Posted on 06/07/2019 5:06:11 AM PDT by w1n1
Submachine guns such as the M3 grease gun and the Thompson served our military troops well in World War II and Korea. Fast forward M4 carbines have been the main service weapons.
Recently, the U.S. Army have decided to contract the Swiss defense contractor (Brugger and Thomet) $2.5 million dollars for the new APC9K submachine gun. There are 350 guns in the books as purchased with options to another thousand.
The U.S. Army have been looking for something to replace the Heckler & Koch 9mm MP5. Decisions was based on arming certain personnel that would needed something more small and maneuverable but with greater lethality than a pistol while operating in tight conditions than a rifle or carbine.
Other big manufactures such as Beretta, Colt, Heckler & Koch, and SIG Sauer have competed for this contract, until Brugger and Thomet won the contract. Read the rest of U.S. Army gets APC9K.
Should have bought some Hi point carbines when they were $165
Butt ugly but they work like a hose.
Looks a bit like the HK MP5K.
I agree on dumping the 9mm in favor of the .45 ACP.
I honestly don’t see the practical use for this when every d-bag out there now has some kind of ceramic body armor. Just use SBRs as your primary and a pistol as your backup. But, above my pay grade I suppose.
$7,143 per copy ???
indeed.
Dunno.
I’d accept the negatives which go with the M2A2.
My SCAR 17s 7.62 cal can accurately reach out to 800 yards. Our military has been equipped with them since the early 00s.
This has been tried for various agencies that wanted it. Even a modernized M-14 is still uncontrollable in full auto and even a 3 round burst is pretty bad. You have to go to a G3 or FAL for a contemporary that’s controllable.
Evangeline Lilly (Kate Austin) is much, much hotter.
Um, this is to be used as a PDW for vehicle crew. The Army has tried issuing M4 carbines instead and they’re still clumsy and unwieldy inside a vehicle. In fact they spent 20 years after they retired the last M3’s to admit that the M4 wasn’t a good replacement.
How much energy is left in a 62 grain .556 bullet at 800 yards?
Or we could use the already existing issue M240s in 7.62 NATO instead of the old 1919Awhatever that was heavier, more complex and our troops hated it.
A bit weildly.
Even SBRs are too big inside vehicles. This is supposed to be a gun for vehicle crew.
Enough to ring steel, but I have no data on the actual foot pounds.
Not much.
I wouldn’t kick either of them outta bed for eating crackers,
“I agree on dumping the 9mm in favor of the .45 ACP.”
And get rid of that ineffective green tip bullet for the M4. Somalia showed that it simply doesn’t put bad guys down near well enough. Start issuing 62 grain soft points or hollow points. Since they’re the same weight there’s no need to worry about barrel twist rates and either one would be far better at stopping bad guys. Neither of those violate The Hague Convention and even if they did America never signed off on it anyway.
My personal preference would be to go to something 70 grains or heavier but that would require re-barreling every rifle in the inventory to properly stabilize it.
L
These guys beg to differ.
If we are going to issue a 7.62 rifle, and we should, the FN is a well proven system. There’s a reason they were known as “The free world’s right arm”.
Best,
L
Dunbass Geneva convention prohibits it
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.