Posted on 05/11/2007 9:22:48 AM PDT by Yo-Yo
Why field a foreign made weapon for most of our whole military? I perfectly understand that Special Forces and counter-terrorist groups use foreign weapons, probably most notably Heckler and Koch.
American soldiers should use American weapons. Made within our borders.
If H&K got an order for 500,000 HK416s, they'd set up a US manufacturing plant.
American soldiers should use American weapons. Made within our borders.
Or more apropriately, the Army should be willing to make changes where and when needed, rather than sitting like an immovable object.
Trust me, there’s no good to be had when unyielding “standardization” takes hold.
My dad weilded a Garand and loaded down with the heavy 30-06 ammo for it throughout WWII....
....things have changed.
Yup, they planned one in Columbus, Georgia, where Ft. Benning is.
I do not know why the US military is making this so difficult. Change the uppers to gas pistons and neck the 223 up to a 6mm 90grn bullet. No need to change lowers or magazines
They realy should give some thought about the M1A SOCOM 16!
Most soldiers like the M4. There are still some Freepers who do no like the 5.56 (223) round but for the average Joe it is the right weapon and the right round.
Sure the 5.56 makes a small little entrance hole but going through bone and flesh it makes a big nasty exit wound. Being a small round it means that the crunchies can carry twice as much ammo.
I would wager that there are more first round hits at 200 yards with the M4 than with the M1s of the Korean War simply due to the current proliferation of optical sights.
That would be my first choice, too (in a selective fire variant.)
“You mean like the Beretta?”
The Beretta is an okay gun, but they should have never replaced the 1911A1 with this. If they wanted to replace the 1911A1 with something, it should have been with some re-designed 1911A1 or any of the other myriad of .45 ACPs out there.
The only reason we switched to the 9mm parabellum was to conform to NATO standards. Dumb reason to switch out. The 1911A1 is far superior to the 92FS. I remember when they first issued these in the Marine Corps and there were a bunch of people getting hit with slides flying off.
We switched from the 7.62 to 5.56 to conform to NATO specs, why can’t they switch from the 9 X 19 to a .45 ACP?
That would be my first choice, too (in a selective fire variant.)............... Maybe, but only with a bipod. Still, even in semi-auto, you can still deliver one hell of a lot of lead in a short amount of time.
Of course it is the highest rated weapon when the alternatives are so few.
“...We switched from the 7.62 to 5.56 to conform to NATO specs, why can’t they switch from the 9 X 19 to a .45 ACP?”
Ha! Right-o! NATO could conform to us once in a while since we are over half of NATO in real forward combat projection.
The 1911 design is going stronger than ever as it nears one hundred years. The Colts, Kimbers, Springfields, Paras, and Wilsons all keep tweaking the old boy but the basic 1911 (without guide rod, extended thumb release, enlarged extraction port) as made in 1911 is still one great weapon.
My gas-piston rifle is stamped "Las Vegas, NV". I hear they make one in 5.56 that accepts M16 magazines nowadays.
My thoughts exactly. The direct impingement system ("it craps where it eats") is just too finicky--not a good quality for a combat weapon you're going be staking yours and others lives on. Let's phase in something with a gas piston and move on.
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.