Why no new weapons for our troops????

Abrams 2.0

New Member
I have a VERY big issue with the fact that no new weapons have been issued to our troops in the field. For instance, the M-16, a Vietnam vintage rifle, is still in general use today!!! As well as other weapons, such as Browning M1919 series, the M2, and other outdated Machine guns.Now i know for a fact that the military is working on better armor for our troops, and that's fantastic. But we NEED to get our troops some better weapons, and here are my reasons for thinking so:

1. We need to end wars much quicker than we are right now, the war in Iraq being a perfect example

2.The saying "if it aint broken don't fix it" won't cut it if some country takes the initiative on this issue

3. The infantry needs some new toys to play with
 

Chrom

New Member
I have a VERY big issue with the fact that no new weapons have been issued to our troops in the field. For instance, the M-16, a Vietnam vintage rifle, is still in general use today!!! As well as other weapons, such as Browning M1919 series, the M2, and other outdated Machine guns.Now i know for a fact that the military is working on better armor for our troops, and that's fantastic. But we NEED to get our troops some better weapons, and here are my reasons for thinking so:

1. We need to end wars much quicker than we are right now, the war in Iraq being a perfect example

2.The saying "if it aint broken don't fix it" won't cut it if some country takes the initiative on this issue

3. The infantry needs some new toys to play with
Your suggestions? I dont think everyone around the globe are idiots as currently no army aquired (or even developed) weapon what is significally better than M-xx or AK-xx. There must be good reason for it...

Besides, you are wrong about new toys. It is just what assault rifles becoming kind of "last chance self-defence " pistol instead of main infantry weapon. ATGM's, RPG's, AGL, sniper rifles, UAV's, MANPAD's and targetting PDA's - these are new goodies for modern infantry.
 

lobbie111

New Member
I agree with Chrom and yes, there are currently no weapons the have an advantage over the "Ak-xx or the M-xx" near future and current newer Assult rifle designs are a compromise between the two weapon designs.

These new goodies however effective they actually are is irrelevant it comes down to operator training. An ATGM is a tool, if used incorrectly the result is just as bad in some cases as not using that tool at all.

The equipment shortfalls in Iraq, and needing to end the war quickly is not a matter of thew equipment itself. The fact is that the US did not have the right strategy for a COIN or occupational role. The US expected to go in, invade then after a few months...leave just like in the First Gulf War. The equipment shortfalls are not because of their old design it is because they are being askd to do what they were not designed to do the main example here is the HMMWV.

But this is just like everything the US will be influenced by the war they fight so now they will design vehicles to withstand mines and IED's and next their will be a large scale conflicts that little stryker brigades will be useless against MBT regiments...
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
And maybe one should have a look at what a M-16 looked like during Vietnam and what it looks like now.

There is not that much more one can do.
Maybe replace the upper part with a HK416 but in the end it is not that important and is for sure at the very bottom of problems in Iraq.
 

riksavage

Banned Member
It's time for a change.........

Newer Carbines Outperform M4 in Dust Test

The M4 carbine, the weapon U.S. soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test” to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse” than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

  • XM8: 127 stoppages.
  • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
  • 416: 233 stoppages.
  • M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call.”

I was under the impression SF units were moving to the SCAR in 5.56mm & 7.62mm.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I have a VERY big issue with the fact that no new weapons have been issued to our troops in the field. For instance, the M-16, a Vietnam vintage rifle, is still in general use today!!! As well as other weapons, such as Browning M1919 series, the M2, and other outdated Machine guns.Now i know for a fact that the military is working on better armor for our troops, and that's fantastic. But we NEED to get our troops some better weapons, and here are my reasons for thinking so:

1. We need to end wars much quicker than we are right now, the war in Iraq being a perfect example

2.The saying "if it aint broken don't fix it" won't cut it if some country takes the initiative on this issue

3. The infantry needs some new toys to play with
The M2 12.7mm machine gun doesn't need to be "fixed" or replaced in reality. Just grab one of those new quick change barrels that FN manufacture to eliminate "head space" issues and the weapon is as powerful as ever, but can be fired at a higher rate of fire.

As for the pistols, well I thought the M9 Beretta HAD replaced the M1911, much to the chagrin of many?

The other support weapons, M240 7.62mm machine guns and the M24( SAW are fantastic weapons, and particularly in the M240 case, have been re-introduced into "light infantry" service, after operational experience has taught commanders how excellent and useful these weapons really are.

Combined with modern day/night sighting systems, they provide outstanding firepower...
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It's time for a change.........

Newer Carbines Outperform M4 in Dust Test

The M4 carbine, the weapon U.S. soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test” to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse” than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

  • XM8: 127 stoppages.
  • MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
  • 416: 233 stoppages.
  • M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were “a wake-up call.”

I was under the impression SF units were moving to the SCAR in 5.56mm & 7.62mm.
The tests are not a wake up call, the soldiers believe in the M4 and they like using it, regardless of what this so called controlled test showed you do not have U.S soldiers screaming that their assault rifles are jamming in Iraq or Afghanistan.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The M2 12.7mm machine gun doesn't need to be "fixed" or replaced in reality. Just grab one of those new quick change barrels that FN manufacture to eliminate "head space" issues and the weapon is as powerful as ever, but can be fired at a higher rate of fire.

As for the pistols, well I thought the M9 Beretta HAD replaced the M1911, much to the chagrin of many?

The other support weapons, M240 7.62mm machine guns and the M24( SAW are fantastic weapons, and particularly in the M240 case, have been re-introduced into "light infantry" service, after operational experience has taught commanders how excellent and useful these weapons really are.

Combined with modern day/night sighting systems, they provide outstanding firepower...
Yes - M1911A1 was replaced around the year 1989 in most units with the Italian M9, it is still one of my favorite hand guns to shoot along with my HK P9S. With proper head space and timing old Ma Duece will continue to hammer away, most of the time all you have to do is screw the barrel in all the way then back it off three clicks.
 

adroth

New Member
I have a VERY big issue with the fact that no new weapons have been issued to our troops in the field. For instance, the M-16, a Vietnam vintage rifle, is still in general use today!!! As well as other weapons, such as Browning M1919 series, the M2, and other outdated Machine guns.Now i know for a fact that the military is working on better armor for our troops, and that's fantastic. But we NEED to get our troops some better weapons, and here are my reasons for thinking so:

1. We need to end wars much quicker than we are right now, the war in Iraq being a perfect example

2.The saying "if it aint broken don't fix it" won't cut it if some country takes the initiative on this issue

3. The infantry needs some new toys to play with
What specific issues do you really want to address?

Buying new, simply for the sake of buying new is, IMHO, an irresponsible use of the taxpayer's money. You need very compelling reasons to make a change with such far reaching implications.

Lets take the ubiquitous M-16 for example. How many M-16s are there in the US arsenal? How many in the hands of active duty servicemen, how many held in reserve? How many spare parts do you have in store? How many specialized tool and/or machinery do you have specifically to maintain this rifle?

Now, if you introduce a new assault rifle . . . all of that existing infrastructure and inventory will have to be replaced. People have to be re-trained. If your talking about new ammo, that makes things even more complicated.

You can't change everything in one go, so the switch to a new rifle will have to be phased. For a few years, this will be a logistical headache, since logisticians will now have to think about what ammo and gun components to send to which troops. If they make a mistake, then troops in a firefight might find themselves opening boxes of -- for example -- 6.5mm ammo, that are useless for their M4s.

Its not really just a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" . . . its more of "if you replace it, it better be damn worth the effort".

You can call me a bean counter if you wish, but coming from a country whose armed forces operates under VERY restrictive funding regimes (only 0.9% of GNP goes to defense)-- one can't help but be pragmatic about these things.
 

DarthAmerica

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Your suggestions? I dont think everyone around the globe are idiots as currently no army aquired (or even developed) weapon what is significally better than M-xx or AK-xx. There must be good reason for it...

Besides, you are wrong about new toys. It is just what assault rifles becoming kind of "last chance self-defence " pistol instead of main infantry weapon. ATGM's, RPG's, AGL, sniper rifles, UAV's, MANPAD's and targetting PDA's - these are new goodies for modern infantry.
Agreed. Despite all the hype, the weapons we have are very well suited to our requirements. All current weapons and all proposed replacements have their limitations.

It's also very true that small arms now are more of a self defense tool of last resort than a primary weapons system. Small arms almost always put soldiers in range of return fire/counter attack. Why do this when you can call on much more deadly and precise fires?

When a family of weapons comes along that significantly outranges traditional assault rifles with superior fire power, has greater lethality and is offered in a package that is easily man portable then we may see a push to upgrade. For now trading the ol'M4 would just be a hassle.

-DA
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
The M2 12.7mm machine gun doesn't need to be "fixed" or replaced in reality. Just grab one of those new quick change barrels that FN manufacture to eliminate "head space" issues and the weapon is as powerful as ever, but can be fired at a higher rate of fire.

As for the pistols, well I thought the M9 Beretta HAD replaced the M1911, much to the chagrin of many?

The other support weapons, M240 7.62mm machine guns and the M24( SAW are fantastic weapons, and particularly in the M240 case, have been re-introduced into "light infantry" service, after operational experience has taught commanders how excellent and useful these weapons really are.

Combined with modern day/night sighting systems, they provide outstanding firepower...
I thought the USMC Force reccon units still use the M1911? Your right the M240 and M249 are good weapons, and the M2 is a great weapons too, but I thought the XM307/XM312 will replace the M2 and MK-19, unless something has changed.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I thought the USMC Force reccon units still use the M1911? Your right the M240 and M249 are good weapons, and the M2 is a great weapons too, but I thought the XM307/XM312 will replace the M2 and MK-19, unless something has changed.
Alot of these specialized units carry different types of small arm and squad size weapons, they are really not standardized versus regular conventional forces. Some units may even allow personal preference on what each individual wants to carry as a side arm (hand gun ).
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Alot of these specialized units carry different types of small arm and squad size weapons, they are really not standardized versus regular conventional forces. Some units may even allow personal preference on what each individual wants to carry as a side arm (hand gun ).
Yeah I thought so. I knew the USMC still uses the M1911, but it is not in widesprend service like you mentioned. The M9 is the standerd issue side arm in the U.S. Army. As you said they can carry side arm based on their own personal prefrense on a side arm, I suppose that could be a dessert eagle as well.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Why should anybody carry a desert eagle?
To hunt down the occasianal zombie?

This beast is big and heavy which is something a soldier doesn't like.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Why should anybody carry a desert eagle?
To hunt down the occasianal zombie?

This beast is big and heavy which is something a soldier doesn't like.
Just think of the rooms you could clear out with the 50 cal version.:D
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
Why should anybody carry a desert eagle?
To hunt down the occasianal zombie?

This beast is big and heavy which is something a soldier doesn't like.
Hey you never know, someone out there could like the dedert eagle. I would if i were in the military.
 

Chino

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hey you never know, someone out there could like the dedert eagle. I would if i were in the military.
If you were in the military, you would be bearing upwards of 25kg including your helmet, webbing, main weapon, ammo, grenades, water etc...

More if you wear body armour.

The extra weight of the Desert Eagle aside, there may not be room left on your person to strap on such a bulky pistol and its spare ammo.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Hey you never know, someone out there could like the dedert eagle. I would if i were in the military.
I doubt you would if you would have military experience... ;)

Every pound you have to carry additionally to your basic load is a pain in the a**.

@Eckherl
Just with one in every hand and holding them gangster style... :D
 
Top