Soldier thoughts on their weapons

[Xargos]

You're an idiot Laserboy.  You're a standing joke on the BBS.  Get over yourself.

[OdinGrunherze]

Had an Armalite AR10 flat top/HB, It was a piece of junk... Shot well at first, but pounded itself to pieces.... The reciever stretched around the barrel threads.... Common problem, because the AR15 design wasn't meant to chamber the .308win/7.62NATO cartridge.... All the others clones are having the same problems too....

Went back to what WORKS... Springfield M1A/NM....

OG

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You're continuing the fine tradition of planning for the previous war, laser.  Well done.

It isn't a hard task.  Analyze how many armies we've fought in the past, even during today, and count how many have worn armor.  Zero.

Now, given our type of mission for the future, analyze the TYPE of army we will be fighting in the future, and whether or not they'll be wearing armor.

Even during the height of tensions with our biggest challenge post WW2, armor was not an issue at all.  

How many can be predicted to wear armor?  Still, Zero.  That is, unless germany suddenly feels like starting **** again.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Try the russians, iran and china.
All have body armor now.

Nothing like china developing it, russia releasing the compounds and material for it "to mass produce it"..and some bellybutton crasy iranians to use the stuff in combat.

"wtf, i shot that guy five times before he blew himself up!"



Time's a'changin'

[Yeager]

Something along the size of an M1 Carbine that shoots .308 Winchester and hold a 30 round clip would rock my world

[VOR]

The .308 ball cartridge doesn't cause as much trauma as people give it credit for. I'll try to dig up the research and post it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by VOR
The .308 ball cartridge doesn't cause as much trauma as people give it credit for. I'll try to dig up the research and post it.

No, it doesn't, but I'd prefer that level of power over 5.56. I'd say that the ordnance people could probably find a good (better than what they load now) bullet for the 7.62 for use against human targets, if they were so inclined.

[VWE]

Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You're continuing the fine tradition of planning for the previous war, laser.  Well done.

[Xargos]

Originally posted by VWE
Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.

I'll listen to you on this subject before most anyone else on this board.  I have a few squad mates who have been over there as well and will give them the same respect.

P.S.  I pray you return home unharmed VWE.  

[Hornet33]

.223 is plenty if you shoot them in the head, and I don't care what sort of drugs or what not they're on. Scramble the brain and down they go. I can hit a head sized target all day long at 100 yards with my M4.

[Xargos]

I don't know first hand on what stopping power the .223 has.  All I can tell you is when an inmate sees one pointed at him he stops climbing the fence.

[OdinGrunherze]

You guys call em Hadji's these days... We called em Rags back in 82/83...
And again in 90/91... I'd be over there with ya now if I wasn't too old...
A troop should fight with the same weapons that he trains with... Its a confidence issue...
In 83, before the barracks bombing, we took small arms fire on a daily basis. The usual Rag tactics... They pop out and empty a Mag at ya, then hide again... Behind those mud brick walls... I'm sure you know the ones that I'm talking about, they're everywhere.... We took a few casualties before we had permission from the Peacekeeper Chain of command, to return fire.... Well, the brand new 16a2's that we were issued were finr for a little while.... Made the F*$Ker's bleed too.... But it didn't take long for them to move back out of range.... Beirut was a mess, shelled by the Isrealis daily... So there was blasted buildings and rubble that they would hide in, just out of reach... Their fire was inaccurate but a major pain, ya know? After some major *****in from NCO's on the parimeter posts... Our company CO had a shipment of 14's flown in on CH53...Some of us older Recon guys had experience with em.... So we put them to good use... One guy would drive them out of their firing position buy pumpin 7.62 in the area...After a couple shots, the 7.62 would penetrate the walls... And the #2 guy would be waitin to pop em when they showed themselves... Worked well too... So well, that the F***er's hit us with a suicide bomb....
Lost many of my friends there, and never got any payback....
I have a little exp too
Semper Fi

OG

[VOR]

Originally posted by VWE
Personally I don't see the issue, I carry an old M-16A2 every day with me while in Iraq and have total confidence that I can reach out and take down anything up to 300 meters out. I think for most of the conflicts here the M4 is perfect, we are not engaging anyone 300 meters away or beyond they are close enough I can hit em with a rock! I personally have yet to see anyone here bring up this 'stopping power' issue, I guess its all those arm chair quarterbacks at home with the issue.

I didn't hear anyone griping about it either, honestly. If you'd read the file though you'd see that it's not arm chair quarterbacks providing the input.

[VOR]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, it doesn't, but I'd prefer that level of power over 5.56. I'd say that the ordnance people could probably find a good (better than what they load now) bullet for the 7.62 for use against human targets, if they were so inclined.

I agree. There are already several viable alternatives in use in the civilian sector, but the cost of switching an entire nation's arsenal to a new caliber is unimaginable to me. I especially wonder how much of a viable option it would be considering the already tremendous cost of continuing the war and the threat of having funding pulled out from under our feet because it isn't fun any more.

When you get down to brass tacks you're never going to have a perfect cartridge within the confines of the Geneva convention that's lightweight enough to enable a troop to carry a respectable load into combat. There will always be a compromise and any weapon system for the rank-and-file troop has to be scaled to the lowest common denominator in terms of their ability to effectively manage it. That's just the way it is.

Also, the size of the weapon is definitely a concern. Our existing rifles chambered for 7.62x51 are too long to be effectively maneuvered inside a HMMVW; evan an M16A2 is cumbersome when you're wearing body armor. (I carried an A2 during my first tour and felt like a turtle every time I got in a Hummer and strapped my seatbelt on.) So, even using an existing proven cartridge like the 7.62 creates a whole new problem because it would require a new, shorter rifle be issued along with it for it to be of any real practical advantage.

I think that as grumpy as it makes me to admit it, we're probably better off just keeping what we have until there's a more convenient time to switch to something better.