Study: Soldiers Want Deadlier Guns - Page 6

Redneck Repairs · May 30th, 2007, 04:40 PM

Christ , this has deterated into minuta , and i for one call for the thread to be closed . Our troops want a more leithal armiment .. as they should , and as we should provide them . hell i want them armed with star trek phasars tomorrow .. till then i want them armed with a proven system that workes all the time if cared for .. Our combat rifle seems to fit that .. not that it cannot fail , just that if you care for it its unlikely to . not the whole 5.56 issue is another issue and i feel we can have a better cal ... but i dont want shot with a " poodle " gun either .

OPFOR · May 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM

Hey, RR, what's wrong with minutia?

Daddy Warcrimes · May 30th, 2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackeagle

A guy posted this explanation over on the Warrior Talk board:

Interesting, and logical. But I still don't consider those forces to be of great importance. Compared to the forces of firing from a supported position, slamming the rifle during maneuvers, and in the case of the SAW, a built in bipod, the weight of an aiming laser seems insignificant.
Many of the accessories used are not mounted on the barrel but the receiver or feed tray, torque would not be transfered to the barrel from there.

My experience has been to this day, no noticeable difference in reliability with accessories attached (including the M203).

dwolsten · May 31st, 2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OPFOR

Keep in mind that in much of Europe, the 9mm is considered a very potent round, and that .380 (and similar) rounds are considered just fine for police and/or military use. We Americans are definately a "bigger is always better" culture, but that doesn't reflect the ideas of much of the world.

Much of Europe probably doesn't have the problem we do with crazy BGs high on meth and other drugs which cause them to have superhuman strength and feel no pain.

Colin · May 31st, 2007, 10:04 PM

The .357sig round would be good for a PDW if you wanted one in another calibre than your assault rifle and would stand a better chance at penetrating cover, which from listening to the troops comment's that has been one of the biggest complaints, certainly with the 5.56. The cost of .357sig would drop if it became a standard military round.

M2 · May 31st, 2007, 10:57 PM

It isn't NATO or the lawyers holding us to the Hague Convention on 1899, it is us. We signed the treaty on 29 July 1899 and ratified it on 9 April 1902.

Cheers! M2

Alfred37 · June 12th, 2007, 12:10 AM

I have no personal experience, but Mark Bowden's "Black Hawk Down" has some first hand accounts... there seems to be a reason why US Army SF, CAG, and FBI Hostage Rescue use .45 ACP. There also seems to be a reason why a certain MOH recipient used the M14 as his fighting platform during said conflict, and why his comrades realized how smart he was for doing so.

The troops deserve the best.

Geronimo45 · June 12th, 2007, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Much of Europe probably doesn't have the problem we do with crazy BGs

Europe never had a Jeff Cooper preaching the Gospel of .45 to 'em... there are/were vets from WWII, Korea, Vietnam who didn't find the 1911 to be such a wonderful weapon (mentioning how the thing had to be kept spotlessly clean to work right - not saying that it's always true, I happen to like .45... except for its price). The US has bought into gunwriter talk a bit more than European folk.

We don't have anything on the Brits, though... didn't they have some kind of .577 revolver?

tanksoldier · June 12th, 2007, 02:56 AM

Most failures of issue weapons I've seen were related to improper maintenance. Everybody wants a better weapon, but what will greater effectiveness cost in weight and training time? How much heavier would a rifle in 7.62 be? How much more would a basic ammo load weigh? Everybody can't have a .50 BMG rifle.

90% of military personnel, even today, never fire a weapon in combat. However, 100% have to be equipped with and carry the weapon, train on it and the people who support them have to be trained as well. Tool sets and spare parts have to be purchased, ammo stocks have to be acquired.

Replacing the M9 might be worthwhile, and the Army IIRC doesn't use the M249 in combat units as a support weapon anymore... maybe some Guard and Reserve guys still have them, but it's mostly been relegated to support troops. However, replacing the main combat rifle would be an expensive and time-consuming process that just isn't justified right now.

5.56_Spartan · June 12th, 2007, 06:36 PM

I read the full report and like many here have issues with one statistic saying one thing, then another contradicting it.

Overall, I don't have problems with the thoughts of the troops. Everybody says they want more power.... so would I. The M9, with ball ammo, is pretty weak. I think we have a TV/Movie culture that allows us to make 50+yd shots with pistols and drop people with one shot no matter where we hit them.

I am definitely for giving our troops the ammo (HP) and weapons they need. Mostly M4's, with M1A SOCOM's and SAW's throughout the squads.

May 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM	#52
OPFOR VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Baghdad Posts: 2,422	Hey, RR, what's wrong with minutia? __________________ "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

June 12th, 2007, 02:56 AM	#59
tanksoldier Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,130	Most failures of issue weapons I've seen were related to improper maintenance. Everybody wants a better weapon, but what will greater effectiveness cost in weight and training time? How much heavier would a rifle in 7.62 be? How much more would a basic ammo load weigh? Everybody can't have a .50 BMG rifle. 90% of military personnel, even today, never fire a weapon in combat. However, 100% have to be equipped with and carry the weapon, train on it and the people who support them have to be trained as well. Tool sets and spare parts have to be purchased, ammo stocks have to be acquired. Replacing the M9 might be worthwhile, and the Army IIRC doesn't use the M249 in combat units as a support weapon anymore... maybe some Guard and Reserve guys still have them, but it's mostly been relegated to support troops. However, replacing the main combat rifle would be an expensive and time-consuming process that just isn't justified right now. __________________ "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr. "Drive fast and eat cheese!"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 30th, 2007, 04:40 PM	#51
Redneck Repairs VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,141	Christ , this has deterated into minuta , and i for one call for the thread to be closed . Our troops want a more leithal armiment .. as they should , and as we should provide them . hell i want them armed with star trek phasars tomorrow .. till then i want them armed with a proven system that workes all the time if cared for .. Our combat rifle seems to fit that .. not that it cannot fail , just that if you care for it its unlikely to . not the whole 5.56 issue is another issue and i feel we can have a better cal ... but i dont want shot with a " poodle " gun either .

May 31st, 2007, 10:04 PM	#55
Colin Distinguished Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,365	The .357sig round would be good for a PDW if you wanted one in another calibre than your assault rifle and would stand a better chance at penetrating cover, which from listening to the troops comment's that has been one of the biggest complaints, certainly with the 5.56. The cost of .357sig would drop if it became a standard military round.

May 31st, 2007, 10:57 PM	#56
M2 Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 265	It isn't NATO or the lawyers holding us to the Hague Convention on 1899, it is us. We signed the treaty on 29 July 1899 and ratified it on 9 April 1902. Cheers! M2

June 12th, 2007, 12:10 AM	#57
Alfred37 New Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: United States Posts: 6	I have no personal experience, but Mark Bowden's "Black Hawk Down" has some first hand accounts... there seems to be a reason why US Army SF, CAG, and FBI Hostage Rescue use .45 ACP. There also seems to be a reason why a certain MOH recipient used the M14 as his fighting platform during said conflict, and why his comrades realized how smart he was for doing so. The troops deserve the best.

June 12th, 2007, 06:36 PM	#60
5.56_Spartan Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Michigan Posts: 17	I read the full report and like many here have issues with one statistic saying one thing, then another contradicting it. Overall, I don't have problems with the thoughts of the troops. Everybody says they want more power.... so would I. The M9, with ball ammo, is pretty weak. I think we have a TV/Movie culture that allows us to make 50+yd shots with pistols and drop people with one shot no matter where we hit them. I am definitely for giving our troops the ammo (HP) and weapons they need. Mostly M4's, with M1A SOCOM's and SAW's throughout the squads.