If they can make one of these light enough, I think the soldiers would be satisfied.
Posted on 05/30/2007 7:12:47 AM PDT by Sergio
Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.
Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said. (excerpt)
I don’t think H&K would mind a huge contract to manufacture millions of .40cal pistols for the military.
Probably the USP, USP Compact (which is what I would choose), or a tactical something.
I think the rationale was put in terms of weight and number of rounds carried. The lesson from Vietnam was that most rounds aren't even aimed -- it was several thousand rounds expended for each person hit. Also, the thinking at the time was that fighting was done at relatively close range, so the heavier bullet (and its longer range) was not necessary.
I’m thinking an HK 416 in 6.5mm and a 1911 style .45 screw NATO interchangeability.
I think the full metal jacket/varmit round was a good concept for fighting against national armies. Against people who see it as their obligation to die trying to kill with their last breath, that concept is outdated.
Having said that, I was happy with my M16A2 Service Rifle, 6137326, on Parris Island in 1989. Shot Expert. Of course, I never had to use her in an antipersonnel situation.
I agree about the Beretta. That thing's just way too big for most people, and the mandated hardball ammo is ineffective. When I was in the Corps, the MPs still carried 1911s.
AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every mother------ in the room, accept no substitutes.
Because the object of shooting an enemy (in warfare) isn’t to kill target, but to wound it. A wounded soldier is supposed to tie up 4-5 other soldiers, medics, etc.
Doesn’t work when dealing with terrorists, of course. They don’t have the same support requirements real armies do.
Also, the 7.62mm NATO is uncomfortable for some smaller soldiers. And you can carry more ammo.
Lighter, can carry more rounds. Of course we decided this when the M16 did full auto, so our soldiers needed more rounds. I say one direction or the other: Go totally light weight with the ability to reliably put 10 rounds in the target in less than a heartbeat as in the P-90, or give the soldiers fewer, but much bigger, rounds that will take down anybody with one shot.
How about a 10mm? Of course, it would be too powerful for FBI agents, but it would sure kick ass in Iraq.
I’ve noticed the lack of 9mm knockdown power in video games. It’s a problem. ;)
According to a book on snipers that I've read:
average bullets fired by US solders per kill
WWII -25,000
Korea-50,000
Viet Nam-200,000
Snipers-1.3
I think our military is much better trained than Viet Nam so there is less tendancy to "spray and pray" today
I never heard that before. It’s not very comforting.
If ya like the M3 you would LOVE the S&W76. With a few updates to the basic design such as a modern trigger group (smaller) and running the mag through the handgrip for more barrel length / shorter overall length plus chamber it to .40 cal instead of 9mm you would not be able to get them out of the troops hands.
Helped sponsor a hog hunt, for the “Wounded Warriors” last year. My group was 5 men who had been wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq. While sitting around the camp fire one night discussing combat rifles, calibers and cold beer, i asked them what would be their rifle of choice. Their reply was unanimous, the M-14. The inability of the 5.56 to penetrate even the thinnest of mud or brick walls was the reason. One commented he could make his own door with a 7.62.
I've also wondered if the .44 Desert Eagle could be considered for widespread use. Prolly too expensive, but it would be an attention getter. Even the .357 is mo better than a 9mm. Frankly I'd rather have a .38 than 9mm. You can tell I don't have much respect for pop guns in war.
We were accomodating the Europeans and NATO.
Smarter thing at thatpoint in time would have to used a weapon that would accept ammo of the Wasaw Pact/Soviets.
We are NOT noted for doing smart things.
I wonder who started this myth. I've heard it so many times over the past 17 years from differing sources. This supposed rationale will never die, it seems.
The object of shooting any assailant is to effectively stop them. The same holds true for self-defense. Stop, not necessarily kill, although in war I'll take the stop/kill.
The 5.56Nato was desirable because a soldier could handle a weapon so chambered when the selector switch is set to full-auto, which was untrue for the M14 (7.62Nato) which tended to walk-away. Also some of the first reported terminal ballistics were impressive--a barely stablized 55gr projectile in a 1/14 rate-of-twist barrel--ripping limbs off. We messed this up by improving the rifles "long range" performance by going to a 1/12 and then subsequently to a heavier/longer projectile(62gr M855/SS109) in a 1;/7 twist to improve penetration on helmets at 300 meters. After 75 yards the bullet became a drill losing its "explosive" terminal performance. (see Gabriel Suarez' "Tactical Rifle")
One can never carry too much ammo, even 5.56 Nato. But can you carry 2x or 3x's as much 5.56Nato to achieve the same results of the 7.62Nato? No. And only hits count. For stopping effectiveness we should adopt a projectile with a longer/heavier softnose design OR neck the existing case up to 6mm (80/85/90 gr) which are adequate for smaller spieces of deer and presumably two-legged game.
The 6.8SPC effort seems the right way to go, but it requires more mods to the underlying platform: new upper/barrel, new follower, new magazines. With the 6mm upgrade, only new barrel is needed. Of course this is a nighmare waiting to happen: chambering 6mm projectiles in your 5.56 chamber. It probably wont go into battery and will create weapon-neutralizing jam.
They need to change to the 6.8SPC caliber round like theyve been playing with forever...its had some devastating results against the Talibanskis in Afghanistan.
Let them adopt the new HK 45 auto. It would seem that it would fill the requests of everyone.
40 S&W is too finicky for a combat round.
H&K 45 (new, will be released this summer), SIG P220, Taurus 24/7-OSS and other .45’s designed for the SOCOM/JCP requirement are hitting the market this year.
DelFatti Ankle Holster. :~)
.338 Lapua.
Just a question ... since stopping power is in part a function of energy delivered to the target, is it possible to get better results by just creating a heavier 5.56 round?
The H&K .45 Tactical? I saw that on their US website.
CT law states I don’t have to own a weapon to get a permit to own one, or even for a CC.
I just wish firearms weren’t so darn expensive. At that I wouldn’t want a 9mm, due to stories of little stopping power. Mark 23 MOD 0 is 12-round .45 ACP. I know H&K makes a .40 with 12 rounds. That would be a nice little friend to have when it gets hot.
Exactly. But that's just one more reason why someone shooting a .45 ACP should stick to a proven manstopper - the heavy and slow 230 grainer. (IMO)
It's pretty well established that felt recoil out of a modern, non-1911, service pistol will be manageable for most anyone in uniform.
As far as rifles go, a gas-piston AR chambered in 6.8 SPC is just what the doctor ordered. However, politics and the inertia of military logistics will probably render this entire conversation pointless.
I don’t know if “softnose” ammo is a good idea, given the effectiveness of modern body armor, or if it would pass muster with the Geneva Convention. The rest I agree with.
For a handgun there is **ZERO** wrong with the 1911 Government Model in .45acp.
Some people could put 3 rounds in somebody’s head pretty quickly in SOCOM: Combined Assault, though I think the SEAL player’s favorite is the Sig P226. I know it’s my pistol of choice when I play.
The opposition leaves their own bleeding on the ground for US to take care of, or puts a round in their heads if they suspect that leaving one of their own is a danger to their opsec
No
Theres a new HK 45 auto out there, based loosely on the 1911, but with a polymer frame.
I DO think they ought to adopt the 416...but in 6.8 caliber.
Do a google search on the new HK 45, it’s really cool, and Im a dyed in the wool 1911 man.
Dumb comment.
The coast guard just adopted the Sig 226 with the DAK trigger in 40 cal.
Poor Coasties.
Not the SIG, the .40.
I wondered when someone would mention the M14. With hundreds of thousands still in inventory it shouldn’t be a problem other than the ammo and repair logistics.
IIRC, Xlinton x42 had about half a million of the M14 surplus scrapped. The military has already pulled and upgraded most of the remainder for use as Designated Marksman weapons. Some new Springfield M1A's are supposedly being purchased to fill the gap.
I seem to recall the argument (bogus) of the tubling bullet theory...
US forces have been underpowered in terms of standard issue firearms, using the simple requirement 1 hit = 1 target neutralized, since at least vietnam.
Reality is, if your slug isn’t big enough to neutralize an enemy with 1 hit to the torso/chest (ie they aren’t getting back up and limping away) your weapon is underpowered.
Clearly our standard issue has not been able to pass that test in 30+ years. But the theory that a bullet tumbling even though smaller would do as much damage was the excuse given I believe for these decisions back in the day.
The problem is not the 9mm.
The problem is that they are using ball ammo—The worst choice out of all the available 9mm cartridge designs!
The top 9mm loads (e.g. Speer Gold Dot 124gr +p+, Winchester Ranger 127gr +p+) are just as effective as the top loads in .45ACP, .357SIG, and .40S&W.
But these are all modern JHP designs. Out military is not allowed to use them.
I've heard that several times.
I never wanted to wound anybody. ever...
In fact I wanted to turn anybody that shot at me into mist. I'd worry about the 4-5 other guys later.
Then I'd try to kill all of them also. Especially if they were shooting or talking or looking or breathing....
I've been told that and might have heard talk among men who shot or were about to shoot men, and not one time did I ever hear, "That mother-f#cker over there with his head up...yeah, that f#cker.... wound him, so that 4-5 other guys will have to take care of him."
From what I may recall, it went more like "Over there, yeah you dumba@@...over to your left... see where the tree and that bush are... yeah, yeah, yeah..." then about 4 or 10 bursts and some grenades if you've got them... you go poking around and sure enough, you got one or two or even if you're lucky 3 guys in the process of dying or holding their breath forever.
Now I'm not saying that wounding a guy isn't a bad thing. But I can pretty much bet you several rounds of Shiner Bock that there isn't one Marine that I know of that's been in a firefight of any length.... 10 seconds to several hours that wanted to wound somebody.
My favorite weapon you ask. A radio and maybe a laser. Cause I can't carry 500lbs of explosive to wound anybody...hahahahahahahaha...just kidding.
Up close a shotgun is real nice. Farther away I like something with a scope and night vision.... up close a .45 and then a real sharp knife when all else fails.
Oh yeah... my elbows, knees, feet and hands if I really screw up and can't find a big piece of wood or steel.
This is only my opinion and I could be wrong.
“I think the full metal jacket/varmit round was a good concept for fighting against national armies. Against people who see it as their obligation to die trying to kill with their last breath, that concept is outdated.”
We should look back in our own history to answer this challenge.
We developed the M1911 .45 ACP for the very reason we need it again today. Fighting against the Moro guerillas in Mindanao. Muslims then, Muslims now. .45 then, .45 forever. We should never have gone back to using popguns as a backup weapon.
Didn’t the military adopt the .45 ACP about a hundred years ago to replace the .38 Special, which was found to be inadequate in the Phillipines? It looks like we’re re-inventing the wheel. (And I’d take a .38 over the 9mm any day.)
.308 check
.45 with 185 gr bullet, check
hates pop guns, check
would think it would be neat to have a .44 Desert Eagle for the attention and the off chance it would hit it's target, check
wouldn't use a pistol if over 50 feet away in combat.... unless really freaking out, check...
hey you could be my friend and I agree with everything you wrote
It's on me, brother
Good answer Joseph..you are spot on.
TRIPLE GATLING GUN!?!?!?!
I thought just one was enough stopping power!
Bothering you, is there any video of that? I’m intrigued not only by the tons of lead, but the sound that thing must make.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.