just politics. And many politicians think blindly throwing money at the military is just as effective as listening to the experts who know what actually need funding and what doesn't. Then the special interests get back in, and things get really messy.
Actually, what's actually effective isn't a concern to them. There's a reason companies like Lockheed Martin make sure that their assembly lines are as snarled as possible, so that they can have planes "made in" as many congressional districts as possible, so that congresspeople can then say that they are "bringing jobs to their districts" when they approve it. (Because government only creates jobs when it's with a defense contractor...)
I think these are Hobby books for Japanese weapons enthusiasts, so I'm kind of confused as to who would consider this to be an endorsement for this rifle model.
Most of the time weapons in a Japanese anime book is more "industrial art"* than anything serious as procurement and training.
Jun Tsukasa explained that motive in his artbook "Bullet". Japanese citizens are not allowed to own weapons, so there is that fascination.
I'm kind of curious why prone snipers are shown bracing their shoulders when taking aim instead of using the combat grip or holding the rifle. I would never guess that would help without having ever fired such a powerful weapon myself.
Also, are my eyes fooling me, or is her trigger arm totally detached from her shoulders? If so, that's bad anatomy.
I'm kind of curious why prone snipers are shown bracing their shoulders when taking aim instead of using the combat grip or holding the rifle. I would never guess that would help without having ever fired such a powerful weapon myself.
Also, are my eyes fooling me, or is her trigger arm totally detached from her shoulders? If so, that's bad anatomy.
I'm kind of curious why prone snipers are shown bracing their shoulders when taking aim instead of using the combat grip or holding the rifle. I would never guess that would help without having ever fired such a powerful weapon myself.
When you are shooting long range, a very small tilt of the rifle has a larger difference in where you are aiming (POA, point of aim). Think of an angle. If you move one end of the angles arm close to the vertex you would change the angle greatly vs moving the arm the same distance but further away from the vertex. It allows for much finer aiming which is necessary at long ranges.
Traditionally, snipers are taught to make a fist below the stock and adjust the stock height by opening or closing the fist. To aid in making the fist rigid, a sock can be filled with sand (or ideally seeds, beans or rice, which is lighter and serves as an emergency food source) and squeezed or relaxed to raise or lower the stock.
Some modern rifles now have a monopod on the bottom of the stock with an adjustable bezel that you can rotate to give fine elevation adjustments.
From the picture, it seems she is taking a somewhat high angle shot to where she has to brace her bicep and rest the stock on her wrist to get that angle. Generally adjusting the bipod to have shorter legs is ideal to this position, but you don't always have time to adjust.
NWSiaCB said:
Actually, what's actually effective isn't a concern to them. There's a reason companies like Lockheed Martin make sure that their assembly lines are as snarled as possible, so that they can have planes "made in" as many congressional districts as possible, so that congresspeople can then say that they are "bringing jobs to their districts" when they approve it. (Because government only creates jobs when it's with a defense contractor...)
The spread of manufacturing plants is more of a defensive strategy than anything else. WWII taught us the danger of having dedicated logistical routes such as trains and large military industrial parks as they can be tied up or attacked by insurgency or invasions. One big reason for the rise of truckers vs trains post 9/11 despite trains being more efficient was partially due to the unions, but also because it is harder for a terrorist to kill the "just in time" economy when it is spread out over millions of truck drivers vs just a handful of railroads which can be lined with traps and ambushes when engineers try to repair the infrastructure.
Backroom deals are a problem in the military as some contracts are favored over others due to bribes. This is a problem in all aspects of government, like politicians accepting large sums from unions, foreign countries, and special interests under the guise of "giving speeches" or fundraisers in return for legislative favors back in DC or the state capital. There isn't anyway to stop it other than making sure those we find do pay for their crime, and encouraging competition. I liked that Trump negotiated with Boeing for lower prices so hopefully we can expect similar haggling in the future vs the "take it or leave it" pricing the government normally accepts.
That said, it is important for the military to be spending and building on research and development. Military equipment is like a safety device. Even though it may be usable or not even used in it's lifetime, it is routinely replaced with fresh units because when you do need it, you need to be absolutely sure it will function and is up to date. No one wants to grab a fire extinguisher only to find that it lost pressurization, and likewise no one wants to ride out in a tank which you later realize is not sealed for CBRN agents in the field (NBC for the old guys). I certainly do not like the idea of us selling our weapons to our foreign enemies like Obama, Bush, and Clinton did during their presidencies, but selling equipment to our real allies (example, Japan, Taiwan, Israel, Canada) does make sense in helping them prevent our enemies from expanding, as well as recuperating some of our funds. As far as spending, the military is the most efficient part of the US government. The amount of technology, intelligence, and emergency response that it provides all the time is paid for by a fairly modest sum. For perspective, social programs cost several times the entire military budget and generally only produce more debt.
g3gen said:
I think these are Hobby books for Japanese weapons enthusiasts, so I'm kind of confused as to who would consider this to be an endorsement for this rifle model.
Most of the time weapons in a Japanese anime book is more "industrial art"* than anything serious as procurement and training.
Jun Tsukasa explained that motive in his artbook "Bullet". Japanese citizens are not allowed to own weapons, so there is that fascination.
To clarify, I'm not complaining about the art itself. It just reminded me of a pet peeve about the governments current method of contracting.
Backroom deals are a problem in the military as some contracts are favored over others due to bribes. This is a problem in all aspects of government, like politicians accepting large sums from unions, foreign countries, and special interests under the guise of "giving speeches" or fundraisers in return for legislative favors back in DC or the state capital. There isn't anyway to stop it other than making sure those we find do pay for their crime, and encouraging competition. I liked that Trump negotiated with Boeing for lower prices so hopefully we can expect similar haggling in the future vs the "take it or leave it" pricing the government normally accepts.
I don't understand. The issue there is that we don't want to rely on a foreign based manufacturing especially in an endeavor we are competing with other countries. The article suspects a conspiracy due to a conflict of interests, but it forgets that for anything to happen, the other members of the HASC have to agree.
Which is actually kind of similar to my deal with the MR308. Why be reliant on a foreign made product which is more expensive than one we can produce in country cheaper that better fits our current logistics? If we go to war with that country or that country is otherwise rolled over by another, we are SOL and would have to develop our own anyways. Not that a semi auto rifle is that critical in our inventory, but its the horse's nail kind of situation we want to avoid.
I think corruption in the military is mostly overrated, mainly because there are a lot of goody two shoes who don't hesitate to blow the whistle (luckily) and few would try to do anything. A lot of what I do see labeled as corruption are us citizens looking in from the outside and not understanding what we see. Similar to law enforcement, where the people hear about an outcome and get a knee jerk reaction but they really don't know or understand anything about policing to begin with so they don't realize why A lead to B. Corruption in politics on the other hand is quite rampant mainly because few people get punished for what they do, and to be a politician, you don't have to go through the incubation training that M&P go through where your previous egos are whittled down and rebuilt with discipline for your duty.
Unfortunately it is just a preview pic on the artist twitter
And on the topic of military procurement decisions, I still have no idea why my country decided to be the only country to be using the XM8.
Malaysia probably got a good deal on them since H&K wanted to recuperate their losses on the project. H&K seemed to be really invested in the XM8 integrated with smart grenade launchers early this century which the US military seemed to be wanting based on their Land Warrior project. XM25 CDTE kind of proved the concept ineffective though, due to very low count loadouts, the poor lethality of the 25mm (I mean, 40mm is already pretty weak, 25 is like just a party popper), and the malfunctions. There are still quite a few people though who think that 40mm grenade launchers are the future to replace 60mm mortars since everything is going to "asymmetric warfare" (which really is no different from regular warfare, we just haven't gotten smart enough to realize that PC policing can't win wars compared to short total warfare campaigns) and lighter loadouts.
Grenade launchers are available in most LEA's in the form of "38mm" launchers (which really are essentially the same thing, many 40mm loads are duplicated in 38mm pressures for LE) so I do have a bias for it, but to me I think someone can be a lot more effective with less collateral using a 40mm with direct and indirect fire on a small location than a 60mm can on a half mile wide area. Plus you can carry a heck of a lot more 40mm projectiles vs 60mm so that improves your ability to maintain an indirect suppression. There are always a lot of companies promoting new special purpose 40mm rounds at conventions like Eurosatory too.