Talk:Close Quarters Battle Receiver

Manufacture

FWIW: NSWC-Crane has shopped out orders for complete CQBR and uppers to Colt. I believe that I've mentioned this to you before in the thread at Militaryphotos.com. --D.E. Watters

Ammunition ?

There is no piece of information about the CQBR ammunition : is it 62-grain SS109 (US M-855) or 77-grain Mk.262 Mod 0/1 widely used by Special Forces ? (and is it possible to use 6.8mm Remington SPC ?

OK I have seen the main page ; thanks !

I removed the bit about using Mk262Mod1 -- aside from heavier (additional stopping power), I can't understand why a match round would be used in a dedicated CQC firearm -- and naturally the 262Mod0 is unacceptable due to the lack of cannelure.

Please don't remove unless you have evidence otherwise. The Mk 262 cartridge is indeed used for the reasons D.E. Watters stated. Look at the Ammo Oracle[1]. Black Rifle II on p. 118 also states:

As of this writing a large percentage of the 5.56 ammunition being utilized by SOCOM in their M4/M4A1 carbines, CQB carbines as well as their Mk 12 Mod 0 and Mod 1s in Afghanistan and Iraq consists of Mk 262 Mod 0 cartridges.

Pettifogger 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to modify the gun to use the 6.8mmSPC catridge, would require basically a whole new addon upper and modified magazines -- it wouldn't exactly be an Mk18 anymore. The other issue that would face should likely is the added impulse of the 6.8 -- fully automatic fire would be difficult to control, and potentially undesirable on missions such as VBSS

02:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)TehLlama

Mk 262 Mod 1 has a lower threshold velocity for reliable fragmentation than does M855 Ball. The CQBR's short barrel length cuts velocity enough that M855 has a very limited range before fragmentation ceases. The use of Mk 262 Mod 1 in the CQBR allows for fragmentation at longer distances. This is handy if you are caught out in the open while trying to reach your objective. --D.E. Watters 19:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

other photo...

I found another interesting photo of yhe Mk.18 : [2]. Used by Deltas in protection of afghan president Hamid Karzaï, on september 5, 2002. But it's copyrighted. Do you think it's a good idea to put un link on the main page ?

No, I don't think so. It's copyrighted. It's a small image. The current images are already representative enough. Pettifogger 21:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it is kind of evidence of Delta's CQBR usage... Rob1bureau

Those guys were claimed by the US Navy as members of Navy Special Warfare (Seal Team 6). They are not Delta Force. -- Thatguy96 18:01, 11 July 2006

Wouldn't be a stretch to assume Delta has access to Mark 18s, though. Spartan198 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

Do you have any sources or Links?--Sanandros 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

An M4 buys you 10 or 100 Kalasnikovs?

It is reported each new M4 as issued to a GI Joe in Iraq or Afghanistan costs US taxpayers 4000 dollars (four thousand USD). That looks like insane. What is the true price? A new AK-47 can be had for 40USD or a barrel of corn some places in Africa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

How is this relevant? Koalorka (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just say "Wikipedia is not a forum" and move on - Thatguy96 (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we allowed to remove this kind of crap? Koalorka (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this website, the price of the M4 is $1K per carbine. You were misinformed, Anon. Spartan198 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the CQBR acronym controversy

The operator's manual for the Mk 18 Mod 0 specifically states that the Mk 18 is a carbine, and its parts include the CQBR upper receiver. CQBR is defined as "Close Quarter Battle Receiver", not rifle.

Ironically, the current Navy citation in the article seems to indicate that the CQBR uppers on the Mk 18 have been exchanged for M4A1 uppers, at least in regards to the Mk 18 issued to ship armories for VBSS use. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should mention that the wrong image was placed in the Navy's article. For some reason they used a picture with M4s in standard configuration instead of CQBR, and I checked further and found that by clicking the image, it turns up the same image but with a different description naming them as standard M4s.--LWF (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previouly seen claims elsewhere that the Navy was pulling the CQBR uppers from non-NSW Mk 18 carbines. The article cited essentially implies that the Mk 18 lowers were recycled by adding M4A1 uppers, at a cost savings over buying complete M4A1. Navy briefings and contract activity also indicate that the Navy is buying complete M4A1 to replace the older Colt Model 727 in inventory.

I've seen references to a new CQBR upper configuration for NSW, which results in an updated designation for the complete carbine: Mk 18 Mod 1. The US Coast Guard also appears to be keeping their Mk 18 Mod 0. There was an USCG solicitation just the other day for replacement 10.3" barrel assemblies from Colt. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the Mod 1 designation is being applied to Mark 18s with the Mark 12 low profile gas block and Daniel Defense Mark 18 RIS II. [3] Spartan198 (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)