[krept]

choose for the average US footsoldier and why?

longarm - G36. I think the .223 is good for all but long ranges where the squad level weapons (or arty, air support) could take over. Prefer the gas operating system to the AR direct blowback and the XM8 isn't in service yet. 7.62 would probably be too much for the average soldier.

sidearm - USP or USP compact if they wanted to keep the requirement for manual safety lever. If AP is a requirement, probably 9mm would be fine still. Otherwise, I feel that .40 offers a decent step up in power, while still being small enough for medium sized hands. I think the USP would be superior to the M9 in almost every way. Don't feel that the 1911 would be good for the avg. GI.

cheers

 

[Aslan]

all in all, not bad choices.

But I disagree with the comment about the 7.62 being too much for the average soldier. Soldiers did well with the garand in WWII, and the web gear and LBE is much better today than it ever was then.

I'd go for either an M14 in 7.62 or an AR in 6.8

sidearm? a SIG is pretty hard to beat, but the USP works too. I'm a fan of the .45, but the .40 would be a reasonable compromise between the 9mm and the .45.

:devil:

 

[Magnum88C]

FN "para" model FAL. Shorter barrel than the full-aize rifle. Handy enough, still gets the .308 where it needs to be and with the adjustable gas system, it's suprisingly light in the recoil department vis-a-vis otehr 7.62 rifles.

Want good power and AP? A Sig in .357 Sig. Good AP profile bullets (the .357 Sig actually uses 9mm, .355 bullets, and since military is limited to FMJ, might as well make it all copper-jacketed steel-core), and bottleneck cartridges are more reliable feeding.

 

[DJetAce]

I think the M1A in 'Scout' configuration, with a high-tech polymer lightweight stock would do. Alot of the metal on the stock can be replaced with polymer fittings. Weight of the rifle comes to 9 pounds as-is, so that could be cut down to 8.5 easy. The 20 round mags can also be polymer, dropping weight down there. And I have no doubt the 7.62 round could use a 140gr FMJ, taking a bit of weight off the ammo while not decreasing it's effectivness.

The pistol could easly be one of several. Glock in .357 sig, like Magnum suggest with AP sounds right. Expect more armies around the world to use body armor, and thus we need a round to shoot through them. I can even see the good old 1911 in .357 sig format. With the 5 inch barrel, expect velocity around the 1500 fps or more for 125gr bullets and no telling what a 100gr 9mm slug would do leaving such a barrel (and I would make sure the barrel was polygon rifled like the glock, and even the same finish!!!)

Also keep in mind optics. The military is now going back to aimed fire instead of this spray-n-pray. So less rounds, rounds that are more effective, are what they want.

 

[gripper]

If the choice is limited to 5.56,i'm inclined to say the Galil or the R4(in 18-20 inch barrel length).Maybe the Tavor bullpup(if the troopie usage from the IDF says "Kosher").The first two since I like Kalashniklones,the latter ,yo keep overall length down without shortening barrel length.Gott go with reliable function.
Caliber wise?I prefer 7.62/.308,mainly due to payload on target at longer operating range.Fal withe Israeli HB bolt group(operating mass to compensate for non reciprocating bolt handle).Maybe .308 Galil(if it vcan be had).don't laugh,but I wonder what Robinson Armament/Molot could do with a VEPRII .308 in military trim could do,even as a semi auto only.
Sidearms?.45 or 9mm are both good,but the 9mm relies more on a higher operating pressure to slap them down at ranges beyond "stomp&stabtime"....If THAT is the choice,and the M9 is the choice,how about a steel frame variant WITH the Brigadfier slide assembly,for durability with loaded-on -the warm-side ammtherwise,if money is not the hang up,H&K USP Tacticals in .45 or USP in 9mm would work.
Of course what they should REALLY have is whatever inspires confidence and competence from constant practice, and the knowledge that whatever they have was not the result of an insider's contract citting costs down byscrewing them with bad magazine springs,breakage prone parts due to lousy castings ,orthe usual "lowest bidder" BS.

 

[krept]

I'm not a WWII (or history) buff, but weren't most of the battles with longarms fought against similarly sized weapons & calibers? What I'm saying is that with the advent of more medium powered cartridges like the 7.62x39, it seemed like the 7.62x51 was growing more out of favor because it didn't allow for as much stability in full auto weaponry. Today, with much greater armored mobility, precision artillery and close air support, battles out "in the open" where the 7.62 would really shine seem fewer and far between. MOUT and CQB, it would seem to me, are where the battles are moving and it's for that reason that I thought the 5.56 would be a good cartridge for the GI soldier.

Agree with .357 SIG, that would be a good combo of more power and AP capability. If no manual safety were required, SIG or Glock all the way, would lean towards the latter because of the simple ability to detail strip, although there would be a lot more NDs than with the M9.

cheers

 

[andy]

The common soldier doesn't get NEARLY enough training with his rifle, much less the pistol. any possible improvements of currently issued would be lost on 99% of them. The billions of $ spend, lost training time, etc, simply isn't even REMOTELY justified, so it is of course never going to happen. So why waste time speculating on it, hmm? Comman foot soldiers are just cannon fodder. Always were and always will be.

 

[krept]

I think that's kind of old school now, however, at least for the US.

Our naval forces take the coast. Launch SSMs and use stealth to take out radars and AA/SAM emplacements. High altitude bombers mop up, along with more stealth guided by realtime drones backed up by fighters/AAMs. Then low altitude bombers/attack planes follow up, take out arty. then our arty comes in, again, superior precision and range, followed by armor which rakes up the lingering turds.

Our GIs are hardly exposed to cannon fodder, as you'd say, unless it's an ambush or they CO really screwes up. Even then, at best, they might have mortars, light armor and other stuff that can get past the initial waves. To my knowledge, that's how it's been done since Vietnam.

 

[andy]

they haven't FOUGHT since Nam, dude. All they've done is follow along while OTHERS did the dirty work, mostly against old folks and kids.

 

[Terry G]

A really ridicuolous response to a good post. You might have been nothing more than cannon fodder, but I wasn't. I had very good, extensive training that helped me survive. But then again your a loser who is envious of everyone. The M-14 is out of date for the average Grunt. It's too heavy, and more to the point the ammunition is too heavy. With our more mechanized force, the Grunt doesn't have to walk as far, but carrying 60 to 80 punds of gear for even a couple of click's will wear you put. The M-16A2 and M-4's are good weapons, they need better ammunition. The NATO "Politically Correct" round does not cut it. As far as a sidearm is concerned, I see nothing wrong with the M-9. Sure it's hampered by FMJ, but it will get the job done. Along this line, truth to be told, how often is a pistol used in war? I carried a Colt 1911A1 for 9 months in combat and never fired it a human enemy. Why would I? I had a perfectly good M-16A1 with me at all times. Don't get me wrong, the .45 was a great comfort, but more for morale reasons than efficiency.

 

[DJetAce]

Terry,

What if the M1A was produced with a titanium reciever and barrel (and shorter barrel at that)? And the 7.62 changed to 7mm-08? Add that ligher polymer stock to and built in optics.

In Iraq they are racking up alot of 1 and 2 shot kills right now. M-14s are the designated sniper rifles, but yes it could lose some weight and any new production M-14 could be set up with stainess bolt and small parts, and titanium for the rest. Add polymer mags and you can have a very modern rifle that is already 'battle tested'.

 

[Terry G]

Djetace, Interesting idea. I just don't see it happening. The M-14 frame, even with a shorter, lighter, barrel and polymer magazines and stock, is going to look like a step backward. I have fired the M-16A1 and A2 a lot. They can perform the tasks necessary for an infantryman. The M193 55 grain 5.56 Round was a definite manstopper. The M-16A2 and M-4 only started failing when the "NATO" ammunition was switched to a "kinder, gentler round" that "caused less tissue damage". More stupid verbiage I have never heard. When you have to shoot somebody, you WANT them hurt and down and out. Looking for a more "Humane" rifle round and then laying land mines around and firing mortars and 155MM Artillery is just hypochrisy.

 

[gripper]

On the notion of step-down conversions of the .308;any thoughts regarding the .260 Remmington?I was wondering....WTH,it probably comes from liking the "other"Mauser cartridges&their interesting ballistics..308=shorter case ,so it'd be a bit more production and user friendly than longer cases like the 6.5X55.
Was'nt someone9DSA?)offering .260 and 7mm-08 as an option in the FAL?Or for that matter,the AR10 type rifles?Just thinking.

 

[DJetAce]

Terry,

It's not that the 5.56 can be effective or not, it is when you want to 5.56 to do something more than takedown unarmored enemy. We all know there is not much you can stuff in a 5.56 slug. The trace element isn't much, and no incenerary. And I know a AP 5.56 will not shoot through trees and such like a 7.62 AP will (or even ball).

We have made the 'main battle rifle' only good for enemy that is not behind cover and at short to moderate range. That is why they want the 6.8mm.

Gripper, the M1A was/is offered in .243 winchester. I think that is what you are talking about. And the 7mm-08 is really a .308 necked down to 7mm, duplicating a hot 7mm Mauser!

In fact, if they could guarantee reliability, the AR-10, with titanium reciever might be the answer to. Just a bit shorter round in 7mm or so.

 

[Hard Ball]

"they haven't FOUGHT since Nam, dude. All they've done is follow along while OTHERS did the dirty work, mostly against old folks and kids."

Oh? In early April 2003 the US Armys 3rd Infanry Divison engaged 5 elite Iraqi Republican Guard divisions blocking the road to Bagdhad, In two days of intense fighting it destroyed all 5. That was real fighting "dude."

 

[krept]

Looks like they're looking for a replacement to the M9 and M11... Hmmm...

http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2004/10-October/03-Oct-2004/FBO-00687867.htm

Sounds like it could be very close to the USP .45 Compact Tactical that I believe Naval Special Warfare is considering adopting...

http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/handguns/usp45ct.html

cheers

 

[andy]

not with INFANTRY rifles it wasn't. It was tanks, planes, choppers, arty, and belt feds, just like it ALWAYS is. The military aint as STUPID as you are, they use what WORKS, with as little risk and hassle as possible.

 

[andy]

what beef could they POSSIBLY have against the wonderful Sig pistol, hmm?

 

[gripper]

I think that he "beefs"would simply be that the smaller calibers are more reliant on both a hih operating pressure(durability issue) and precise shot placement under high stress conditions.That said,thers nothing wrong with either the 9mm or the .45;its just a question of delivery systems,and in some cases;powder charges. You like the hot loads for the 9; iIlean towards the +Ps in both calibers. I simply prefer a more durable piece to fire them in. If that means something bigger and heavier than a belly gun,than so be it. Truth is, I shot well with both the 1911A1 AND the respective 9mm's,both the M9 ,and a few others.
WTH,maybe a linkless system a la .45 P35 BHP(they make .40s,why not scale it up a bit more).or ,if a "modern" piece suits you more,HKs like the USP series(I DO like the Tactical .45)or otherscould be equally useful.
Nothing wrong with the 1911s as long as you just see it as a standard hardball delivery system,I know the custom &civilian makers can handkle others,but since they're more tightly fitted,they may not function as reliably under harsh conditions.When you consider hoever that he youngest 1911A1s in the arms room that I carried were made in the WW2era,and had been used as everything from pounding tent pegs by GIs,dropped in swamps,sand etc....rattled like hell ,but they STILL put a decent size bullet on target.

 

[Aslan]

Gripper - DSA does, or did offer an FAL in 7-08. I thought about buying one, but decided to stick with the 7.62 version.

:devil: