Future Weapons – M468 (Barrett REC7) Venny 4 October, 2010 25 Comments Note: This is a user submitted video under “User Submitted” Category. Although the submitted content is moderated, RealityPod does not guarantee the accuracy of information provided in posts of this particular category. Comments KwongDeLaGhetto October 4, 2010 / Reply The U.S army needs to do is just make an upper receiver for the M16/M4 instead of replacing the weapon lower receiver and Upper receiver just like the .50 AE Beowulf witch is just a upper receiver change! TheMicksson October 4, 2010 / Reply 3:50 He has snipers behind him ^ SpecialOps1337 October 4, 2010 / Reply This Will Be The LAST Thing You Will Ever See *T-Bags* noobas00 October 4, 2010 / Reply The 5.56×45 has a fragmentation capability which makes HUGE wounds when on impact on human body. The 7.62×39 doesn’t fragment because it’s not fast enough. However, the 7.62 is better in piercing body armor. The 6.8×43 has both wounding capability of 5.56 and body armor piercing capability of 7.62. End of story. REC7 for the Army and Marines. The ACR for special forces. theonlylukepritchard October 4, 2010 / Reply 5.56mm perfect for wounding civilians 7.62mm perfect for killing them 🙂 daybreak1HP October 4, 2010 / Reply thats an m70yugo hes using haha RSprtn117 October 4, 2010 / Reply @TOZZYTHEVERY1 Although true about the 105, would it be more likely that youll find the original Kalashnikov 1947 varient in circulation in Hot Spots around the world or the more updated AK? 50 million of the original 47 type versus a few hundred thousand 103s, 105s and 107s? I would say the shows choice was spot on; just a thought 🙂 TOZZYTHEVERY1 October 4, 2010 / Reply as always they got the wrong kalash, if they had the ak 105 or better, there wouldnt be any drops at that distance, just a thought…. TangyTangoJuice October 4, 2010 / Reply oh god i love the ak 47 so beautiful and awesome Start0ver1 October 4, 2010 / Reply @mattatthome she said that to you but screamed it at me 😉 mattatthome October 4, 2010 / Reply @Start0ver1 thats what she said Start0ver1 October 4, 2010 / Reply ITS BIG AND ITS FAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ThePointinDog October 4, 2010 / Reply @punkyboy2 Eventually they’ll have to L1L3ric October 4, 2010 / Reply so…when and where can i get this? legokid1593 October 4, 2010 / Reply 3:52 love the backround punkyboy2 October 4, 2010 / Reply they will never replace the m16 or the m4. its just not nescesary. They have just upgraded the 5.56mm. and its already been distriputed. SecularTechnology October 4, 2010 / Reply They should replace the thing already. xlifeispointlessx October 4, 2010 / Reply @sudoan10 no the m468 can be mounted on any m4/m16 lower receivers, but the army doesn’t see it as a good replacement even though it is it has reliability, and stopping power along with the fact that it can fire 5.56 if you configure the bolt and barrel. xlifeispointlessx October 4, 2010 / Reply the whole point of a 5.56 round is for hydrostatic shock, that only works if the round hits soft tissue, testing 5.56 on a metal plate doesn’t do it justice. TheCatholic143 October 4, 2010 / Reply whoops, misspelled “tumbled” spwebb7771 October 4, 2010 / Reply its not so much that the 556 is weak, its that it is inconsistent. The wobbly bullet spin is what makes the stopping power. If it has a perfect spiral, it goes right through the target. the new m855a1 556 bullet for the m4 is fixing the inconsistency problems superflea121 October 4, 2010 / Reply 7:54 Oh there gonna glue you back together, IN HELL! GrannyWhackers1217 October 4, 2010 / Reply @TheCatholic143 plus it would make your pack heavier considering that you carry 6 to 10 magazines so the weight really adds on quick. TheCatholic143 October 4, 2010 / Reply lol, come on, the 5.56 has excellant stopping power. It doesn’t use kinetic energy to knock people down, it thumbles when it hits human flesh which creates massive injury. the m468 would be a poor replacement for the m16. sudoan10 October 4, 2010 / Reply Why isn’t 6.8 used in the US army now? Isn’t it too costy to re-equip the US troops, to replace M4? Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.