Replacing the M16/M4

Maybe you'd like to explain why they're not carrying the M4. And what's with all the 7.62?

 

Snipers.....that's pretty obvious.

The majority of the guys in your photos appear to be Special Forces. Those guys have tailored made missions as well as incredible support personnel. They carry out a massive range of missions that tends to demand various different weapons.

That said, your average Infantry BN today does carry quite a selection of weapons. However, the more exotic ones, e.g. shotguns/sniper rifles are very small in number and are by no means standard. Just because your scout section is running around with M82s and M40s doesn't mean it makes sense for the hundreds of guys in line companies to be walking around with whatever they want.

 

I did add something, it's called experience in the military with accusation of supplies. Sorry kid, but having a hodgepodge assortment of weapons makes no sense what so ever, sorry you can't grasp this fact.

Stick to the video games, and let people in the military handle the logistics.

 

cross platform compatability and standardization is the key to a efficent and cost effective force and it goes far beyond the weapon systems.

If you look at military vehicles, and even the newer ones, many of the parts are bolt on. The tail lights on a humvee fit almost every other vehicle the military uses.

Hell It's practically required to win a government contract. Contractors will include as much existing infrastructure and parts possible into their designs to keep proposals as low and cost down. There's a reason 84% of the huey and cobras parts are identical.

 

Let's see, what is this?

Another M-260 7.62mm machine gun.

Now the next one is tricky. It looks a lot like an M-107 /50 cal sniper rifle. However, the person holding it is not wearing a US military uniform. And are those tennis shoes on his feet?

Ahh, the M4. 12 guage semi-automatic shotgun. A big improvement from the old 870 I used 30 years ago in the Marines.

And the M-26 MASS. This is one of many projects that is in development. Basically it is a cut-down Remington 870 that is attached under the rifle, like the M-203 Grenade Launcher. Also 12 guage.

Yea, these are pretty standard weapons. I have fired the M-240, as well as it's predecessor, the M-60. I have not fired the M4, but I have fired the 870. And I have seen both the M-26, as well as have seen soldiers and Marines train when trying to use both a rifle and a shotgun for MOUT. A real pin in the butt, so it should be obvious why they developed the M-26.

Just like they developed the M-203 and M-320 when it became obvious how big of a pain the M-79 was.

 

All that 7.62?

I am sorry my friend, but none of those photos appeared to have a 7.62mm weapon.

From top to bottom, it appears to be the following:

5.56mm
.50 cal
5.56mm
9mm

You seem to be obsessed with the outside looks of the weapons. And not reven realizing that you mostly keep giving us pictures of M-16, M-249, and M-240 over and over and over again.

 

The first pic is not a M240' it's a SAW.

 

You are right, that top hand grip should have given it away.

What can I say, I posted that on 4 hours sleep the previous 48 hours, and having spent the last week (like every week for the past month) out in the desert.

Good catch.

 

It's not "another M-260" if there is such a thing. It's called the MK 48. 7.62 mm.

I don't really care what kind of shoes snipers like to wear. It's an XM 2010 in .300 Winchester Magnum.

7.62 mm USMC MK-11 Mod 0

.338 Lapua Magnum M24A3. There might be a 7.62 NATO M24 in the background, but I don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about rifles, so I'll let you decide.

SCAR-H, 7.62mm. Bigger magazines usually mean bigger bullets.

Good for you. Every 10 yr old boy in the country knows that one.

Don't blame me if you can't identify the weapons properly. Blame the lack of standardization.

 

You'd sound more like an expert if you actually knew how to spell "acquisition".

I could learn more from video games than from reading your posts.

Wrong.

 

Oh you got me, now your idiotic notion is vindicated.

Yawn....ok bud

No Im not wrong. It's not a M240, it's either a m249 or that new light weight 7.62 they're using. You can't tell by the pic, now sit down kid.

 

M-240, or more accurately, the M-240B, the current US military medium machine gun (I did a typo when I said 260 when I meant to input 240).

This has already been called into question. I thought it was a M-240,

But it may be the MK-48. This is an upgraded M-249, which fired 7.62 instead of 5.56mm rounds. Essentially the same weapon, simply "super sized".

And this weapon sees very limited use. Essentially, it is not seen outside of the Special Forces community. It is not issued to standard military units, which explains why I said it was 7.62. and somebody else said it was 5.56. Because this is not a standard military weapon, the classification comes in question.

I based by classification by looking at the magazine (which is like the 240), which caused me to classify it as 7.62. Bluespade looked at the weapon itself which caused him to classify it as 5.56. Turns out, we are both right and wrong.

"XM". The X classification itself shows that it is "Experimental". Therefore, it is not a standard issue weapon. There are normally dozens of "Experimental" weapons at any one time. But they are not issued but to a very few units for testing purposes. I baed my classifcation on the closest standard issue weapon I knew of.

And that is justified on the fact that the photo shows non-standard military equipment. I bet $50 to $1 that the person holding it in the photo is not US military. And that is what we are discussing after all. Not civilians or foreign military.

[As for the rest of them, you continue to do the same thing. A variety of "XM" weapons systems, and weapons used by the Special Forces community. Not weapons used by standard military units.

However, they all do use the standard military ammunitions. A 7/62mm version of the M-16 instead of the 5.56mm version. They look the same on the outside, but use a different caliber. Which by the way is still a standard NATO round.

And as far as my not being able to "identify the weapons properly", realize that the differences you are giving us are really minute. As opposed to the first batch you showed us. And you had to pick and choose through several postings to show I missed a few.

I have been in in the military for over 15 years. How many of them can you come even close to naming? You did not even seem to realize that your first posting were all of standard military weapons (M-16, M-149 and M-240).

You might as well complain that I could not tell the difference between two pistols chambered for .38 and .380. I can only go off the external appearance. I can't look inside the chamber to see what it is actually chambered for.

 

Where's are famed military expert Armchair General Righ-hook?

I guess he went to beef up on his military expertise, by playing Call of Duty.

Good stuff.

 

I think he realized that he had nothing to stand on when it comes to arguing about weapons. The simple fact that he showed many different photos of standard M-16 styled weapons but with different attachments like scopes, handgrips, and the like really showed that he did not have a clue what he was talking about.

I even mentioned this thread to some of the guys I work with this week. Only one of them had ever heard of the MK-48, and that was because he was a liason officer assigned to a Joint Task Force in Afghanistan until last year. Neither myself nor my Lieutenant (11B until 2 years ago) had ever heard of the weapon.

And when I showed the Lieutenant the photo of one, he actually made the same snap decision I did. He looked at the magazine box, realized it was 7.62, and called it a 240. I pointed out the barrel shroud, and he was like "WTF is that?!?!?"

 

I still want to see the armament of a platoon where every soldier gets to pick whatever weaponry they want.

I envision a bunch of guys carrying Desert Eagle .50, a Shotgun, a M-249 and a sniper rifle each.

 

I sure as hell do not!

For one, shotguns are generally considered to be illegal to use in warfare. The only use where they are authorized is in a defensive role (protecting yourself when a fixed position you are guarding is over-run), or as they are used most commonly today, in breeching things like doors (00 shot to the door lock normally destroys it).

This is why you see the photos earlier of shotgun attachments to the M-16. They do not use it against people, but against doors.

However, I remember firing the 40mm flachette round many years ago. It always made me sad that this round for the M-203 was discontinued, since it was so much fun to fire. Imagine a 40mm buckshot round, that shreads everything in it's path.

And you are talking about a platoon of Special Ops types, not your normal military organization. Not only would it be a horrible waste, ut would be less effective. Plus then you have the absolute nightmare of trying to support everybody in the unit.

Right now, 98% of units in the Army and Marines only need 4 types of standard ammunition. 9mm, 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and .50 cal. That's it. And those sizes fit everything from the CO's pistol to the heavy machine guns in the guard towers and on the trucks.

And all of our NATO allies use the same ammunition. So if a US position runs dangerously low, a nearby UK or German unit can give them an emergency ammo drop. Or in the event a major weapon like a machine gun or mortar becomes destroyed, they can rush in a replacement and know that it works with the ammunition on hand.

What you propose would be an absolute logistical nightmare. Because there are literally hundreds of different rounds.

And with the weapons you list, I can see already a totally combat-ineffective squad. You have 2 close in weapons, a machine gun, and a long distance weapon. Would not be long until your entire squad is dead. Especially if they can't trade ammunition if needed (which is why the M-249 accepts M-16 ammunition).

 

My statement was sarcasm, I was just a little too tired last night to remember to put the "/sarc" tag.

I based the weapons I listed on the comments I've heard from so many new personnel, as well as civilian gamers and spec-ops wannabees.

A lot of potential recruits brag about wanting to use machine-guns and mow down the enemy. When I discuss handguns, it is hard to find a young person who doesn't want to shoot the .50 (unless they have actually shot one, usually that changes their opinion.) With shotgun, I would even expect them to want to carry an AA-12, you don't know how many gun-nut friends have expressed a desire for one of those.

The sniper rifle comment comes from the crazy fights that happen in gaming teams where every wannabee fights to get to carry a sniper rifle. I expect that same attitude to translate into infantry if they had a chance.

I do expect this attitude would change fairly fast once the personnel deployed for a while, and I doubt most of the more senior personnel would change their armament much.

Regardless, I see so many crazy comments from younger personnel about the weapons they wish they could carry that I think it would be funny to see them try to carry all of that equipment for a few days, even if just during training. I'm sure they'd change their minds really quickly.

 

Trust me, I fully understand what you mean.

And it is not easy if you actually have to carry all of that gear around yourself. Let alone the training needed to properly use it.

If you want to be a Sniper, you generally have to attend a 10-12 week course. And that is a rather intense training, in which you learn everything you need to know about the basics of what a sniper does.

And that .50 Desert Eagle may seem cool, until you have to hump it and it's ammo for 20 miles, in addition to all your other gear. Personally, I prefer the old .45 myself. And for home-personal defense, my pistol is actually a .380. I am not interested in blowing a hole through the guy big enough for driving my fist through. I would rather have him in pain, then to have a long time sitting in a jail cell to see the error of his ways.

Having fired the M-16 since 1983, I find it a very good weapon. And the newer ones are miles above the old A1 I started with.

 

I know what you mean. I got the dubious privilege of deploying in a joint border control billet a while back. Once you put on the IBA with a full load plus weapons, you're already carrying around a lot. I'm quite impressed with how well the SAW gunners do carrying around their weapon and ammo. I doubt I could handle it as well as they do. The standard gear was more than enough for me.

As for sniper training, I'm sure the recruits feel that playing Call of Duty makes them pro snipers and they believe they shouldn't have to be trained.

 

I'm still here, I just got bored with your stupid (*)(*)(*)(*). Try to add something interesting to your posts, and I'll try not to put you on ignore.

You can't tell by the pic? How about the article I posted? Should I have used a bigger font?

Try this one:

U.S. Army infantry units are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan with a special operations forces machine gun that’s 30 percent lighter than the standard M240B but still packs the killing power of 7.62mm NATO.

http://www.military.com/news/article/new-machine-gun-for-joes-in-afghanistan.html

 

Maybe I just got sick of correcting your mistakes.

First I was wrong because they looked different, but were the same internally. Now I'm wrong because they look different and aren't the same internally.

I see how this works. I'm always wrong and you're always right.

Maybe these weapons aren't standard issue at Fort Who-Gives-A-(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Notice how there is no mention of every private picking whatever he wants to carry.

 

Well, he was stationed at Fort Benning, until he got his commission. Although you are right. Those weapons are not standard issue anywhere.

And that is exactly the point. All of the weapons you show us are either standard weapons with some additions like scopes and hand grips, or they are experimental weapons or special operations weapons.

And reguardless, they are all of standard NATO calibers. 5.56, 7.62 and .50 cal. You have yet to show us anything that is really different or special.

And funny, how you keep telling us that the Infantry should pick what they want. And what may I say do you base this opinion on? What is your experience in this area?

I have 10 years experience as an Infantryman. What is your background that shows you can make a decision like this?

 

Yup, and between you, me, and the other guys posting on this thread there's probably more than 30 years of infantry experience spanning multiple branches and battlefields. Yet this internet tough guy has the audacity to personally insult us and throw our hard earned insights by the wayside.

 

I don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand. Your idiotic notion that military personal should be able to carry what ever weapon they choose, is well idiotic.

Now let's try and break this down for you.

First of all, uniformity in the military is key. That goes for everything from uniforms, tactics, and lastly weapons. There is no individuality in the military.

Next, the military supply system was explained to you, and apparently you're not smart enough to grasp the big picture.

How the (*)(*)(*)(*) does it make any sense to have too supply every different (*)(*)(*)(*)ing round under the sun?

What about the NCOs who have to train their joes proper marksmanship, I guess they should spend every waking (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hour, looking up distances and velocities for every (*)(*)(*)(*)ing weapon in the world.

What about the armorers who repair weapons, should they spend five years in school learning to fix every weapon ever made?

It clear that you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue how the military functions, none what so ever.

You're some tool who played a couple video games, and thinks you know it all. You don't.

But please continue to talk out of your fourth point of contact, it's funny.