Soldiers Want Bigger Bullets

[lasersailor184]

The Garand and BAR are yesterdays news. Yes they were great but you couldnt compare the firepower of todays rifle companies with yesterdays. The amount of firepower a modern rifle company can lay out on an enemy is awsome.

This is true if AND ONLY IF each 5.56 Nato round is equal in power to each 7.62 Nato round.  Since they are not, this statement isn't true.

[Motherland]

Bring back the Thompson and B.A.R. for urban assault/building clearing! Then your squad can have long range weapons specialist to use the less effective far range weapons to pick off the runners. Tommy gun and B.A.R are 2 of the most deadly close in combination weapons you can find for in close fighting other than a shotgun IMO.

Isn't the BAR like 20 lbs? With a complicated-to-reload 20 round magazine?


According to Wiki:
Type    Automatic rifle
Place of origin    Flag of the United States United States
Service history
In service    1917–1960s (U.S.)
Used by    United States
Wars    World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War (limited), Palestinian Civil War
Production history
Designed    1917
Produced    1917–1940s
Number built    See design
Variants    M1918A1, M1918A2, M1922
Specifications
Weight    7.2–8.8 kg (16–19 lb) empty
Length    1,214 mm (47.8 in)
Barrel length    610 mm (24 in)
Cartridge    .30-06 Springfield (7.62x63mm)
Action    Gas-operated, open bolt
Rate of fire    300–650 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity    805 m/s (2,640 ft/s)
Effective range    548 m (600 yd)
Feed system    20-round detachable box magazine


VS. the AK (this is under the Wikipedia article for AK47... a modern variant like the AKM or AK103 would be lighter and more accurate with a higher rate of fire, IIRC)
Type    Assault rifle
Place of origin    Flag of the Soviet Union Soviet Union
Service history
In service    1949–present
Used by    Warsaw Pact, Post-Soviet states, many others
Production history
Designer    Mikhail Kalashnikov
Designed    1944-1946
Manufacturer    Izhmash
Variants    See Variants
Specifications
Weight    4.3 kg (9.5 lb) with empty magazine
Length    870 mm (34.3 in) fixed wooden stock
875 mm (34.4 in) folding stock extended
645 mm (25.4 in) stock folded
Barrel length    415 mm (16.3 in)
Cartridge    7.62x39mm M43
Action    Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire    600 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity    715 m/s (2,346 ft/s)
Effective range    100-800 sight adjustments m
Feed system    30-round detachable box magazine, also compatible with 40-round box or 75-round drum magazines from the RPK
Sights    Adjustable iron sights, 378 mm (14.9 in) sight radius

[moot]

Most of the differences are debatable as to which is better.  Sure the M14 has a higher mag capacity, but the Garand is one of the fastest reloading weapons in the world.  As to an aside, regardless of what people have said, it is relatively easy to reload a Garand Clip in gun up to 7 bullets.  It's an acquired skill to load the clip to 8 bullets out of the gun in a decently quick manner.

The M14 does have Automatic Fire.  But since it is lighter, most except the bigger guys will have difficulty controlling it.  The Garand is heavier.


Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.

What about if you weigh the total reloading time for a certain amount of bullets shot (e.g. the number of bullets in 1 M14 load), and if you designed some sort of ballast for the M14?

[Rambo Fan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets

It seems that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are complaining that the rounds fired by the M16 and M4 rifles that form the bulk of the individual weaponry issued to soldiers in the combat zone are inadequate for the nature of combat in these areas. The rounds were designed to penetrate the steel helmets and types of body armor typically worn by modern armies on a major battlefield. However against lightly-armed targets at the short ranges of urban combat, the rounds have a tendency to pass through the target, and lack the hitting power and lethality to drop an enemy combatant unless a major organ is hit.

IIRC this is the same situation as occurred when the US Military and local police forces switched over to the 9mm in preference over the larger M1911 and related .45cal sidearms.

So what you saying exactly? We abandon the M16 and M4 for say uum... an AK-47?

[angelsandair]

M-14s for Everyone!!!

Or get those soldiers the new 6.8mm guns out there (which is I heard .270 Winchester)

[Tac]

When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power.  They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him.  It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.

I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.

That is correct.

The thing is, that philosophy only works in conventional warfare. Aka army vs army.

Thing is, against the muslim fanatics in the middle east... they dont care if they die and their leaders really dont care how many people they lose. There's plenty of screaming doofuses to replace their losses.

Personally, I say bring on the vaporizing ray guns.

[Saxman]

Now THIS could be the solution:

The ultimate anti-personnel weapon

[Rambo Fan]

Agreed, we need light grenades...