Comments on: Barrett REC7 – M468 – Future Assault Rifle

By: Realist

Realist — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:18:49 +0000

Please ppl i have seen 4 comments worth reading… the rest is bullshit, .223 came into large scale use after WW2, a conflict in which large caliber wpns were used, military and wpn designers alike recognised that the days of individual .303 and .338 wpns were over hence the .223.
ppl that are paid more than anyone in this stupid forum had good reason to transition to .223 and confine use of hvy calibers to specific uses. big deal if terry taliban uses .338… if youd take the time to notice then you would see that he lives in a squalid pile of shit for a country, wishing the world regressed to the middle ages so that he could fight with his family fucking sword. idiots…. i’ll shoot you with .223 and then we will see just how well you are stopped by its QUOTE lack of stopping power!

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 19:08:43 +0000

Martime Ammunition can be a complex concept.

Many other things are taken into account; not just velocity, stopping power, and trajectory. The 5.56 round was created with the whole picture in mind. Accepting its flaws, which it undoubtedly has, the 5.56 round is a great, and thoroughly thought through ammunition. It was made to kill, but also to wound. The thought was, it takes more resources to take care of the wounded than it does the dead. The fact is that one wounded man is more immediately expensive than a dead one. So with this taken into account, the 5.56 round is a very acceptable, multifaceted round. The problem is, at the moment the majority of our battles don’t benefit from wounding the enemy, seeing as they already have practically zero resources. So maybe a new projectile technology is in need. It would be cool to see a sabbot >6mm round with a higher grain. The plug/fin addition to the round could allow it to create a bigger cavity while attaining good flight path. But it would also be cool to see robocops with miniguns.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:11:33 +0000

7.62×51***

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 20:09:10 +0000

Dan Said,
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 – Stopped reading

For gods sake.
I’l shoot you with the .223 round and we’l see how lacking in serious damage it is.

Also, .223 rounds are known to ‘tumble’, meaning they actually put quite a large hole inside the target, not so much an entry wound, but internal damage is a lot higher.

Also… Dan went on to talk about the AK-47 using the 7.62 cal. round… which is simply not true.
Idiot.

Sick of these retards popping up on the net all over the place.

By: Dylan

Dylan — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:45:58 +0000

I am 16 years old and I do play video games but I play games then research the guns on these games myself. That being said I understand that unlike a video game more things matter than their narrow views. Like someone stated earlier the wait of these heavier rounds calls for a heavier gun but rounds like the 5.56 mm do not hit hard enough. Therefore I will support a gun with 6.8 mm rounds this being a good compromise.

By: david

david — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:43:44 +0000

How reliable is the m468? is it the same as the other ar-15′s?

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 24 May 2011 14:21:44 +0000

when you talk about a new Battle rifile it will come down to one factor . logistics ……..

By: devil

devil — Tue, 17 May 2011 17:11:54 +0000

after reading this debate of the three rounds , i still feel it’s more important that i shoot once & get the enemy down rather than shoot him a zillion times & miss. Thus, it’s important to note that accuracy is always a major priority than stopping power. i’d rather hit the head once than the chest thrice. also i think that after the fn p90 was brought out it would be better of than any assault rifle in today’s scenario of combat. also i still feel the round is’nt the only thing one should consider the rifle matters equally .

By: goose

goose — Mon, 09 May 2011 16:27:38 +0000

you guys are lame, dragon skin can not take a hit from a .50 cal, the damn thing goes over the speed of sound, newbs.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 04 May 2011 05:50:24 +0000

I really dont know that much about guns and I dont know if they allready do this but do you think they could use 5.56 rounds for use in smg’s and instead use a different type of bullet for assault rifles please dont judge if I said something stupid just making a blind suggsestion

By: Estavan Cruz

Estavan Cruz — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:45:16 +0000

It all boils down to this…..What do you want the rifle to do for you? Do you need stopping power for close assault? Do you need a lot of rounds downtown with extended time on target? Are you on a mission where weight is a factor? Personally, being a US Army combat veteran with m16a2 experience I have to say the rifle never let me down once. I pumped a few thousand rounds through the platform and it pretty much did what they told me it would do. However, now that I am an old fart who likes to shoot, and is concerned with home defense my requirements have changed. I want something that will stop my enemy from killing me or harming my family, and as an added bonus keeping the ammunition cost down. 6.8mm are about $1 a shot right now new in the box, 223 is about 30 cents. But, how much is your life worth? I listened to what the SF guys said about the 6.8mm and trust they know what the F they are talking about. Accuracy, keeping a good sight picture/back on target time is good with a lot of the new rifles with better recoil systems at the 6.8mm. I know I can kill with a 5.56, and I am positive a 6.8mm would be a step up. I fired this at the rangea month back and have to say it is all that and a bag of cookies. I am going to own one because I know it will fulfill my needs/wants. I am pretty sure you would agree if you went and shot one at the gun store/range. And, besides being a solid platform with plenty of room for tactical additions, it looks really really tough, and that alone makes me shoot better lol. I shot the para ttr as well-nice for 223. pros and cons with any rifle, so you have to decide what you can live with-scar has stock that doesn’t stay where it is supposed to unless fully extended, para ttr stock is the best, and the rec 7 stock seemed solid to me. I am leaning toward the rec 7, and part of the decision is knowing that a good manufacturer will stand behind the product like Barret does. Now, can we just get the price down on the ammo I want to pop off a few hundred rounds without bankrupting me.

By: Callmebigpapa

Callmebigpapa — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:23:19 +0000

They should make a gun like the m82, a gun with extreme recoil control. For a 50 cal you can barely feel the m82′s recoil.

By: Bugks

Bugks — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:24:38 +0000

First, there are a lot of good comments here…and a lot of misconceptions as well. The absolute primary issue with a combat weapon is reliability. It has to work in poor conditions. Any rifle that fails to operate in the field is nothing more than a club, and a very unhandy one at that.

Every trained soldier, whose life depends on his weapon, knows that cleaning, maintaining, and repairing your weapon is the ABSOLUTE highest priority in a combat zone. Soldiers whose lives depend on a weapon firing when they pull the trigger know this, and take far,far better care of thier weapons than they do of anything else. Far better.

The next priority is that you have ammunition to use in that weapon. Again and empty weapon is a club. If you run out of ammunnition in a fire fight, your chances of survival are almost zero. If you for one second think your going to get extra ammunition from me after you wasted yours…

Third is accuracy. Hitting what you fire at is the very best way to survive combat situations. Nothing can take the fight out of an enemy as fast as accurate rifle fire. Period. No matter if the bullet goes through and through, doesn’t “instantly” knock them down or make them dead. There are many, many soldiers that have been wounded by weapons far larger than 7.62mm and kept right on fighting without missing a beat. Shot placement is tremendously more important than that of the bullet caliber. Bullets than instantly incapacitate are well aimed shots to vital areas of the target. everything else is a fantasy.

On that note, wounding the enemy better than killing the enemy? Well, it takes about 18 years to grow a soldier, at least another 2 years to train one to a high level of competency, and a wounded soldier will most likely return to combat smarter and meaner. A dead one stays dead.

By: Rob

Rob — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:45:42 +0000

Consider the slightly increased weight of the weapon, in addition to an improved stock buffering system and recoil of the new Barrett AR is no worse than the current M4.

By: DeltaStrikeOp

DeltaStrikeOp — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 04:43:28 +0000

Ok you teen FPS players, let me tell you this, in your virtual world, how come you never have to dial in your sights? How come your video games allegedly report that a AKS-74U is the best rifle? Don’t you people know that virtual and reality are different? Consider this, in a popular multiplayer game called “Combat Arms”, the G36 is arguably the best rifle. I thought you guys said that 5.56 sucks! Well, the G36 uses a 5.56 cartridge, so what now? Ok, here are the facts. The 6.8 mm SPC round that the REC 7 (formerly known as the M468) has a 50% more stopping power and longer effective range at a lower velocity than a standard .223 (5.56 mm NATO) but 1.5 times the kinetic energy. Now, if you are sane, you probably know about the “everything has a pro and a con” saying. The trade off is that there is more recoil and more weight for each round. You people haven’t seen a 5.56 in action. I have fired a 5.56 jacketed round into ballistics gel before, and the entry and damage paths are different. There is like a “video game” damage that you wouldn’t believe. The damage is like if i took out a piece of barbed steel 2 inches by 6 inches long out of you. You kids haven’t been to the battlefield. I’ve been in the Marines, using anything they give me to neutralize threats. I participated in Operation Anaconda. I’ve seen the damage of the .223. The US has thought this out! Video games make weapons you never heard of so powerful and so accurate, where’s Murphy’s Law? The AKS-74U is ment as a PDW (Personal Defense Weapon), but Ive seen people in CoD that run around with it as if it were god’s right hand. It’s a PDW! It’s inaccurate! The G36 has a sight that can’t be dialed in, but Ive seen people use it as an DMR! Seriously? Ive been in multiplayer games where im criticized for having a M16 or an M4. Personally speaking, Ive used these weapons before and I love them. I end up defeating those losers who carry around FAMAS and Steyer AUGs. I am a Glock lover, and Ive beaten those online players who have weapons that are insane in SWaP index (Size, Weight, and Power). Seriously? Personally speaking, if it were in the real world, trust me, you’ll take a AR-15 type weapon over those cheap, communist AKs.
This is dedicated to all those US servicemen and servicewomen who dedicate their lives everyday defending liberty.

By: 2kewl

2kewl — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 07:06:04 +0000

I hate how everyone just assumes the 5.56 is a week cartridge that just isn’t enough to kill somone. It really doesn’t make a difference if they adopt a slightly larger cartridge unless it’s cheaper or more accurate or something, stopping power isnt a factor. The 5.56 has very low recoil and is very accurate. The army uses jacketed bullets so caliber would only make wounds microscopically more damaging. The army should just use lead bullets, a 5.56 would be able to take a leg off easily. I know the call of duty kids will say “you can’t shoot through things with it” but that doesn’t matter. You aren’t allowed to shoot through things in the army anyways. It would also not pass through things easy and cut down on civilian casualties

By: simon stannard

simon stannard — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:54:11 +0000

Yeah sorry didnt read other comments, all saying the same…:)

By: simon stannard

simon stannard — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:46:13 +0000

Totaly agree with above,well said!! When in the Theater of war surly knock down /stopping power is not so important, yes of course in CQC differant ball game! but to be honest close quearter combat happens what 2 % of the time? if that! its not like in the movies when the hero takes a bullet and carrys on fighting.
once a man is hit even a flesh wound on the hand its
“game over” then your using up resourses I.e man power,medics, Evac procedures,helicopters (more opertunintiy for the enemy)…or vise-virsa if your fighting Guerrilla /terroist they’ll have to look after there man,carry him away.the old classic tactics ( shit on your spears) ))))
Is there a argument for less knock down power, more accurancy …

By: Guest22

Guest22 — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:21:41 +0000

Alright, so people are saying how the 5.56 isn’t an effective round… it is. This 6.8 round is still a very big round that will be sure to give some recoil. I would question it’s accuracy. Also we don’t really need any stopping power weapons if you think about it. There probably will not be any wars that we will fight where the opposition makes body armor standard. Wars are now fighting terrorists that dont have body armor. The 5.56 does a great job with hitting people that arent protected with body armor. Why? Because upon impact the round will stay in the body causing lead poisoning and blood loss. But this 6.8 round could come in handy… for instance maybe in light machine guns?
PS: hahahaha im reading all these kids’ comments on how they are so little and know so much… i think it’s COD that makes them want to look up this stuff. hahahahaha

By: Chuck (15)

Chuck (15) — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:02:16 +0000

You see gentlemen, my intelligence knows absolutely no bounds. Think outside the box, the 0.625 in (15.9 mm) lead ball fired by a baker rifle is already proven to disintergrate entire armies. Yes, it is 9lb (4 kg’s) but this weapon already tested on the field for remarkable accuracy is the future of modern warfare… 3…

By: lcpl nash

lcpl nash — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 19:28:38 +0000

the 7.62 is not a good idea to put in a assualt rifle most wars are now fought in an urban enviroment and one problem with having a massive round is that there is a high chance of the round traveling straight through the target and hitting a civilian as the round travels through the target. a smaller calibre round has less chance of this hapening and th 5.56 is very dangerous at close range as te round cartwheels inside the target becasuse the front of the round slows down and the back maintains its speed causing the round to spin and inflict mass trauma inside whatever it has hit.

another problem with larger rounds is weight soliders have to carry body armour, rations, first aid equipment, personal role radioes, the weapon itself, spare clothing, and any other equipment they may need for a patrol if you have a big round it will be heavier and carried in lesser quatnies and the solider will becom tired more easily and will lose combat effectiveness increasing the chance of the solider getting hurt/killed a smaller roundis lighter can be carried in bulk and makes the logistical part of a war much easier.

By: Tully

Tully — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:40:49 +0000

I am a fifteen year old weapons genius, and from the things i’m hearing about the 6.8spc round, this could be our answer to our military’s problem in close-range firefights facing arabs with akms and aks-74o firing the 7.62×39 and 5.45×39 and not having a solid round. But, as with the 6 mm pdw round, people take what they hear about certain weapons systems, and accept it as fact. While the spc may seem like a “miracle weapon”, the facts have been blown up, and while mack on the military channel may say that this is an excellent all-around weapon, it all comes down to the fact that this weapon was designed for high-risk client protection, inferring a weapon designed for a fairly close range-inside of 100 yards, and inside of that range, I think they would have better luck with an AA-12, or even a heavier, more cumbersome USAS-12 loaded with grenade rounds.
And, lets face it, if you are in a squad of guys carrying m-16, what are you going to do for ammo? and since the 6.8 is a larger round, you wil de using more space to carry less ammo.

By: walter

walter — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:26:15 +0000

What about using the bridish em-2 round (7 mm Mk1Z (7x43mm))? It was effect to 700m, could be controled with one hand in auto fire, when fired from an en-2 rifle.

By: black knight

black knight — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:23:14 +0000

the m468 is great assault rilfe, the 6.8 special purpose cartiridge is alright.
But the engineers of barret firearms should redesign m468 to carry 7.62×39
to enhance the stopping power of the rifle because are military is fighting
terrorists carrying body armor and shooting ak 47s[a popular assault rifle in
the middle east and around the world] killing are troops.the u.s special ops
commandos are complaining that the 5.56 round ani’t up to the job.

By: kaz

kaz — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:53:08 +0000

To be honest, this is all catch-up to what we could’ve had in 1951 with the EM-2. While it’s nice and all that we’re finally trying to fix the mistakes of the past, we *did* dick up ordnance quite a bit already.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:00:05 +0000

The REC7 is a fantastic weapon, and the fact that is uses and short stroke rod system over direct impingement is a bonus in that the weapon is less likely to jam due to debris build up. The 6.8x43mm cartridge also delivers enough stoppping power to drop a target at a considerable distance, but all this talk about range is completely dependant on the barrel, the length of which has a pretty heavy influence on how far the round will go. A new weapon that looks pretty good is the Magpul Masada, or the ACR, which is completely customizable, from cartridge, to barrel, to stock, the rifle is completely adaptable. Also, an adavantage of the REC7 (M468) is that it is a weapons platform, not just a weapon, so it can function as either a CQB rifle or a marksman’s rifle, basically either an M4 or M16, but on the same platform.
If you love guns and want to talk more, my email is:
sharps76@hotmail.com

By: jack

jack — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:18:57 +0000

i think that if this new design were to incorperate the “floating barrel” design then perhaps it could solve the recoil problems. or maybe a bulpup design with a foregrip would help. but i think personally that if a design with a padded spring design in the stock, and a compensator could keep the barrel from drifting up. and instead recoiling straight back into the spring system.

By: Guest79

Guest79 — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:27:55 +0000

Seems to me people have forgotten what an assualt rifle is. Accurate enough for man size targets out to approximately 300 meters, semi & full auto capability, large capacity magazine, plus shorter & lighter than full size battle rifles(i.e. M14, M1 Garand, etc.). The AK is a weapon for ignorant masses. On the other hand our rifles are meant for aiming and hitting at all ranges just as Marines are taught. I like the 6.8 Rem and believe it is the best bet for an assualt carbine.

By: GunPro

GunPro — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:50:16 +0000

The Ak-47 is said to be one of the best assault rifles invented, firing a 7.62x39mm cartridge, while the M-16 is said to be one of the WORST assault rifles, the pathetic thing capable of only firing a 5.56x45mm cartridge.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:52:22 +0000

A lot of idiots talking about guns. That of which they learn from video games. I might not deal with guns every day but at least I go shooting, and have the patience to read. No 50. cal. rounds are anti-vehicle. Light armor to be exact. If it can go through the side of an armored jeep, it’ll go through something you throw on your chest. And to this, and other replies, I’m happy with the tech we have available, yet pissed that nothing seems to be happening. I’ve seen several weapons and modifications (or at least guns that can be taken apart and thrown onto others) that companies like Barrett create, and in-all, fit what we need perfectly. I understand the struggle in switching weapons out in mid-war times, but as for changing the receiver… that is something you can have your troops due when they’re sitting in their barracks. Hell, there are several SpecOp geared guns that “come with” separate receivers so you can swap out in battle. We can keep our M4′s and swap out parts or go “hell, time to change scenery” and change the weapon itself. With M16 style guns a big issue is them NOT having Gas Piston, which is a main source of the clogging. Switch that, and optionally, switch the receiver so you can fire a different round. Now i’m mainly saying if we just modify what we have, probably being cheaper and easier to do now, versus worrying about changing guns that are going to be almost the same as after we mod our guns… is that it’s such an easy solution. I mean, it’s great to have variety, like Barrett, but as for Current-Time… we simply need to change the gas piston, which to my knowledge is a swap of the upper-receiver?