Choices for new military weapons?

N

Nightcrawler

New member
What weapons should our military have, ideally? Let's face it. The M16 is okay, but there's a lot better out there, and the US military deserves the very best. Here are my ideas.


Sidearm: The Beretta 92 (M9) is a good choice.

Personal Defense Weapon (for vehicle drivers and so on): The Beretta 92 is a poor choice for this role. Better would be a small submachine gun, like the Steyr TMP.

Carbine/Rifle: So many choices...best would be the HK G36 and G36K, adapted for US military use (Iron sights, compatible with AR15 magazines, M203 grenade launcher).

Light Machine Gun: I'm a SAW gunner in the Michigan Nat'l Guard. The thing is overcomplex. It has a bad stock. (no cheek weld!) It is fragile. It has an unnecessary feature that allows it to accept M16 magazines, that must add at least four pounds in weight (you can't fire from a magazine with that thing! It's 1000rpm fire rate does not go well with a conventional magazine). Unfortunately, I don't know of too many other decent light machine guns out there...

Medium Machine Gun: IF the FN M249G is as similar to the SAW in function as it is in appearance, it's gotta go. Besides, it's HEAVIER than an M60, which is ridiculous! The M60 itself is an utter piece of junk. Maybe the HK21E would be a good choice...

Heavy Machine Gun: John Browning's M2 is one hell of a gun. Don't mess with perfection!

Ideas, comments?
 
The Beretta is OK but IMHO the open top slide is a dirt gateway in a combat environment. They ought to issue American-made Ruger P95s. Still a 15+1 shot 9mm, and reliable enough to drag through the mud all day. They cost less too.

What do you think of the FN Five-seveN with its 20 rounds of armor-piercing ammo? Gun of the future or wannabee?

On long guns, I think HK's battle rifles and carbines are cream of the crop. Plus, you can get them in 5.56mm or 7.62mm. These are what the average foot soldier should be carrying. Those working in close quarters can get HK carbines with collapsible stocks, or the new HK Universal Machine Pistol.

Two things I think every infantry unit needs are a bursting munitions system (grenade launcher) and a sniper. I don't know much about grenade launchers, only used an M203 in my Army days. For a sniper rifle, the SIGarms Blaser has polymer stock, MOA accuracy and takes the 7.62mm round.

On machine guns, you may not like the M60 but I and thousands of other GIs who used them would rate them well above "utter piece of junk". If you have something better, bring it on! The foot soldier is the most practical guy on Earth. If you give him a better killing machine, one that increases his chances of getting home alive, he will use it.
 
You must understand; My view of some Army issue weapons is rather poor. I'm in the Nat'l Guard. While we just got SAWs that are brand new, we still have real old M16A1s (I prefer full auto, but the A2s would be NEWER) and VERY old M60E1s. The things are pitiful. THey're so worn out. Not that we get to live fire more than once a year. We need new equipment, BAD. I'm not going to vote in the Michigan Gubinatorial election. While I refuse to vote for a demicrap, I will not vote for Engler, not after how he treats our budget....
 
The FN FAL for the rifle, and for the sidearms for the machinegunners and Officers... The HK PDW.
For tankers, MPs, and others that don't need the standards FAL service rifle... the HK PDW.

If the rifle MUST be a .223, the the rifle should be the HK G36

NEXT.
 
Well, I have a post-ban FN-FAL, but I can't agree with George. Yes, it is reliable, durable, and easy to field strip. But it is overlong, overweight, and just plain unwieldy. The receiver is very long, putting the foregrip way, way out there (no, at 5' 9", I don't have short arms). The trigger is poor and the sights aren't great either.

I don't have much experience with HKs (new or old), so I won't comment on them.

I actually prefer shooting my M1A over the FN-FAL, but disassembly and cleaning is certainly more difficult than the FAL. I don't think I'd consider the M14 at this point.

M1911
 
Ultimax 100 for the LMG

German MG3 for the GPMG

G36 for the riflemen

Steyr TMP for those that require a sidearm.

Officers should stop being sniper magnets and carry an infantry weapon like the men they command.
 
HK G36 (in all it's proper variations) for all riflemen, crewmembers, etc. I'll agree with using the current M-16 magazine - fortunately they do have a magazine well module for it already. The beauty of modular weapons systems.

HK USP for those who get pistols. Don't care about the caliber - though 15+ of 9mm and 12+ of .45 is plenty in my book.

I like the M249 and M240 personally, you just need proper training to use them correctly. For example, the poster above complains about not being able to get a proper cheek / stock weld with it - my question is, is he using his support hand on the stock while in the prone, like he is supposed to? That's why the stock is so funky shaped - so your hand can grip it in the proper place for a good sighting arrangement.

Overly complex? Maybe - but they are extremely reliable and the M249 is one hell of a trench broom. I used them in Korea and at Ft. Bragg and never had a single problem *after* I was taught to use them properly.

Spark

------------------
Kevin Jon Schlossberg
SysOp and Administrator for BladeForums.com
www.bladeforums.com



[This message has been edited by Spark (edited October 18, 2000).]
 
For sidearm I'd really consider the Makarov, but then again I don't know a ton about pistols. Thing is, it's cheap, reliable, and accurate, so it sounds good to me. It may not have a big enough round though. Better made 1911 Colts would be good, but if they end up like most military issue ones I've seen I'd feel bad giving them to troops.

I'd get a redesigned Galil that fires Remington .270 for the main rifle.(I assume this is doable, they've got Galils that fire .308)

Then for SAW, I would get a belt fed(with box) version of the HK G3A3(I don't know the name of that specific gun but it'd be perfect and it wouldn't fire a varmit round like the M249 does).

For field machinegun I'd get either the PKM(great Russian gun, shoots 7.62x54 and is absurdly reliable) or resurrect the German MG-42(it's pretty hard to improve upon this basic design, replace some of the non-critical materials with lighter, stronger ones and you'd have one monster of a weapon.)

For .50 cal MGs I'd not change anything, except maybe get some materials improvements on the construction if it wasn't too expensive to do so.

I'd scrap the OICW program, it's stupid, expensive and doesn't even really work yet.

The only other major improvement I'd make is to get some low drag ammo designed and put into use.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me

Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
 
Nightcrawler:
Sorry to hear your dilema in your states Guard! I am in the NY ANG;I'm my units Marksmanship Coordinator, so I'll throw in my .02 on this.
We turned in our A1's several years ago, went to the FN A2's. Problematic quality control with the FN's, IMHO. Now we are turning in the A2's for M4's. I have no experience with them, so I'd be curious to hear what any prior service folks here have to say about them.
As for the AR weapon vs. the others:
One of my biggest worries is that by procurring weapons and vehicles from foreign sources, we are possibly gonna hurt ourselves in the next conflict. Yes, the conflict might not affect us as much in the small weapons areas, since some of these companies have located their plants here on our soil. Vehicle plants are a different story. We have several foreign vehicles in inventory, and the list is growing; the new light tank the military is considering will most likely be of foreign manufacture. I would prefer that we keep as much of our production base on our shores.
Anyone recall that back in the teens, the German Luger was in the running along with the 1911 to be the US service Pistol? Anyone think what might've happened if we'd gone to the Luger before WWII? We might have reverse engineered it and resumed production locally, but it comes to my mind when thinking of the hazzards of foreign-procurred materiel.
Bottom line is that I see no problem with the AR class of weapon; it's been our service rifle longer than any prior service rifle, but the design continues to be upgraded. I DO have my doubts about that new HK monstrosity they're going to try fielding by 2007.
As a matter of coincidence, I am running a SAW range this weekend. Yes, the SAW is a bit of a problem; that magazine feature is only a BACKUP feature , remember. It is meant to render the weapon usable in the event drums are unavailable, Yup, it does tear through a LOT of ammo; I'd hate to have to LOAD all those mags to feed it. If there were no drums, and a 16 was handy, I'd probably opt for the 16. Remember that the SAW is intended to fill a role in an infantry unit thats been vacant since the BAR went out of the inventory: a light (!) MG. It's not MEANT to replace the 60, the 50, or any other weapon. My unit uses it quite well in its role as a LMG, dual mounted with our TOW weapons to give the TOW gunner something to shoot beyond a single shot TOW round.
The 60 was a good weapon, but dont forget that it was a rip-off of some earlier weapons designs. I hate to hear that units are having problems with older equipment; theres no excuse for that; you can thank Clinton, who seems to think that the military can run without parts. That particular problem is plaguing the military at all levels. But those 60's should've been upgraded long ago. The 60 , like the Cobra in the Air Guard, is now classified as a secondary weapon system, having been dropped by the Regular Army and fielded only in the Guard units.
I agree; the 50 is a kick ass weapon; no need to mess with success. Nothing like the sound of that baby opening up!
In terms of individual weapons, I am worried about the trend to drop the pistol in the Army whereever possible; my unit just turned in all but one of our M9's, which is part of our M4 phase-in. Sure, in most combat situations, a pistol is only a secondary weapon. A rifle is always better. Trouble is, combat is not perfect; a rifle may not always be available . I think every soldier that wants one should be issued a pistol. Every soldier in my unit is currently responsible for about 12 sensitive items; I dont see why one more would be a problem. We were told that anyone trying to bring a personal handgun to any deployment overseas would face disciplinary action. In my opinion, there has to be a reason why soldiers in every conflict since the mass production of handguns began have opted to carry pistols! More bad Clinton policy I think. After all, handguns are BAD..didn't Sarah Brady SAY SO?
My choice for handgun would be the Glock. Extremely field servicable, reliable, etc. Already fielded by other countries, so parts are internationally available. I'd prefer something other than 9 mm, but I could live with the 17 if I had to!
 
Sidearm: lets make it a Ruger with hi-caps in .45, screw 9mm. or if we wanted to be daring use FN's five-seven

Personal Defense Weapon: FN P90 in5.7x28mm, its light, its got a high cyclic rate, and it fires rounds like the Five-Seven but has a 50 round mag.

Carbine/rifle: lets get rid of the little .22, and go with a .30 cal. since we already have an AR style rifle why not just go to the armalite AR-10. its .308 and its a style the soldiers already know how to operate.

LMG: Styer AUG/HBAR, yeah its in .223 but hey thats light.

medium machine gun: HK21A1, .308.

heavy machine gun: dont mess with the best, or you will get taken down like the rest.
 
To the poster who commented. Here's my SAW training. I've been assigned a SAW gunner since February. BAck in June, durning Annual Training, we finally got to go to the range. I though, "Man, I'm finally gonna be able to get a feel for this thing, and learn to shoot it properly!" Boy, was I wrong. Instead of giving me a 200 round belt, and letting me shoot at a target a few hundred meters out, they gave me SEVEN (!) round belts and I shot at little squares on a paper target 12 feet in front of me. To qualify. I had never fired the thing before in my life, and here I was trying to squeeze of single rounds (hard to do with that thing's cyclic rate!) to hit a 2-inch high rectangle on a piece of paper. I habitually put my hand on the stock like with the 60, but that was uncomfortable for me. I'm a leftie, and hot brass had a tendency to fly down the my right shirt sleeve when I did that....
 
After further research I realized that what I had taken as the stock G36, was actually the Carbine, so scratch that question...

Anyway, as to the FN P90, are there any services using them? For all the hype they recieved, they don't seem to be catching on.

[Edited after recieving an answer to a question]

[This message has been edited by Rakekniven (edited October 19, 2000).]
 
I think the FN FiveseveN is impractical at this time. That's just me though. I think that a high velocity round like 9mm is ideal. It also makes carrying ammo easier. However, I would prefer a Glock 18 over a Beretta 92. As for a longarm, an M16 is nice and all, but if you let me step into fantasy land, I would mount two things on top of it, side by side. First would be a grenade launcher. The other would be a single shot 50BMG tube. Between this fantasy rifle and a Glock 18 you could tackle just about any obstacle.
 
Let's see,

Sidearms, lets go with the sig 226, it's large enough and light enough to do what the military requires and it's NATO compatible.

Personal weapons, how about a lightweight ergonomic rifle that has controls that are easy to use. say the M-16 maybe? while I dont like .223, I think it's too fast and tends to over penetrate which can be a problem when you are trying to stop an attack it's still a great weapon system

LMG, well there are so many, but I still think the SAW is the way to go.

HMG, M2 period

when I read this post I was excited to give my opinion seems funny now that my opinion is so similar to the DoD.
 
I've always wondered why they never resurrected the M-16 quad-.50 mount and stuck it on the back of a Humvee with modern fire-control systems. That thing was the original AFE (Anti-Friggin' Everything) weapon. There arent many APC/IFV's or helicopters that could stand up under 4 steady streams of .50-cal SLAP rounds...

------------------
"..but never ever Fear. Fear is for the enemy. Fear and Bullets."
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
Tamara:
Out of the back of a hummer, I assume the problem would be both resupply of ammo, since the hummer fully combat loaded wouldn't be able to carry enough ammo to keep the system combat effective for long in a battle, and recoil. I never got a chance to fire those quads, but I've heard the recoil could be horrendous.
Night:
I believe the problem lies with your units PMI program then. No unit should take on a new weapon without some intensive PMI, and expecting gunners to qualify with no practice time behind the trigger is problematic. The Army is especially a problem in not allocating enough training ammo.
Does your unit have a Marksmanship Coordinator who's actually been to the school in Arkansas? If not, ask to be sent; its centrally funded; your unit doesn't have to shell out of their budget or training slots to send you.
 
Rakekniven, the G36 comes in several barrel lengths. You are probably thinking of the G36K which is the carbine.
 
Hmmm... no votes yet for the OICW super rifle/smart launcher. I wonder if the Pentagon is hiring small arms advisers who actually shoot.

IMHO Dangus's idea of a .270 Galil, sounds formidable and far cheaper then the OICW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top