Apparently, the M4 Carbine or the M16 aren’t good enough for the grunts on the field. This isn’t really a new revelation either. Let’s face it, since day 1 of the adoption of the M16 during Vietnam, the M16 hasn’t exactly been everyone’s favorite assualt rifle. In fact, it has been regarded by some as a killer of US troops, leaving them stuck in firefights without effective stopping power and jammed rounds. Never fear though young GIs and military buffs, the civilian weapons manufacturing sector is listening. Barrett Firearm’s answer? Let’s give them what they want.
Greater range, 50% increased stopping power, ability to fit into the current modular makeup of existing M16 component parts. Basically, Barrett knows how to get an invention considered by a buyer. Hearing the voice of the GI, military procurement officers sit around and think, “What can I do about this problem, and is it going to cost me an arm and a leg?” These posed questions are answered in the design of the Barrett REC7 assault rifle. This rifle hasn’t reached operational status yet, but Barrett firearms took into consideration some key aspects of rifle design and selling points with the development of this rifle (conveniently mentioned in the opening sentence of this paragraph). All key aspects overlooked by other ambitious projects with the aim to replace the M16. Rifles such as the OICW and the Heckler and Koch XM-8 are examples of attempts to completely redesign the rifle, which also come packaged with enormous costs and long-run expenses for spare parts.
Barrett said, “Hey, I can make a rifle that is built on existing parts already used in the M4 and M16, and deliver the results the military wants.” Now, we can only wait and see if this bad boy will ultimately be chosen as the next generation rifle for the armed forces, but until then, we can watch Mack talk about the Barrett REC7 assault rifle and demonstrate it’s superb capabilities. Enjoy.
38 Responses
can dragon skin body armor take a hit from a 50 cal bullet?
Posted on June 12th, 2008 at 12:55 am
I think is a great idea about increasing the fire power of the m-4. However, Keep in mind the more stoping power the higher the recoil. Would they be working on both?
or just the stoping power? I just think by working on both the by product would be a perfect military weapon.
Posted on June 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
im only 14 but iv always had a intrist in desining wepons and i would like to be able to do it when i grow up but i dont know the names of any companys that do weapon desining could you people give me some ideas.
Posted on June 21st, 2008 at 4:07 am
I think that M4s and M16s and any other 5.56mm weapons don’t have enough firepower. What we need now is a cartridge that has both high power and little recoil. The 6.8 SPC is a good cartridge to fulffil that wish. By the way I’m only 12 and I know alot about weapons!
Posted on July 31st, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Man, i don’t know much about weapons, but this one looks awsome !
Posted on August 19th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
im 15 and i know quite abit about guns know to many names of them but this is new to me
theres quite a few companies who make guns including H&K who have made the g36 g36c
mp5 mp7 well lets just same they mainly make g36 and the mp weapons
Posted on August 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
No offense, but just because you play Call of Duty 4 alot doesn’t make you knowledgeable in guns and weapons.
Posted on September 27th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
i agree, 5.56 rounds can be deflected by dense foliage etc. I think the FN 5.7mm round should be considered for the next gen of assault rifles.
Posted on September 28th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The Barrett M468 is indeed a formidiable weapon.After watching the weapon being demonstrated on Future Weapons,I am indeed impressed.Once it got past the military inspectors and testers,which is a very hard bunch to satisfy,it would then be a welcomed addition to any military or law enforcement arsenal.But when you talk about the Barrett M468,I always think of another weapon that is a tight contenter and that is the HK416.I call this H&K the west version of the AK-47 and/or AK-74.Because the HK416 combines western sophistication and precision of design with durabilty and maybe the impossible occurance of a weapon malfunction.Of course,lets not forget Murphy’s Law.But the German designers of the HK416 have a way of beaten Murphy’s Law.The Barrett M468 and HK 416 are two very magnificient examples of modern weapons technology.
Posted on October 7th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Im in the military and to be honest the M4 is not a bad weapon yes it does not ahve the knock down power we want and i do agree we need a better rifle. The accuracy of our weapons today are amazing considering how short and compact they have made them, and the conditions we put them through. One thing that does need to be resolved is that most of our weapons are gas operated. When we shot they not only get carbon build up on the bolt but also dust and other contaminants. If they can resolve that then teh m4 would be great.
Posted on October 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I like the Barrett 468, and yes Mr, e, they did take the recoil into account.
Posted on October 18th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
My god, some of your comments are really amusing. Especially the first few. Aaanyway, the biggest issue with 5.56 rounds is that they simply do NOT have the stopping power. I was in New Zealand Army infantry, using the steyr AUG, and it simply was too small to do any serious damage. Many a time i wished i had something of at least 7.62 cal. Considering the 7.62 is available pretty much worldwide, and that it is the favoured round of terrorists and anyone with an AK (which just so happens to be the most successful assault rifle in history) then you’d want to be hitting back with at least the same calibre, if not greater.
in vietnam, GI’s were shooting 5.56 rounds that simply went through the enemy, didn’t knock them down straight away, which gave them the opportunity to shoot back with much gruntier 7.62’s. That’ll put a decent sized hole in you. The 5.56 just wont.
Weapons platforms of today should definitely take into account recoil reduction, accuracy, simple and quick modification, and reliability. How great would it be if you could have a lightweight rifle that you can use for close quarters, then modify within seconds to drop a target out at, say, 6-700 yards? I’d buy one in a heartbeat
Posted on November 5th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
your all fuckin pussys and need to go to hell and you can eat my ass hole!
Posted on November 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Why don’t we just implement the SCAR-H as the new replacement for the m16? It uses 7.62mm rounds, is deadly accurate from long range. Effective range is about 875 yards or 800 meters. Cyclic rate of fire is 550 rounds per minute. Slow, but for a rifle chambering 7.62, with the power of the SCAR (the bullet velocity is about 1600 Joules, compared to the M4’s 1300). Plus the SCAR is about 100 times less likely to jam than the m16. They are designed with a 90 000 round system service life! Some people don’t like the way the SCAR-H looks, but personally I don’t understand why not. It’s like an M16, only bulked up - bigger frame, more customization options, stronger build. The upper receiver is aluminum and the lower receiver has an extendable side-folding stock that can be adjusted in length to account for the size of the operator. Personally I pray that the US Army comes to its senses and adopts the SCAR-H or SCAR-L (the carbine version) as a replacement for the M16/M4 - it’s long overdue. The world will fear us again, just like the good old days!
Posted on December 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Seems there is a lot of interest in the 6.8 SPC. Can anyone tell me, is that just because it gives 50 per cent more stopping power than a proven pipsqueak, or is it because it really is big enough to do the job?
Posted on January 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
what is the type of the scope that he used?,,,,,
Posted on January 6th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
All this is very good and well. Research into new firearms is good, but there will need to be a lot more than a Discovery channel documentation for the upper receiver before it can be considered a replacement. The 6.7mm is a round with potential, but the added cost of the upper receiver may be too great to make it widely available for the military. The receiver alone is over $1000.
Will be keeping in touch with this upper receiver to see where it goes.
By the way. since it seems to be a serious misspelling… “a lot” is how you spell it, not “alot”.
Posted on January 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
it’s a good idea but needs to be improved a bit more
Posted on January 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I like the m468 but I like the SCAR-H because of the heavy round. and the current M16 and M4 just don’t pack a punch. I also have to say the same thing about the current M9. The military needs to goo back to bigger and heavier rounds Like the 7.62 and the .45cal
Posted on February 3rd, 2009 at 1:15 am
well guys, a lot of things come in to play when considering the next gen weapon for the warfighter. One of the things is, “how many rounds can i carry with me”. While the 7.62 has awesome stopping power, it is heavier than the smaller 5.56. The warfighter can simply carry more 5.56 rounds around than the 7.62. I think the 6.8 is a good compromise all things considered. this is a brilliant design for a rifle. It gets the job done without reinventing the wheel and costing a lot. hopefully the US will adopt this. Another thing to consider is the ability to reload your weapon with one hand instead of two (like the current m4). In anycase that’s my 2 cents.
Posted on February 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Its a pretty awesome weapon, it still needs modifications cuz it is still as heavy as a sub man pad
Posted on February 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Actually, I was reading about the AK-108 has Balanced Automatic Recoil System (BARS) which allows for burst-fire or full auto without huge compensation of recoil depending upon situation and range.
.
If the REC7 (formerly know as M468) uses the 7.62 round with this system, it may be formidable and future warfare legendary.
My view is, you need every shot count and 5.56 doesn’t have the power to put someone dead in their tracks. You may carry less rounds but at least your more effective in the open fields or close quarter battle/combat. The most important is accuracy at great distance when moving house to house.
Posted on February 18th, 2009 at 1:33 am
im only 13 but i no alot about guns. im more of a sniper rifle person but it looks like this gun hits like a m-200
Posted on February 24th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
okay basically all you 13 and 14 year olds who say you know alot about guns can stop talking. There isn’t the matter of just recoil and firepower involved but the internal parts of the weapon. If you make a gun with a higher caliber then it needs to be able to with stand it. The barrel has to be larger and the material needs to be stronger. Also the bigger the round and adding strenght to weapons means heavier rifles. The 5.56 wasn’t meant to put someone dead with one shot but to take them out of the fight. If you are a trained shooter and can hit your target then a 5.56 can kill someone with one shot but it can also be used to shoot someone in a leg or and arm to wound them not kill them. If you want weapons for killing the make another rifle like the Ak-47 and/or Ak-74. Accuracy is another problem to because the heavier and bigger round you have means less distance so if your fighting long range then its not going to go as far and is going to be moving at a slower speed common scence. The military should make a gun that has good strenght, weight, mobilit, fire power, and strenght but its not easy as coloring a picture.
Posted on March 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
sh just because im 13 dusnt mean im dumb i may not no as much as most people on this but i do know alot about the guns i choose research. i was born into a military family so i understand what a trained shooter can do.
Posted on March 25th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I am Licensed Electronics Engineer with National Certificate in Mechatronics and Instrumnentation Level II. I need some in my designing in future weapons to kill bad guys and rebels. I am in a middle of something. I need help.
please e mail me here: ericjohnquinto@yahoo.com
Posted on March 27th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I am Licensed Electronics Engineer with National Certificate in Mechatronics and Instrumentation Level II. I need some help in designing the future weapons to kill bad guys and rebels. I am in a middle of something. I need your help.
please e mail me here: ericjohnquinto@yahoo.com
Posted on March 27th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I was In Viet Nam and the 15 or m 16 neather were my choice .Yes it was light that is good.But not a good weapon because it alwase had to be clean and that is still its down fall.
Posted on April 4th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Elec Engineer, Are u sure u are not a terrorist designing weapons? lol anyway there is no perfect weapon. the only perfect weapon is a smart weapon that can identify hostility and civilians. and shoot the bad guys with it. lol. dun think tat weapon will ever be made. good luck
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 3:34 am
yep
Posted on May 8th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Ya know guys…I have seen only a few good points on this entire page. Most notably, tewkewl, with your “how many rounds can I carry with me” comment. Lets not forget that the reason Eugene Stoner’s AR-15 was adopted by the military in the first place was for exactly that reason. The previous battle rifles, such as the M1 Garand (30-06) and M14 (7.62mm) had the stopping power, but the ammo weighed so much that it made it’s operational effectiveness diminish. This is why Mr. Stoner’s AR-15 was adopted by the US Air Force initially, and then the rest of the US Armed Forces later; thereby dubbed the renoun M-16. If a GI can carry 80 rds of 30-06 or 150rds of 7.62mm or 300rds of 5.56mm with the same burden, which one is better? I will give you the answer in the next paragraph.
Well, in a combat senario, operational logistics have much more to do with a win / loss than stopping power. Look at it this way. A dead soldier is a dead soldier! At this point all you need is a pine box and a flag. BUT…a wounded soldier causes much more resources to be used. For instance, if you shoot a enemy with a 30-06 and kill him with your first shot, game over. Done deal. On the other hand if you hit an enemy with a 5.56mm (.223cal, M4) he is severely wounded. Which requires a medic to stabilize this victim, which can easily be shot in the process. Then, a medivac via helicopter or ACP, which can be damaged or destroyed in the process. After this, the troop will be taken to a field hospital where they must be cared for by highly trained, highly paid mil doctors and nurses.
Look at the amount of resources that must be poured into the survival of that one troop. THESE ARE THE TACTICS THAT WIN WARS. Hit the enemy in the pocket book! Depletion of the enemy’s resources is the end all be all of all warfare, ancient and modern. Take a step back and soak in reality. Besides, if I were to shoot you with my AR-15 Bushmaster ANYWHERE on your body, you would not be fighting anymore. I also own an AK-47. Which is a very good gun in many areas. But, it’s accuracy is a joke. So, I would rather have 5 rounds in my AR than a 100 round drum mag in my AK.
Posted on May 8th, 2009 at 5:42 am
The Barret M468 or REC7 will be a great rifle to replace the M16 it has many of the same parts as an M16 which would mean lower costs and its 6.68 caliber is much more deadly and the best part is the M468 doesnt lose the accuracy of the M16.
I really dont get though why everyone rips on the effectiveness of the M16 compared to the Ak-47 because in my point of view i would rather bring a more accurate rifle than powerful rifle to a gunfight and that is why the M468 would be a great replacement for the M16 it is accurate as well as powerful.
Posted on May 13th, 2009 at 1:05 am
M468 Looks great. However with any higher calibre round, there are things to consider. Weight, the round is bigger and heavier so a troop cannot physically carry the same number of rounds as 5.56. The question is, does the increased stopping power of the 6.8SPC make up for the lower amount of ammunition that can be carried? Also, whilst “one shot - one kill” is a good idea, If any of you youngsters are familiar with infantry tactics this doesn’t really happen. However I wouldn’t mind betting that the 468 wins the tender for next gen rifle, The current administration is looking to cost contain and the interoperability is a great selling point! I wouldn’t mind one, the Steyr is a piece of sh*#!
Posted on May 25th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Sigmund, Get off that sales speech that was trotted out to rationalize the short comings of the 5.56. That “theory” is shot to hell w/the basic reality of our opponents logistics. They don’t the economy to provide means to finance a medical infrastructure like we do. Which that myth assumes. Consequently wounded have to be left on the field to fend for themselves. Thats a very very dangerous situation for our side. A little critical thinking here, Q. Whats the object of the task at hand when you go to war ? answer: To kill the other guys.
Some more reality here,,,the M-16 is/was the right expieriment that identified the proper make of frame for a assault weapon. I think it’s obvious to all that the war clubs dragged into WW2 was a case of using a tank to kill a fly. So now it comes down to a much closer resolution to the right size weapon to kill a man. The next question is, Is the 5.56 just a little to small and was it the right vector to bring us to smaller framed rifle ? The answer is, yes to both.
Now the 6.8,,,Unfortunately the answer will come from our boys in the field. Lets listen to them, not to the idiots in the upper echolon who have left the military to become lobbists for a defense contarctor. Remember Pres. Einsenhowers warning about that.
SSGT Bulldog Wayne
Posted on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Correction for the third sentence of my reply to Sigmund,,,
They don’t have the economy to provide the means to finance a medical infrastructure like we
do.
Posted on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
the efficiency of the 6.8 round is quite amazing to be honest. its all well saying that the 7.62 is more kill worthy than the combat 5.56 but you’ve got to remember where each of these rounds is best applied. the 7.62 belongs in a semi auto sniper rifle for squad support like the navy seals m14ebr for example.
While the 5.56 uses its rate of fire and pin point precision for unloading a burst into the guy round your next corner in a city fight environment.
The 6.8 is best used in an open 500-700 yard environment where you can employ your superior range and accuracy over the enemies 7.62 combat rifles. it is also efficient for taking enemies out behind light cover such as shown with the car doors. this combined with its accuracy makes it useful in taking out mobile enemies mounted in vehicles etc. without having to carry an overly heavy rifle such as a 7.62 or .50.
overall you equip your GI’s with the weapon best suited to the current war zone environment which the 5.56 is insufficient due to lack of stopping power and the 7.62 having a lack of rate of fire and its annoyingly cumbersome weight.
Posted on June 11th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all but there seems to B 3 things everyone has missed. The 5.56 MUST be replace. Why? Because it simply will not penetrate the new body armor of our enemies. Nuff said.
Is the 6.8mm the best replacement? I don’t know, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. It seems to be a good compromise between power and ammo weight. And take it from an old grunt that has humped the M-60 MG, the M-14, and the M-16; weapon and ammo weight both count a lot!
Now for the weapon. The M16/M4 is, and always was, a POS. Primarily because of the gas system. The bolt carrier/lock-up system has some problems too but the gas system is the biggest problem. If the M468 is essentially an up calibered M16/M-4, it too will be a POS. A better bullet doesn’t matter if the gun won’t fire when you need it, so reliability is FAR more important than either accuracy or bullet ballistics. I hope I am wrong about the gas system of the M468 but from looking at the pictures available in the article and online, the gas system appears essentially identical to the M16. Sorry Barrett, but the truth is the truth. Fun to shoot on a clean range but a failure in combat.
Take a look at the following film clips on the LWRC weapon using the 6.8mm ammo or the HK 416. Both have re-engineered the M4 to have a short-stroke gas piston system similar to the M-14, which has proven reliable in any and all environments. I think the following clips will speak for themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM1SntQ7s7k&feature=related .
Also check out this video clip on the Heckler & Koch’s HK416.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpZryZEiY4&feature=related
Only if the Barrett M468 can match the reliability of the HK and the LWRC should it be considered as a replacement for the M4.
Posted on June 14th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I am not going to get down on the kids for taking an interest in firearms, but don’t claim to be experts or “knowledgeable” on anything other than elementary science or mathematics you just learned last week in middle school. Even you older guys; you can’t comment on the “knock down power” of the 5.56 round. If any of you doubt the power of the 5.56 to kill or maim, let me send you some pictures or just talk to any combat medic. Unless you have been in the military and actually seen some combat, don’t claim to have this experience.
The 5.56 round WILL take off limbs and will kill with one shot. It shoots significantly flatter, further and faster than the heavier rounds… easily. The only drawback and the ONLY time it has been ineffective is against combatants on narcotics without a center-of-mass shot. The .223 round (or 5.56 metric if you prefer) was originally developed for the military as a lightweight, high-velocity round for the next 50 years. The AR-18/AR-15/M16 barrel first had a 1:14 twist, making the round very, very unstable and would cause the bullet to tumble upon impact causing horrific wounds. (meaning 1 full twist every 14 inches of barrel. The more of a twist the more the round spins making it more stable) Then it was reduced to a 1:12 twist for official military trials with the U.S. Air Force Security Forces for perimeter guarding to make the rifle more accurate, but when tested in colder, denser air in Alaska the round started to wander past 400m. Therefore, the barrel twist was further reduced to a 1:9 and eventually a 1:7 as you see it today.
The M16/M4 platform originally developed by Eugene Stoner was and is still a very reliable and accurate firearm and is well-liked by most troops that carry it. The only design feature that continues to confuse me is the gas blowback system vs. a short stroke gas piston recoil/reload system. I still have no idea why the entire military has not adapted systems such as Bushmaster’s short stroke gas piston which can convert every existing upper into a new gas piston recoil; and thereafter only producing that configuration. Having such a system greatly reduces the amount of carbon buildup in the bolt carrier assembly from discharge, reducing jamming, misfeeds, and cleaning.
Again, unless you have operational knowledge of these weapons and rounds, do not claim to be an expert on how it does or does not kill a target. Now, there is nothing wrong with knowing facts about firearms, but there is a different between first hand experience and claiming to have the right to comment on its effects. In an ideal world, the military should switch to a 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC on a Magpul Masada, SCAR, or XM8 platform with a short stroke gas piston. Enough said.
Posted on June 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Add A Comment