Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Lack of larger intermediate cartridges
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="fiscally_irresponsible" data-source="post: 4316144" data-attributes="member: 57557"><p>$4 a round is insane, the lack of infrastructure for these rifles is going to be a problem too. Small scale issue like you were talking about seems like the way to go at least until they can accommodate the XM7 for infantry issue.</p><p></p><p>Additionally (according to Wikipedia so grain of salt) the XM7 bare is 8.38 LBs unloaded and 9.8 LBs loaded. With the bare M4 weighing 6.34 LBs unloaded and 7.4 LBs.</p><p></p><p>Going from 30 round to 20 rounds there is a 7.5%~ increase in weight (5.76 OZs) per loaded mag meaning a 45% increase in weight over 6 mags, which is a common load for 30 round m4 mags for real world infantry from what I have heard. This doesn't even account for the decrease in capacity with 9 mags (equal number of rounds) meaning a 67% increase in weight for loaded magazines.</p><p></p><p>Not sure on the 8X33, even though it is a .22 I think the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer is definitely the way to go for the US military.</p><p></p><p>Frankly 4,600 FPS with a 50 grain projectile is the definition of practical.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]504529[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="fiscally_irresponsible, post: 4316144, member: 57557"] $4 a round is insane, the lack of infrastructure for these rifles is going to be a problem too. Small scale issue like you were talking about seems like the way to go at least until they can accommodate the XM7 for infantry issue. Additionally (according to Wikipedia so grain of salt) the XM7 bare is 8.38 LBs unloaded and 9.8 LBs loaded. With the bare M4 weighing 6.34 LBs unloaded and 7.4 LBs. Going from 30 round to 20 rounds there is a 7.5%~ increase in weight (5.76 OZs) per loaded mag meaning a 45% increase in weight over 6 mags, which is a common load for 30 round m4 mags for real world infantry from what I have heard. This doesn't even account for the decrease in capacity with 9 mags (equal number of rounds) meaning a 67% increase in weight for loaded magazines. Not sure on the 8X33, even though it is a .22 I think the .22 Eargesplitten Loudenboomer is definitely the way to go for the US military. Frankly 4,600 FPS with a 50 grain projectile is the definition of practical. [ATTACH type="full" alt="Eargesplitten Loudenboomer.jpg"]504529[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Firearms Chat
Lack of larger intermediate cartridges
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom