Right now, many of our troops with boots on the ground are still being issued that old direct impingement POS the M-16, or it's slightly more reliable, but less accurate M-4 Carbine. Our tankers, pilots and special operations personnel that need a sub-compact weapon are still using M9 Barrettas, or those low powered MP5s. There are an array of much better, more improved weapons out there. The XM8 for example, out shot the M-4 and M16. The HK416 is much more reliable then that old black rifle. The FN SCAR even outshone the direct impingement dinosaur. And to replace the MP5 and M9, The 6mm KAC PDW comes to mind. Even the new MP7 is better, as is that spaceage looking gun, the P90. The military does not want to give our troops the better weapons. Why? It's not because the weapons haven't been tested or found unreliable. They have proven themselves. It's not that the soldier's would have to retrain to use them effectively and efficiently. Most of the new weapons maintain the M-16 lower receiver layout and require minimal training to become proficient. All soldiers do anyway is train. The real reason? Cost.
But whats more expensive than a soldier's life? Apparently, the right equipment. You know, maybe the military can't decide what it's needs are. Fine. Individual soldiers can. If you're a squad leader, go for the PDW so you can still hit a target at 300 Meters while doing all your squad leading duties. If you're a marksman and like the FN SCAR 17 with it's high rate of fire and heavy hitting caliber, Why not have it? If you're a pilot and you really like the high magazine capacity of the p90, Why the hell can't you have it?
The solution... Soldiers have the option to choose and purchase their own weapons. That way, no money comes out of the government's pockets that wasn't already coming out. Then after the soldier gets out of the military, they simply trade in their full-auto or three round burst bolts for a civilian semi only bolt... or they can resell it to another soldier for a reduced price. If I was still in the army, I would much have preferred to have an MP7 or a P90 rather then my M-4 carbine while I was working on the UH-60s. I wouldn't have minded paying for it if I could have resold it when I got out. I would have had an extra couple of bucks to spend when I got out too, instead of wasting the money on beer in the barracks.

"Profile not found. No longer a member of military.com."

Another one post wonder.

I"m not a one post wonder, I just updated my profile.

Click on the profile.
It reads:
"Profile not found . 21345351 ia no longer a member of military.com"

quote:

Originally posted by 21345351:
The solution... Soldiers have the option to choose and purchase their own weapons. That way, no money comes out of the government's pockets that wasn't already coming out. Then after the soldier gets out of the military, they simply trade in their full-auto or three round burst bolts for a civilian semi only bolt... or they can resell it to another soldier for a reduced price. If I was still in the army, I would much have preferred to have an MP7 or a P90 rather then my M-4 carbine while I was working on the UH-60s.

So, when these privately owned weapons break, who pays to fix them? Where do Soliders, in combat, get the repair parts to maintain tall the different weapons you'd see? You'd have guys wanting to tote an AR-7 in .22 LR, because it's lighter.

Uncle Sam would have to stock an enormous quantity of spare parts for all the different weapon's you'd see. The Germans tried it in WWII, it was a logistical nightmare. They adopted weapons from all the country's they conquered, then had the task of maintaining them.

Ammo? You've got one guy carrying a 6mm, another 5.56. Some guys will carry a 5.7 and others will want a 9mm or .45. It's bad enough having 5.56 and 7.62 that don't interchange. How many other sizes of anmmo do you want to throw into the mix.

I'll give you an example of why it's a bad idea.
.
One of the Officer's in the North Hollywood shootout was pinned down behind a car. He had good cover and could engage the suspects. He would fire, then toss his empty magazines over a wall to other Officers to reload. Why? He had a Beretta, the other Officers were carrying S&W or other makes of weapons. The magazines didn't interchange. BTW, he got the Medal of Valor for his actions.

Tell me how well that would work in combat. In your scenario, not only magazines wouldn't interchange, the ammo wouldn't either.

LOL...jeenyus!

The M16 is a POS because of direct impingement, but the M4 is more reliable and less accurate.....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahAHAHAHAHahHAHAHAHahAhAhahAhahAh ............................................................................................................................
.....................................hahahahHAHAHAHahahHAHAHAHAhahaaaaaaa.....
.............ha.

I'm not a ground pounder, so this opinion is strictly out of my love for weapons. Upgrade and re-engineer the AK-74M (5.45X39). And for the few that confuse this with the AK47, no... I actually mean the 74. I personally love the 5.45X39 round, and this piece is more accurate than the 16, longer range and is durable. I can't imagine how a few(edit- major engeneering changes) enngineering changes would make this an ultimate battlefield weapon. I personally don't hunt anything other than squirrel with a .22, so I can't see shooting the enemy with a round that may kill them with an initially purely fatal hit, but may let them live much longer to continue fighting back if the wound isn't instant kill. Of course we can't make 7MM Mags, or 300 Mags functional in the field, so I opt for a round like the 5.45X39. Before you ground pounders tear my a$$ apart for this, just remember it's only the opinion of a weapon enthusiast and not from someone with ANY experience on a battlefield. Much respect to those of you who have been there done that.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HawkShock,

HawkShock, bad guys die just fine with proper hits of 5.56.

The AK design is inherently inaccurate, due to its construction method.

Soviet weapon design has never been on accuracy, but volume of fire. We think differently.

(LOL) a properly placed hit from a sling shot will kill the bad guys as well. But I agree, and as I said, I've never been in a tactical situation. My small arms training comes from being a Range Master and Tactical Police training, as well as being somewhat of a collector. I like the shorter AK and I like the power of its X39 round. But with that being said, it can't compare in the speed and close up devestation of the M16. With that being said, I do believe I mentioned that the 74 would need an engeneering overhaul to be a premier field weapon. If you're talking about the 74M against the M4, I stand corrected.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: HawkShock,