Comments on: Barrett REC7 – M468 – Future Assault Rifle

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: 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 7.62×39mm cartridge, while the M-16 is said to be one of the WORST assault rifles, the pathetic thing capable of only firing a 5.56×45mm 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?

By: Bell

Bell — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:03:53 +0000

the 6.8 is the more perfect round. The 5.56 is fast, but like many people say, it does not drop the target, especially when you get into the more penetrating versions. Cuts right through you and you don’t get that tumble effect. The 7.62 is just to big. Great for snipeing, but it has a lot of recoil and the bullet falls right out of the sky after 400 meters if fired from an assult rifle. The rec7 6.8 gives the power of a 7.62 because you just don’t need more, and is fast and does not have as much recoild as the 7.62. Sure the 5.56 would be best preffered but it just isn’t stopping people. The worst thing is shooting somebody and not knowing if you stopped them. Plus the rec7 is a piston so its very reliable, sure to junk build up. But now a days the m-4’s biggest problem is over heating. The piston solves that problem.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:29:50 +0000

Drake
You’re an idiot and you should hang yourself. A 5.56 nato and a .22 have nothing in common other than the fact that they’re both bullets. A 5.56 round will kill a bad guy just fine thank you very much. As for your claim that its unreliable, you’re full of shit. If you keep it clean it wont jam. Mine never did………..Seriously you fucking cum stain, HANG or DROWN yourself……whatever hurts more.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:30:07 +0000

Scar-H is not an Assault Rifle, it is a Battle Rifle like the M14 and such.
The power from the 5.56 is the hydrostatic shock which is pretty much how the impact of a really fast object just sends shock waves throughout your body. And to you 7.62 people out there, there are 4 different kinds of 7.62 bullets that I know of and they are the 7.62×39 AK round, 7.62×54 Russian round, the 7.62×51 NATO and the 7.62×25 Tokarev Pistol round. So not all 7.62 rounds are the same because a longer, thinner bullet should technically penetrate better. The 5.56 is actually adequate because of the wounding effects of tumbling and fragmenting in the body and because it is an ideal penetrating round since it is both (moderately) long and (really) thin. It is also one of the faster bullets out there and unless you are some sort of hyper-conservative, redneck high calibre person, that means better accuracy and also a longer range without as much bullet drop. And keep in mind that the 5.56 has minimal recoil leading to more hits and more can be carried while it should reliably kill in one hit.

By: nic

nic — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 01:51:27 +0000

dude’s I have read most of these comments I just want to know how many terrorists actually wear body armour? the reason why so many lives in Iraq have been lost is because of IED’s not small arms fire. The foremost weapon of the iraqi military is the AK-47 most body armour the US military uses can stop all but the most direct of hitsto say this 5.56 round is weak a single shot from a .303 M1 greand puts a whole 6 inches wide in the exit wound. Most of you all on this page think that the average insurgent is armed and amoured like the US soldier. they are NOT a single round can put one down very quickly.

P.S

To the kids aged 13-14 here once you fire a real round you have no idea at all COD 4 and 5 are games and just that they DO NOT depicts the reality of the shot fired in real life

By: Nicccki

Nicccki — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:47:36 +0000

Some people just kill me…. ANYWAY
This gun is quite amazing, The REC7 is easy to adapt to (with prior m4/m16 training) and looks very appealing, as a soldier, you want a gun you love for its ability to save your ass and give you an upper hand in battle, and a gun that looks badass, when your carrying a weapon that you couldn’t of made any more appealing, theres some sense of pride… Kinda like a wife, you want her to do her job, and look appealing infront of company, good or bad… Getting off topic, so I’ll continue, I wouldn’t mind carrying this gun into a fight with a hardened and well equiped enemy, superior firepower wins every time, and thats what you want to be bringing into a fight, but for the brave men in the middle east waging war right now, this is overkill, the 5.56 is more then effective against unarmoured mutts fighting against our soldiers, I will shed some light on something for you, The reason these Islamic nutjobs use terror tactics is because everytime they come into contact with us, (even being out numbered 3:1) we haul ass and they die, monumentally. The 5.56 is incredable at cavatating and fragmentating into unarmoured personal, as seen in the utter destruction of other soldiers carrying the 7.62 AK47. So yes, I do believe this gun is amazing, and should be a buffer between the m16 family and the new generation of firearms more then likely to come, but we should equip our men when its logistically reasonable, sinse theres no real hurry, our boys are equiped with a decent platfourm and round. (one noteable, and again mounumental flaw is the m4/m16s reliablitity, now theres where our real concern should lie)

By: jericho

jericho — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:10:26 +0000

they should make a full metal jacket 7.62×51 high explosive round for m4carbine for the
navy seals, because they deserve a bullet that penetrate enemy vechiles and armor vest.

By: jericho

jericho — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:03:26 +0000

they should design an m4 carbine that could fire a heavy 7.62 x 54 round that has a high
rate of stopping power that could penetrate enemy body armor and vest. Also they make
the a m4 a multicaliber weapon that could carry faster,aero dymamic,and heavy bullets
beside the original standard 55.6 round.

By: Troll Mclulz

Troll Mclulz — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:30:56 +0000

Fuck all of you, Carl Gustav+W54 or GTFO. None of this nonsense about 6.8 or 5.56 or 7.62. Unless they made the RobArms XCR with BARS firing little nuclear 6.8mm bullets. Then I’d compromise.

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:00:13 +0000

19D as well The most important change I’d like to see from the M16/M4 is reliability. No more jamming! A little more stopping power would be nice, but only if accuracy is not compromised. The whole idea is 1 shot, 1 kill! O and some1 said the SCAR-H had an effective range of 800m. Either that was a typo or you are mistaken. No assault rifle has the kind of effective range, or it would be a sniper rifle. The SCAR-H has a 300m effective range like most assault rifles, maximum 500m I believe w/ high velocity rounds. I agree we should switch to either a 6.5 or 6.8 short stroke. Very similar accuracy and recoil of the M4, more reliable and slight increase to stopping power…..isn’t that what we want?

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:17:02 +0000

Hey y’all,
I was in the army, 19D Cav scout.
All of you who say that a 5.56 can’t stop, you haven’t been hit by one. I got shot twice, once in the arm, once in the rib. Bang-Bang. IT STOPS!

My guys managed to take out the guy, but I cant ever use my left arm again. So, 5.56 can’t stop… YES IT CAN! And it hurts like a *!@#$

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 06:16:12 +0000

Personally I am a fan of the LWRC M6A2/3/4. it uses the 6.8mm SPC round and has a similar level of durability to the H&K416. In all truth the US military should switch to a gas piston system before 2015, but it will probably not happen. I honestly think that the Barret REC7, H&K 416/417, LWRC M6, FN SCAR and H&K XM8 are all much better rifles than the M16A4 and M4A1.

I hope none of you disagree that we need a new rifle.

By: jon

jon — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:02:06 +0000

The 6.8 SPC round is one of the flattest flying rounds in the world. At a distance of 500 meters there is a 2 inch drop from aim point to impact point. Now it’s up to the shooters to hit their targets which, in the Army nowadays, is somewhat of a challenge. The 6.8 round is a good compromise, and a compromise is exactly what it is. Less accuracy than the 5.56 (although not much) and less impact power than the 7.62(again, not very much). The gas power piston reload guarantees less carbon build up on the bolt but not all debris comes from the carbon, there is dust (which in Iraq and Afghanistan is a pain in the ass), water, mud, sand, blood, skin, etc…
The REC-7 is the most cost effective replacement for the M-16/M-4 for the simple reason that it’s just replacing the upper receiver. Sure it’s over $1000 per unit, but to pay anywhere from 4-7K per unit for the entire military… think about it.
I like the frame of the M-16/M-4 for both maneuverability and accurate firing positions, adding the upper receiver of the REC-7 would be nice if it improved on reliability. One thing few people think about is the proper care of magazines. Once a week swap out rounds to back up mags to relieve tension on the spring. This will cut down on improper feed malfunctions.
Again, the 6.8 is a compromise, but I believe it’s a good one. Reliability still needs to be proven but at least they’re taking steps in the right direction. To all my military brethren, be safe, and let’s all get home for that beer we’ve been craving for the past 13 months.

By: Paco

Paco — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:22:04 +0000

Hey, Ya’ll you kids that are sayin you know alot about guns that’s cool but don’t bother sharing with us you “FAVORITES” because you have no idea how they shoot you’d probly end up on you asses

By: paris

paris — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:32:15 +0000

yo, i think that the 6.8 spc is great because the 5.56 is nothing it wont bring anyone down plus the m468 (rec7) wont jam in mud or water i dont know about sand but the hk416 wont jam in any enviroment and geust what im 6 years old!

By: VJO

VJO — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:43:12 +0000

I like to believe that probably the most important quality a weapon can have is reliability. As long as you are able to shoot a round and hit someone you’re for the most part set. Even if the gun is a 5.56 mm and does not have a lot of stopping power it is still better then your gun jamming and not being able to shoot them at all. As for the round, people say that the 6.8 still has some of the qualities of the 7.62 like its heavy so it drops after a certain range. I’ve always wondered why they dont make a 6 mm – 6.5 mm bullet. This seems like it would be the perfect compromise. Another thing many of you are not taking into consideration is not only the poor stopping power of the 5.56 mm round but its inability to penetrate. As for the weapons that are available nowadays I believe the SCAR is the best choice. From what I understand its pretty reliable and accurate, and based on the combat situation troops would be assigned the different versions (SCAR H and SCAR L) . Basically I believe the most important thing is reliability and at second accuracy and stopping power coming hand in hand because of the bullet size.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:58:32 +0000

yall know way to much about guns

By: guest

guest — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:57:01 +0000

i play cod 4 and 5 ha aha ah ha ha ah ha ah ha ah ha hah ah ah ah ahh hah ah haghaha your all gay

By: Fridgey

Fridgey — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:24:14 +0000

Hey Guys, I am only 5, my balls havent dropped yet, but i think i have what it takes in the Marines Corp. Any Suggestions??

Hehe just kiddin brahz but on a serious note, this 6.8 round the Barrett REC7 boasts is obviously a great compromise between the current US Military preference of the 5.56mm M16/ M4, and that of which the terrorists use (7.62mm in the AK47 Assault Rifle). Both these Rifles are solid weapons, but IMO, Barrett has made a clever choice in ‘intergrating’ a new superior weapon on the basis of the AK, M16, M4.
Accuracy, Distance, Weight, Bullet Damage. What more do you want?

By: kareem

kareem — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:38:31 +0000

Im only 14 but whatever.To start of, i agree the 5.56 round doesnt have the needed knockout punch.Now the new barret. M468 has the best of both worlds its accurate and pretty effective at a good distance. Also, there is not much recoil in the 6.8 round. which is kind of perfect from the way i see it. Any way there is a new gun called the LWRC PSD which is currently my favorite gun. It also fires the 6.8 round but with a little more recoil than the barret. M468 but does a little more damage. You could check it out on You Tube, Future Weapons.Its pretty cool. : )

By: GIJOE

GIJOE — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 02:04:14 +0000

wow! i was going to say something about the 5.56 round, but another thought popped into my head since sniper rifles were mentioned.

while i was in the military, toting around the SAW (m249) which is usually belt fed, but has a magazine well that accepts the standard m-16 clip… i tested an idea out on the range one day when we were burning up a few “extra” rounds (so they could turn in just the unopened crates of ammo. it is less of a headache, for those that know you will agree)

i took a few clips and loaded one round in each so i could fire downrange about 500 meters, and my spotter was looking at the target for each round to see where the shot landed.

if i didn’t know any better, i would say the SAW could make an excellent sniper rifle in a pinch, especially if you had the appropriate scope fixed to the top of it. this is due to there being a bipod mounted on the SAW, and the fact that it is a much heavier weapon than the M-4/16 so recoil is lessened and the barrel doesn’t jump as much…so yes the 5.56 round is a very flat flying round and retains accuracy better than its heavier cousins.

i have also been firing the M-16 since i was about 12, (my godfather had CAR-15 with 4 way selector switch) and im almost 40 now, so i am very familiar with the pro’s and cons between both weapons.

if i was a little better controlling bursts ( i could only get it down to 2 shots most times) i think i could have pulled off some pretty sweet shots with a belt box and a scope mounted on a SAW.

good times

By: James

James — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:57:05 +0000

I’m 13. My grand-dad was in WWII in the pacific. He carried around the M1 Garand with him. In a firefight, his gun jammed, leaving him a dead man. I’m always glad to see improvements to weapons, because it can save lives!

By: smithmyster

smithmyster — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:13:31 +0000

i think that the modification required is for someone to minimize the mechanism used in the xm306 (forgive me if i got the name wrong) grenade launcher. which produces no recoil what so ever. on that basis you can use anything up to a .50 cal round with no worries about recoil affecting your accuracy. therefore all you then have to do is find a weight appropriate round and voila. perfect infantry weapon

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 06:40:29 +0000

You guys need to leave the kids alone they may not have been shot before but I would not be suprised if some if them knew more then you. As for stopping power the m16 doesn’t have enough I can speak from experience have been hit before luckly it was a shitty shot or wouldn’t be able to make this comment. So to recap shut the $&@$ up if all you wanna do is bag on someone else. This is supposed to be about the weapons not your over inflated egos

By: mark

mark — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 19:39:31 +0000

where can i get one????????????

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:52:38 +0000

I believe the 6.5 grendel round is superior…

Ballistic coefficient (BC) is an indicator of how well a projectile retains velocity during its passage through the air. The higher the BC, the slower will be the rate at which the bullet loses velocity during flight, thereby making a correspondingly flatter trajectory. A list of BCs are as follows:

5.56mm Mk262 77gr: BC = 0.362

7.62mm M852 168gr: BC = 0.462

7.62mm M118LR 175gr: BC = 0.496

6.5mm Grendel 123gr: BC = 0.510

The 6.5 grendel has similar reciol to the 5.56, althought that is not the issue
As for the argument, that the 5.56NATO round cavitates, and creates more flesh damage…The 6.5 grendel round producse greater fragmentation and correspondingly larger wound cavities. In May 2006 ballistic gelatin tests were conducted for 6.5 Grendel ammunition loaded with 123-grain MatchKings, which penetrated 2.0-2.5 inches before yawing and ragmenting. The gelatin blocks were shot from a distance of 50 yards, using an Alexander Arms Tactical 14.5 carbine. With an impact velocity of 2385 feet per second, maximum penetration was a shade over 16 inches, and maximum permanent cavity diameter was more than 6 inches. The bullet broke apart into multiple small fragments with jacket pieces visible at 11 inches and 13 inches…
One minor drawback of 6.5 Grendel is the weight of the ammunition, which is 30% heavier than that of the 5.56mm cartridge. This means that for a basic load of ten magazines (nine in pouches, plus one in the gun), there is a slight increase in the carry load, as well as a decrease in the number of rounds immediately available to the rifleman.
Although this difference could conceivably be critical in some isolated instances of sustained combat where resupply is not possible, the reduced quantity of ammunition must necessarily be balanced against the increased per round terminal effects. Lethality, penetration, trajectory, windage, and other factors are likely to be far more important in most “close encounters of the hostile kind.” Superiority of 6.5 Grendel over 5.56 NATO in these areas is so great that it might outweigh the difference in ammo load. Anecdotal reports from Iraq say that often multiple hits are required with 5.56mm to incapacitate an opponent. If use of 6.5mm reduces the number of hits needed to neutralize a threat, the “stored kills” would effectively increase in spite of the reduction in magazine capacity..
The 6.8 is a good round, but it lacks sufficent vilocity, the 6.5 grendel has a more moderate vilocity, lower recoil, and more accurace then the 5.56, with greater flat trajectory then the 7.62NATO round… enough said
I am in the army.. and love guns
If I could replace my standered assult rifle (C7-8)
I would have to go with the Bushmaster ACR chambered with the 6.5 grendel
we’d be giving our troops a reliable weapon system, thats easy to use, can be adapted to different situations easily, while chambering a round thats fairly light, has strong knetic energy (knock down power) has excellent penetration of trees/obsticales, armour…