Jump to content

to add your 300x250 banner, pay ad zone 5
Airsoft Atlanta is your source for quality airsoft guns and rifle parts
to add your Text Link here, pay ad zone 3

AirsoftAtlanta.com AirsoftNMore.com Airsplat.com AirsoftRC.com
Vote for us to add your 180x30 banner here, pay ad zone 2

If you appreciate this website, please ASF Donation or Check Out the ASF Store. If you can not help us financially,
then at least help us by telling a friend: Share us on your favorite social networking website Bookmark and Share
kullwarrior

Should Us Army Find New Standard Issue Weapon?

U.S. DOD signed in 2008 to spent another $300,000,000,000 on their standard issue weapon.  

656 members have voted

  1. 1. Should U.S. Army replace the M16, M4A1 rifle the is currently made by Colt?

    • Yes, it's time to change it
      494
    • No, keep the same
      162
  2. 2. If a new standard issue weapon is going to be chosen please select one of following

    • FN Herstal SCAR (Special Command Assault Rifle) NEVER BEEN FIELDED
      106
    • H&K Hk416 (hk's short-stroke version of m4) Used by Norway and Netherland
      145
    • Magpul Masada/ Bushmaster ACR (new version of modular weapon similiar to ar-18) NEVER BEEN FIELDED
      94
    • H&K G36 Currently used by Spain, German Army, and various law-enforcement agency
      61
    • H&K XM8 (Considered as a variant of G36) NEVER BEEN FIELDED
      41
    • LWRC M6 series (looks liks hk416, ar-18 design, short-stroke piston)
      18
    • Other
      65
    • Wait for laser, rail gun etc
      32
    • None, I select to keep the same
      94


Recommended Posts

No, infantry should use a rifle. A submachine gun (a pistol caliber, automatic carbine) is a terrible choice to outfit our soldiers with. It is a specialized weapon system for very close ranges. A short barreled rifle can do everything a submachine gun can, with better ballistic qualities. As for iron sights, no, you are not correct. If you are going outside the wire on combat operations your weapon will have an optic, an IR laser, and a white light. SAW's and M240's also have optics (the M145 MGO) as well as IR lasers and lights. In regards to modifying the Garand to use scopes and magazines - they have, its called the M14, and for the reasons I listed previously it is not a good rifle for general issue.

 

The M60 is no longer in use, and the M240 is a platoon level asset - we have 2 for our entire Platoon and they have 3 man weapon teams - they are considered crew served weapon systems, not individual weapons. The SAW is too heavy for what it does and with a modular weapon system like I described you could easily make an automatic rifle conversion kit with a heavier barrel and larger capacity magazine. Like the Submachine gun, the shotgun has a very specialized role and would be terrible issue weapon. We have one shotgun per squad, and it is given to the SAW gunner because he doesn't enter rooms when we clear them - he opens the door with it.

 

And for the record, the average engagement range in Afghanistan is 500+ meters, which is pushing the maximum effective range of the M4, and is waaaaaay over the maximum effective range of an SMG or shotgun.

 

For the record, I AM an infantryman in the US Army, so this discussion is sort of important to me. Understand that what I say is not from what I read in a magazine or on the internet or gathered from watching movies or playing video games; it is from the experience of being an infantryman for the last 8 years including a combat deployment.

 

milsigsm-1.jpg

Hmmmm, I wasn't aware of the average engagement distance, the tv lies. Anyway, perhaps we should use neither a submachine or an assault rifle, and meet in between. Similar to a both, but different. A short barreled, rifle caliber, Bull-pup, compact rifle, perhaps an L85 carbine firing the 7.52 round? I agree about the saw, the only advantage it has over an M4 is that it is belt fed, and has a heavier barrel. Are you sure that the M60 is no longer in use? I'd prefer it over the M240 just because of the slow rof and 200 round belt. Maybe a convertable weapon with quick swap firing mechanizme and interchangeable barrels will be the future, only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OpSic66
I think the better argument for ww2 guns and the M4 should be the M1 Carbine, over the GARAND for urban use.

 

Yeah, might wanna read over the thread some more. I already mentioned that.

The M1 Carbine, vs the M4 would be a more accurate argument. Since the M14 has replaced the M1 as the 7.62 power house.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a new standard issue gun could at least tail some more power than the M4. You hit someone with the M1 Garand you know they're going down. If you hit an enemy in the leg, or other appendage with an M4, chances are your'e just going to tick them off.

Edited by Jamesairsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pulling for our Armed Forces new standard issue assault rifle to be a modular type. This would hopefully save us a bit of cash, and being able to modify your weapon, while in the field, would -- I'm hoping -- be practical and helpful. Today's battlefield is forever changing, so I think that being able to do this would be good. I can't be sure, though, since I have no combat experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we not replace the Armalite series? Simple: there is nothing that is so much better than it that it needs to be replaced, NAO!!! The HK-416, as well as other piston-driven systems, have been demonized for years by experts in firearms. Defense Review had an article *don't remember right now* saying that despite being piston driven *and therefore PURRFIKT*, they had as many failures as DI driven guns. Armalites are more than reliable enough for our soldiers, with a few exceptions, such as special operations, etc. Not every soldier is running *BLAK OPZ MIZZIONZ UDNER DA WATUR*. If a soldier needs AK-like reliability...then give 'em a d!*n AK! And about the 5.56NATO...soldiers can carry nearly 2x as much 5.56NATO ammo as 7.62NATO by weight. Soldiers need to keep consistant suppressive fire on opponents, not *KA-BOOMITY 5MILLION METER HEDSHOTZ*. I'm not military or LE, but check out real gun forums. I love thehighroad.org. Of course I like airsoft, but it's ridiculous the amount of armchair generals on this thread who have the audacity to support their opinions with Wikipedia or Futureweapons. It ain't rocket science.

End rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was, to expensive

Part of the reason the XM8 was shelved was the fact that it used a proprietary system for mounting accessories instead of picatinny rails. H&K was trying to sell conversion mounts for things like the PEQ2A and weaponlights that would have cost way too much to adapt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you kidding me?!?!?! The G36 is FAR better than the XM8. I WANT THE G36 in our army! They are BY FAR the best rifles around. The Xm8 was the fail design to get the G36 into Americas hands. Long story short, the thing was a sh**box. It overheated and was just horrible. The G36 was and IS far superior. Its time we stop being prideful and adopt REAL German Engineering. G36 FTW.

 

And no it wasn't TOO expensive, It was a POS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding me?!?!?! The G36 is FAR better than the XM8. I WANT THE G36 in our army! They are BY FAR the best rifles around. The Xm8 was the fail design to get the G36 into Americas hands. Long story short, the thing was a sh**box. It overheated and was just horrible. The G36 was and IS far superior. Its time we stop being prideful and adopt REAL German Engineering. G36 FTW.

 

And no it wasn't TOO expensive, It was a POS.

Hmmm, POS? I do believe it had the lowest fail rate of the other assault rifles in the list. I think it was cancelled due to the rubber hand guard piece getting hot, not so much the entire system. Also, I'd go for the 416, since it is similar to the standard M4 in terms of it's externals. I've always thought the G36 was kinda bulky, not in weight, but the magazines and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, POS? I do believe it had the lowest fail rate of the other assault rifles in the list. I think it was cancelled due to the rubber hand guard piece getting hot, not so much the entire system. Also, I'd go for the 416, since it is similar to the standard M4 in terms of it's externals. I've always thought the G36 was kinda bulky, not in weight, but the magazines and whatnot.

 

Wasn't just "Getting hot" It was scolding our troops hands or who ever were testing it...

"Two other key issues were reducing the weapon's weight and increasing the heat resistance of the hand guard, which would start to melt after firing too many rounds."

 

It wasn't just getting hot. THERE is a reason we never adapted the weapon. However the G36 mags feed better and are more reliable than standard STANAG mags. and in REAL life, the clip together mags are great. Because the gun is almost full poly carb its light and can be dunked in water OR be buried in sand and it will still fire. The G36 is where it is at. The M416 is cool too, But its just another M4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switch to the Masada/ ACR. It may never have been fielded on a wide scale, but it HAS been field tested, and showed itself to be remarkably accurate, light, reliable, and modular. Being able to switch RIS, barrel lengths, calibers, magazines, grips, stocks, anything, all on the fly with minimal tools, is a VERY unique idea. It gives you the "customization" of the Armalite platform, while being more accurate and reliable. It has the customization of the M4/M16, reliability of the newer HK416 or AK, light weight of the G36, and modularity of the XM8. A perfect gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they need to do is chage back to the 1911 seeing as the 9mm round is about as useless and inaccurate as an arrow with no feathers and change the caliber of the current m4. Because of the UN and Geneva Convention we need to use a 55grn jacketed hollowpoint for the 223. If this round hits anything before the intended target it is basically useless because it will shed its copper shell and then you only have a small amount of lead still traveling. We need to go to a 6.8 spc or a .308 (ar-10) we will use less ammo and become much more effective.

 

And lizzard I was reading some other posts and you stated that caliber does not dictate reliability. This is compleetyl false. Different dimensions of a cartridge will dictate better feeds and better performance. A .243 wssm can not and will not be put in a semi automatic rifle because of its case diameter and shoulder angle. It would jam on practically every other shot. The 50 browning machine gun was modified in its early stages to have a less steep shoulder so it would feed better and reduce jams, the 30-06 was based off of this round and that is why it is used in 30 cal machine guns.

Edited by Surgikill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switch to the Masada/ ACR. It may never have been fielded on a wide scale, but it HAS been field tested, and showed itself to be remarkably accurate, light, reliable, and modular. Being able to switch RIS, barrel lengths, calibers, magazines, grips, stocks, anything, all on the fly with minimal tools, is a VERY unique idea. It gives you the "customization" of the Armalite platform, while being more accurate and reliable. It has the customization of the M4/M16, reliability of the newer HK416 or AK, light weight of the G36, and modularity of the XM8. A perfect gun.

 

The Colt 901 and SCAR systems both do this too, except for they don't suck like the Remington/Bushmaster/Freedom Group Abortion that is the ACR. It hasn't been field tested in combat because it keeps screwing up on its field tests on the range here in CONUS.

 

As for needing to switch over to 6.8, totally crap round. External ballistics drop like a brick after 200m. 7.62x51mm is good for an SDM, but for an average rifleman who's job is to keep up fire to manuever, its just too heavy to carry enough of it to be combat effective. Newer types of 5.56 like MK318Mod1 and M855A1 have improved terminal ballistics and made the M4 more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking with a M4 platform would be the most cost effective solution. Its a gun, it can be used to kill someone, plain and simple. The HK416 was in use by the Army for the past 5+yrs. A M4 platform that is not direct impingement but instead piston operated would be a good move, even kits to revamp the current M4's would be good. I don't agree with the Army picking a completely different weapon for a handful of reasons. The primary reason being that out of all the soldiers I have personally taught basic rifle marksmanship skills more than half could not grasp even the fundamentals to being a good shooter ie breathing, steady position, sight picture and proper trigger manipulation(squeeze). If anything the Army needs a good kick in the a** and should spend top dollars on professional marksmanship training and range time. The small Army is already on top of this and sends its units to Triple Canopy/VTAC/Magpul/Costa/Haley type courses. Big Army needs to catch up. I had mentioned earlier that sticking with the same platform would in fact be most cost effective not to say that our soldiers aren't worth the money but instead to use that saved money to revamp the current body armor and SAPI plates to a lighter more flexible plate. A soldier that cant shoot for sh** would definitely benefit from better body armor more so than a new high tech "coolguy gat".

The SCAR you say? Yes, I know it is already in circulation in the small Army but make this weapon system available to all units or the average Joe? lol and why on earth would I give a soldier that cant remember to shave in the morning prior to first formation or forgets his eye pro and doesnt tell anyone until 5 minutes before SP a weapon system with multiple detachable parts that he has to be accountable for? Oh, only issue said parts for specific missions or if the mission dictates you say? And we're going to have all the additional parts at/with the armorer and have to fill out and sign a 2062 every time we take said parts to make said "mission essential" weapon? lol do tell me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The higher grain means higher velocity. Using a smaller bullet type, 5.56, vs 7.62, with a higher velocity will typically mean less bullet drop, as the lighter ammunition is not as susceptible to gravity. Since the vast majority of targets do not have armor high stopping power isn't an absolute must. The powder and mix may also be different than standard ammunition.

 

77 grain will not give additional stopping power as the kinetic energy is much the same. I believe 77 grain and up is considered Match grade ammunition, not standard.

 

I do not normally post in things like this.

 

BUT! Grain is the bullet weight. Higher Bullet weight = lower velocity.

 

I vote for an AR10 chambered in .308.

 

The reason is we are doing more urban conflicts and we need something that punches through walls/corners better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...