rifles are irrelevant

use drones

>>65085455
none of that shit either exists or works or helps a soldier perform significantly better

the largest jump in capability for soldiers in the past 50 years was giving everyone a fairly mid and basic optic.

>>65085490
>none of that shit either exists or works
according to big Donny we have super electromagnetic heartbeat sensors that can pick up and differentiate a friendlies heartbeat from space
I'm sure we can manage putting a lasterpointer on a gimbal and syncing it with a thermal sensor
>helps a soldier perform significantly better
I'd imagine just shooting where the red dot tells you to shoot would be easier than actually trying find people in low visibility

>>65085455
why the fuck would I give some 19 year old spic/redneck retard who barely pass highschool a boutique 15k work of art, when hes going to get blown up with in 10 seconds of touching sand on whatever desert shithole our israeli masters drop ship them too? Thats just bad business man.

>>65085455
>Why are rich western nations still giving their soldiers 60 year old weapons?
Because at the end of the day it's not really worth min-maxing rifles to such a degree. A bullet shot from a 60 year old design will kill someone just as dead as one from a 'modern' design, and any fancy whiz-bang gadgets you have can be strapped to the rifle or the soldier while keeping the rifle simple, cheap, and reliable.

>>65085495
>just shoot where the red dot tells you to shoot
And how does the red dot know where to shoot?

>>65085563
it knows where the target is because it knows where the target isn't

>>65085455
Rich Western nations are not rearming.
In ancient times a soldier would be paid at least 1.5x the average unskilled labourer wage, increments for critical skills, plus combat and loot bonuses

>>65085455
Because artillery, machine guns, grenades, air strikes and so on exist. Your average infantryman does not need to kill the enemy, merely suppress them for the weapons team, armor, or a guy with the authority to call in fire support shows up. The guys competent to enter a gunfight and win get placed into SF, and they get the fancy toys. They’re tasked with the missions that can’t be accomplished by just blowing everything up.

My SL has a R20 RAHE with a laser-light combo that costs more than both of us make in our entire service combined, every assistant has a 3X magnifier, our marksman has a trijicon 8x that he told us is so expensive the warehouse employee said she'd kill him if he broke it, the marksman also has that fancy ass laser.

And yet when shit gets tough they call on me and my beatrice designed by John Moses Browning nearly a century before I was born mounted atop an APC which is older than the base it's parked in.

The age of a gun doesn't change the lethality of a bullet ameritard

File: file.png (32 KB, 538x509)

32 KB PNG

>>65085599
>In ancient times a soldier would be paid at least 1.5x the average unskilled labourer wage
They still are. Those guys in Iraq definitely cut up a few of those gold bars to sitck up their ass.
Everyone outside the first world keeps gold in the family home. Realistically even the US military doesn't care if their soldiers loot and screw up peoples homes just as long as they don't kill civvies. Our soldiers just don't have the guts to take from families.

>>65085603
>The guys competent to enter a gunfight and win get placed into SF, and they get the fancy toys. They’re tasked with the missions that can’t be accomplished by just blowing everything up.
Utter retarded bullshit and that GWOT COIN mindset is going to burn us bad if we go I to a peer total war environment
Slim was right

A soldier with a WW2 semi auto rifle would and a good optic/thermal will defeat a soldier with your latest 2026 gun with iron sights 99 times out of 100
What separates first world nation military guns from thirdies is optics

>>65085619
We have no peers, seething turdie brownoid. America is #1 and everyone else wants to be us

>>65085625
No, that was the same in 40s and 50s too but it doesn't mean WW2 and Korea weren't peer or near peer warfare
Shove it up your ass faggot, oversaturation of super special beard oil roided faggots is gay and shit, Make Infantry Great Again

>>65085616
The median Australian earns about A$70,000 a year. You'd have to pay them a six-figure salary to correspond with ancient practice.
Modern soldiers are prohibited from looting. Three Kings is not a documentary.

File: B-2-Spirit-Stealth-Bomber(...).jpg (408 KB, 1280x828)

408 KB JPG

America already owns the world through Hollywood and capitalism and the ayyy military technology we stole from Germany, the rifle is just a prop at this point.

>>65085619
Explain how I’m wrong. Private bumblefuck is probably gonna be just as if not more effective toting around grandpappies repeatedly modernized M16A5 than he will be with that retarded Sig monstrosity.

>>65085632
>median
goal posts moved lol, unskilled is still 50k we just have a lot more incentive to invest in upskilling and ofc people need to be rewarded for that.
They also get a lot more with extra training I've met a rifleman who claimed to be above 105k with extra certifications.

Two soldiers making just about as much as a Doctor is actually pretty wild.

>>65085966
>goal posts moved lol, unskilled is still 50k
Valid reply, but no it's not a goalpost move, because the average soldier in a NATO army is not the ordinary rank and file. They are supposed to be lifelong professionals and they are supposed to be able to command a squad of conscripts when the balloon goes up and the Army needs multiplying fast. In the Air Force and Navy, they need to carry out specialist tasks which place them above that of ordinary unskilled labour. Even a fucking fry cook on a destroyer has to learn additional skills above that of the average civvy lunch lady; EMCON, damage control, how to feed anywhere from fifty to a hundred sailors at general quarters without turning on a stove, that sort of thing.
And we have seen direct consequences of this requirement in modern combat; the Ukrainian Air Force generals said "no" to additional NATO fighters because their pit crews were, compared to NATO crews, "unskilled".

And this is not without parallels in ancient history. Even in the Roman army unskilled labour (slaves, camp followers, camp boys and conscripts) was paid lower than the regular legionary. Similarly, in the late medieval era, the average rank and file was a landholder, often an esquire, or selected by a mesne lord from his most capable peasantry, often with skills especially carpenters, farriers, and at least a smithy apprenticeship so that they had the skills to quickly set up camp and maintain the retinue's horses and equipment on campaign. (If officially indented with these skills, they were paid a bonus, but most would not have been.)

Lastly from an opportunity cost point of view, the reason many unskilled adults choose not to join the military is because they can join another profession and finish a short career with a skill that is transferable and has future economic value. For example, doing a few years as a tradie apprentice.

Basically a NATO army is not an unskilled workforce and shouldn't be paid as if they are.

>>65085966
>I've met a rifleman who claimed to be above 105k with extra certifications
Yeah but how representative is he?
>Two soldiers making just about as much as a Doctor is actually pretty wild
The doctor doesn't risk his life.

What's wild is that you'd think having 1 soldier out of 100 people is a pretty basic requirement for defence and security, but the ADF is only 1/5th that figure.

ironically, the best thing from the 'new rifle' is the fucking scope they created. it 'sees' where each round lands and automatically rezeroes itself for windage and range. its impressive, because for how fancy it is, its NOT 'fart near it and it explodes' finicky.