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 Against people who see it as their obligation to die trying to kill with their last breath, that concept is outdated.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.
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.