U.S. Military And What They Carry

D

DUDE

New member
ok we have seen a lot about the M16 here in the last week, so today i'd like it if you guys would say what you would like are Military to Carry. here is a list of what are Military carrys now,

Rifle: FN, or COLT, M16A1/M16A2/M16A3 in 5.56mm or .223

Carbine: COLT, M4/M4A1 in 5.56mm or .223

GPMG: FN, M240G and the M60 in 7.62x51 or .308

SAW: FN, M249 in 5.56mm or .223

Handgun: Beretta, and Sig, M9 and M11 in 9mm

thats a list of some of the Guns carry by the U.S. Military now.
and here is what i'd like to see are Military Carry,

Rifle: Springfield, M1A in 7.62x51 or .308 not the M14.

Carbine: COLT, M4/M4A1 in 5.56mm or .223

GPMG: FN, M240G in 7.62x51 or .308 and yes i know it's the same gun as the frist GPMG, but it's a good gun.

SAW: well there is no need for a SAW if you have a good GPMG like the M240G.

Handgun: Sig, P226 in 9mm

well thats my list i hope you guys like it. now put up your's
 
The Marines have the M240G (still has a few M60E3 but they are rare). The army has the M240B (or is replacing the M60E1 in the active duty, the Rangers and the SF had M240G back when the Marines adopted it, but they upgraded to the Bs), it has heat shields and is a little heavier. The navy still has the M60E3-E5 and they still have M14s on ship. The problem with using a medium machine gun in side a rifle squad id the weight of the system. A loaded M249 weights less than an unloaded M240G, a SL3 complete M240 is like 56 lbs. To be effective a medium machine has to be crew served, the ammo and weapon is too heavy for just one man. Since that is the case it cannot be the base of fire weapon inside a fire team, like a SAW. That would almost be like taking a steep back to the older concept of a maneuver section and a fire section, instead of the fire teams operating as fire and maneuver elements.
 
sorry about that, what i was going to say was M240G not M240B. and i would say that the M240G is not to big to be use as a SAW, we use the M60 for a long time as a SAW till the U.S. Military got the M249 in 1983, and the M60 is 23.05lb and the M240G is 23lb so it's about the same.
 
Forgot the M870 which I carried. How about the M590A1?

Anyhow. Rifle should be a non-Gas-Pipe gun like the AR-18, Stoner 63, HK G-36, ETC. I like the G-36K myself.
g36k.jpg


The LMG should be a M-249 IMHO.
m249-ed1.jpg


PDW should be an HK PDW.
pdwmain.jpg


And HMG should be the M240G of course.
m240-ed1.jpg


Oh, and I don't think they should issue pistols. Every G36K should have a grenade launcher.
g36klauncher.jpg


That's four types of ammo. 40mm, 7.62, 5.56, and 4.6. Yeah, I like HK, but they make guns people like.

[Edited by Badger Arms on 01-04-2001 at 01:01 AM]
 
Bagder Arms
That is M240B not a M240G, the B has the heat shields around the barrel to avoid burns.

The 56 lbs includes the M122 tripod, spare barrel and bag, and the flex-mount. The basic gun is around the weight you cited, if you are making it a non-team weapon than you are going to leave all the items that allow sustained fire behind and limit the ammo the gun can carry to a couple of hundred rounds.
 
sticking to what options you put I would say the M1A. My real preference is an M1A in .223 or a Mini 14 with a heavier barrel. Third I would second that G36!! I do love my Beretta 92FS. No shame in carrying that 9mm
 
STLRN: I realize that now. I couldn't find a good picture of the 240G but the one I posted was SUPPOSED to be a G. I'll correct it.

DUDE: HECK NO! I'd rather have the HK's made here. HK has a long and proud history of licence production and we should carry that on. Wasn't a large batch of our M-16A2's produced in Belgium? Where are our M-249's produced? Aren't we buying Pistols made by an Italian company? Aren't our SMG's already H&K? Our SOCom pistol? The Mossbergs are made in Mexico now aren't they? The M-1903 was a rip-off of the Mauser and the M-1 Garand was designed by a Canadian!

As to the M-16. It's more expensive than the AR-18 and jams much more often. If you put an AR-18 gas system on the M-16 / M-4 family, I'd buy it. Oh, and maybe a tougher magazine.
 
the M16A2 is made here in the US by FN and so is the M249 and M240G that are use by the U.S. Military now, and the Beretta M9 made here in the US to. but HK has not made one gun in the US in a long time.
 
In regard to the M1A/M14 as an issue rifle, how about using the E2 (pistol grip) stock that is without the folding front grip of the E2?
 
i'd say that the E2 (pistol grip) Stock would be a good ID, but i would say make the a new E2 Stock out of Fiberglass.
 
I have to disagree with DUDE. I think the M249 SAW definately has a place. I can't speak for the Army, but I know that in the Marine Rifle squad, the SAW definately fills it's role as an automatic rifle much better than the M240G would. First of all, at the rifle squad level, a weapon that used the 5.56mm cartridge would be better than the 7.62mm simply because the lighter cartridge would allow for more rounds to be carried at less weight and taking up less space. I know I will get flamed for this because of the greater hitting power of the 7.62mm round, but isn't shot placement more important than hitting power. Thus, if you train your people properly, then the smaller round shouldn't be as great of a handicap. Thus, at the rifle squad level, I would want a rifle that could employ the 5.56mm round. Thus, since the riflemen are carrying weapons that employ the 5.56mm round, it would be greatly beneficial for the automatic riflemen to be also carrying a weapon that employed the 5.56mm round to greatly ease the logistical burden of troops in combat because at least now they are all using the same round. The M249 SAW also can use the same magazines as the M16A2 in a pinch, however, it is more likely to jam the weapon. The M249 is also a much lighter weapon, designed to be fired in shorter bursts than the M240G. Because of it's size and weight, it is not as mobile as the M249 SAW. Both weapons are needed in the inventory, but they fill two very distinct roles. Thus at the squad level, the SAWs are definately needed.
 
ok i was looking at the post here and at my list and now i'am going to update my list, so here it is.

Rifle: Colt, Model-RO701 M16A2 it Fires Semi/Full Auto in 5.56mm .223

Carbine: Colt, Model-RO777 M4 Carbine it Fires Semi/Full Auto in 5.56mm .223

GPMG: FN, M240G and M240B in 7.62x51 .308

SAW: FN, M249 in 5.56mm .223

SMG: H&K, MP5N in 9x19 9mm

Handgun: Sig, P226 in 9x19 9mm

now about weight with the SAW, lets git some C-Mags to save weight with it. and the new Model of M16A2 i put up, we can have FN make it to save on $$, so how do's that sound.
 
Dude:

Where are we going to make them MP-5's? Them Sigs?

I, personally, don't see a problem with making our guns overseas so long as the primary source is in America. What would you have against the G-36K if I might ask? Let me cut you off right now on the 'well they've had problems' argument. We could go into ALL the problems with the M-16 over the years; that subject has been beat to death.
 
look at it like this, the only Guns on my list that are made out side the US are the MP5N and the P226.
 
and what about the H&K G36 Rifles, we here all this info from H&K that it's the best 5.56mm Rifle in the world today, but has any one see any combat info on it? NO well the M16 had been with the U.S. Military from 1965 till today and we know what it can and can not do. i say stay with what you know, and not what looks good.
 
No, no combat info at this time - but I have read several webpages and communicated with several fellow grunts in the German Army that absolutly get poetic about how much they love the G36 rifle.

You guys are forgeting a very slick GPMG, and probabably my personal favorite, the HK 21E. I'ld even place it in SAW positions - its THAT good.
 
look at the G36 like this, the U.S. Military do's not like to have Scopes, and Lasers Sight, on Rifles that are not going to be in the hands of Snipers or men from Specil Operations. Scopes, and Lasers, are not good in combat. look at the British Army, they have had the SR80 from 1885 till today, now look at it, the frist SR80's all had Scopes up till 1999 now look at them, all of the new SR80's have Sight like the M16. so what do's that tell you the British Military went from a Rifle that had a real go 4x Scope to a Rifle that has Sight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top