|
|
|
Regular Joe
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/5/2007 12:59 PM
Posts: 273,
Visits: 29
|
|
I have to disagree on the H&K USP .45 comment. H&K USP ; YES! .45? NO I would go with a .40 cal , with the .40 cal, you have the speed and the accuracy of a 9mm, while having the knockdown power of the .45 at the same time. Much better performance in the .40 cal . Just my opinion.
Scouts Out!
"When in doubt; empty the magazine!."
|
|
|
|
|
Keep the Peace and Be of Good Behavior
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/8/2008 3:06 PM
Posts: 1,662,
Visits: 729
|
|
Some of the high tech composites would actually be an improvement for a military weapon. Some of them are stronger and more heat resistant than steel from what I have heard, and not only that it eliminates alot of rusting issues.
I wouldn't be quick to judge this book by its cover, not that I know anything about it. Besides, we need a space age weapon to go with the Futuristic Star Trek Class A's!!! [ ]
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/17/2008 11:00 AM
Posts: 3,378,
Visits: 1,300
|
|
Told ya it looked cool! Let's buy a bazzillion and re-arm all the services! Give some to Canada too ][]
[82nd][E7][E6][uswingm]
Stand in the door!
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 1/23/2006 8:04 PM
Posts: 495,
Visits: 70
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saber6
I have to disagree on the H&K USP .45 comment. H&K USP ; YES! .45? NO I would go with a .40 cal , with the .40 cal, you have the speed and the accuracy of a 9mm, while having the knockdown power of the .45 at the same time. Much better performance in the .40 cal . Just my opinion.
Scouts Out!
Saber6 I can dig that. My father has the USP compact .40 cal and it is indeed a nice piece. Just figured a lot of guys were missin the old Colt .45 and if they ever thought about going back to it I'd choose an HK to do the job. but I agree with you, .40 would do nice since the recoil is virtually the same as 9mmm (well it feels the same as my G19 anyways).
"Lets kick this pig"
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 8/7/2008 5:22 PM
Posts: 1,006,
Visits: 995
|
|
Rickdog,
I wouldn't disaprove of WWII technology quite yet. I've fired a SR-25 several times...didn't like it...real finickey and a "prissy" gun...Hell it was so high tuned (light hammer fall) that it wouldn't light off standard ball half the time....
The M-14 (IMHO) has the following superior qualities:
1. Magazine engagement - easier to know it's locked than the 16/25
2. Safety - almost idiot proof...trigger guard blocked = rifle on safe
3. Operating rod - M-14 doesn't need a forward assist...should you need to you just hit the Op-rod...same for a crudded up rifle (if you let it get that bad!)...kick the op-rod to open the action.
4. Open action - While some see this as a negative...I see it as positive...open action = easier to clean/clear muck out of...also allows the use of stripper clips
Now what about other WWII tech? Would you be so quick to dismiss Ma Deuce as antiquated? Should we wholeheartedly embrace the Star Wars Thingamabob that they want to adopt? Even taking into account the glowing reports from the troops (yet again) of ole Ma Deuce?
What about the 1911...heck, thats WWI tech...and MEU-SOC's have them...
Just because something is old doesn't mean it doesn't work....ask someone who got hit in the head with a thrown rock
 
Fighters are our salvation, But BOMBERS alone provide us with the means of VICTORY! - Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 3/27/2007 11:22 AM
Posts: 76,
Visits: 9
|
|
I would kill to replace every piece of $shit MK19 with the ol' ma-deuce anyday.
This gadget is just another technological advance that reduces basic soldier skills.
Soldiers can work a PLGR (sometimes) but if the battery goes out, they are lost. No good old fashion compass and map work.
Same for this thing...if the sight battery dies, will the troops be able to flip up and utilize the old iron sights...
technology is not always better.
C
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
warpusher,
The M-14 is a decent semi-auto target rifle but has failed as a basic issue Infantry weapon. It has far too many problems and is not nearly as good as the Barreta BM-59/BM-62 IMO. The M-14 was probably the worst 7.62 NATO Infantry rifle produced by any country. The H&K G3 and Spanish CETME are far superior to the M-14 as a combat Infantry rifle IMO.
It is also interesting to note that the US was basically the only country that adopted the M-14. Most other friendly countries adopted the G3 or the FAL. Even 3rd world nations didn't want the M-14 unless we gave it to them free. The M-14, and M-14 rifle program, was so flawed that it caused the closure of the Army's Springfield Arsenal in 1968. In US Army tests, even the Army found the M-14 to be inferior to the M-1 Garand it replaced.
Now, as far as ammo goes, the 7.62 NATO is a very poor choice to issue as the basic ammo to all Infantrymen considering modern day Infantry tactics and training. If the M-14 and 7.62 NATO were the optimum Infantry combination, I gurantee you that SOCOM forces would use it exclusively as their first choice over any other rifle. All that being said, the M-14 with some special tuning does make a decent 'special purpose' weapon system.
When you have NON-Infantry target shooters in the Army Ordnance Corps responsible for developing the next Infantry rifle and cartridge, you end up with abortions like the M-14 and the 7.62 NATO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | |