Opinion Game: What would you arm our military? RULES: It has to meet NATO Specs (I.E NATO ammo)

My opinion:

ASSAULT RIFLE: FN SCAR 5.56x45mm NATO http://files2.turbosquid.com/Preview/Content_on_3_17_2005_13_34_05/FN-SCAR_001.jpg3fac6a44-4eff-4b41-b0b7-d70fc7266931Large.jpg

PISTOL: SiG Sauer P228 9x19mm NATO http://www.army.lt/guns/gallery/S023.jpg

SNIPER RIFLE: M21 7.62x51mm NATO http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m21snip.jpg

MACHINE GUN: M60E4 7.62x51mm NATO http://www.usord.com/images/M60Comm_large.jpg

SHOTGUN: Benelli M1 http://www.spn-center.ru/images/photo_binelli_02.jpg

You?

Sigs rust too easily. I'd change the handgun to a USP 45



(thanks to wheelow)

I'd switch things up a bit.
I don't ascribe to the current "one gun for all tasks" philosophy.

Carbine/SMG - Keep the M4 for PL and RTO, etc.
Rifle - 20 inch M16s in 6.8mm for the avg. 11B/0311s
Automatic rifle - Keep the M249 SAW or find an equivilant.
GPMG - either keep the 240 or get an HK LMG like the 21E
Pistol - ditch the M9. Full size Sig or USP
Sniper rifle - stay the course with the Remington 700 action. allow the sniper units to get together and find the best round for the job. No sense limiting them to .308 just because it is in the supply system.
Other - Keep M14 on hand for DMRs. find a replacement for the M203

Rifle: SIG 551 (because some of you guys would join up just to get one)
Handgun: Ruger KP95 (reliable, US made and unbreakable)
Medium MG: FN MAG/M240 (especially if it can be lightened just bit, most reliable MG)
Shotgun: Rem 870 (reliable, many config.)
Sniper: M24 and M40 ( just fine the way they are)

Rifle : FN SCAR
Sniper Rifle: M21
DMR Rifle: M24
GPMG: M240
Squad MG: M249
Pistol : Ruger P95 . As stated in above post ; reliable, rugged and American Made. And the biggest factor : much cheaper to supply our troops with than Sig or HK.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/water-blaster-montage.jpg

Clockwise: Blue Blaster Main Battle Squirter, Ultra-Water Launcher, Squirter Pistol with quick change mags, Squirter SAW with heavy barrels.

Rifle: Robarm XCR (if it met full specs and all tweeks are made, USA made and designed)--change the caliber to 6.8spc

Pistol: glock (preferably a re-designed w/ better ergonamics, grip angle/size, trigger, etc--but same setup)--change the caliber to .45acp (1911 or Glock)
*combat HGs should be SA only or glock/xd type triggers
while the Ruger P95 (or any ruger brand) are ok guns, i think that the quality is too poor for issue, maybe if ruger slightly remodified the Ruger (frame mounted controls, SA trigger, spec parts, etc)...

Sniper rifle: M24 (upgrade to 300 Win Mag. or .338 Lapua); keep the M21 or SCAR for mid range work

MG: FN M-240

shotgun: Remington 870 (pump) and Saiga auto

Sig would be a good choice too, w/ some more improvements, but i think that the main problem is CALIBER for most guns, expecially since ammo is still restricted to FMJ

Glad all you internet commandos know what works for our guys.

There is a reason that the AR platform has repelled all challengers over the past few decades.  The XM-8 was last to be defeated, and the SCAR will soon follow.
-It is affordable
-It is reliable- no, it's NOT an AK-47, but if you do your part, the rifle WILL do its part
-It is intuitive in operation
-It is effective- say what you will, but our guys have sent MANY a johnny jihad to test out that 70 virgins theory with our good old M855 ball ammo.
-It is accurate- I can almost never go to the range anymore without seeing someone shooting sub MOA groups with a 20"HBAR AR.
-Your best bet if you want to change anything up is to chamber the AR in a 30 cal platform, either .308 or 7.62x39, but then you lose the weight advantage of the 5.56 cartrige.

As for the M9-  The same applies.  I own an M9 and have shot a large number of other pistols in that category including SIG's, Glocks, Rugers, Colts (yes, even the beloved 1911) and the M9 is better than them all.  

Sniper Rifle-  That has always been a function of what works best.  Right now the Rem 700/M24 system is the best there is.  There is no need to change what ain't broke.  Anything heavier is tough to stalk with, anything lighter doesnt have the reach.

Shotgun-  The Mossberg 590 or Rem 870 are equally suited for this role, and are interchangable in their application.  Any autoloader is a bad call because of feed issues with different ranges of shot.

Until phased plasma and/or directed energy weapons come around, there is

10/22 and a .38.  Thats it.

Quoted: Glad all you internet commandos know what works for our guys. There is a reason that the AR platform has repelled all challengers over the past few decades.  The XM-8 was last to be defeated, and the SCAR will soon follow. -It is affordable -It is reliable- no, it's NOT an AK-47, but if you do your part, the rifle WILL do its part -It is intuitive in operation -It is effective- say what you will, but our guys have sent MANY a johnny jihad to test out that 70 virgins theory with our good old M855 ball ammo. -It is accurate- I can almost never go to the range anymore without seeing someone shooting sub MOA groups with a 20"HBAR AR.

i'm not saying that the standard issue stuff does NOT work, its just that there are BETTER platforms out there--besides, price is not really an issue b/c none of these firearms will actually be issued--its all our opinions on what we would arm em if we could
the old AR-180, AK, or similar gas piston would be the most efficient auto system to utilize for another standard rifle imo--i just suggested the XCR b/c its USA made, designed, and a similar setup/use as the AR platform

-Your best bet if you want to change anything up is to chamber the AR in a 30 cal platform, either .308 or 7.62x39, but then you lose the weight advantage of the 5.56 cartrige.

agree 100%--h/w, the short russian, while bolstering more power, is natually more inaccurate than the other cartriges; .308 is too heavy to tote around a lot of em--best bet imo would be the 6.8 spc or a similar .270-.280 cartrige like the brits tried to do 40 yrs ago...

As for the M9-  The same applies.  I own an M9 and have shot a large number of other pistols in that category including SIG's, Glocks, Rugers, Colts (yes, even the beloved 1911) and the M9 is better than them all.

i cant say the same--opinion; a glock type system w/ the M9 ergonamics would be the best imo, but thats still an opinion
biggest problem is 9mm FMJs though....

Sniper Rifle-  That has always been a function of what works best.  Right now the Rem 700/M24 system is the best there is.  There is no need to change what ain't broke.  Anything heavier is tough to stalk with, anything lighter doesnt have the reach. Shotgun-  The Mossberg 590 or Rem 870 are equally suited for this role, and are interchangable in their application.  Any autoloader is a bad call because of feed issues with different ranges of shot.

+1

Quoted: Glad all you internet commandos know what works for our guys. There is a reason that the AR platform has repelled all challengers over the past few decades.  The XM-8 was last to be defeated, and the SCAR will soon follow. -It is affordable -It is reliable- no, it's NOT an AK-47, but if you do your part, the rifle WILL do its part -It is intuitive in operation -It is effective- say what you will, but our guys have sent MANY a johnny jihad to test out that 70 virgins theory with our good old M855 ball ammo. -It is accurate- I can almost never go to the range anymore without seeing someone shooting sub MOA groups with a 20"HBAR AR. -Your best bet if you want to change anything up is to chamber the AR in a 30 cal platform, either .308 or 7.62x39, but then you lose the weight advantage of the 5.56 cartrige. As for the M9-  The same applies.  I own an M9 and have shot a large number of other pistols in that category including SIG's, Glocks, Rugers, Colts (yes, even the beloved 1911) and the M9 is better than them all.   Sniper Rifle-  That has always been a function of what works best.  Right now the Rem 700/M24 system is the best there is.  There is no need to change what ain't broke.  Anything heavier is tough to stalk with, anything lighter doesnt have the reach. Shotgun-  The Mossberg 590 or Rem 870 are equally suited for this role, and are interchangable in their application.  Any autoloader is a bad call because of feed issues with different ranges of shot. Until phased plasma and/or directed energy weapons come around, there is

I'm sure the USAF gave you plenty of experience with all of the above to know that there's nothing better.

Quoted: static.howstuffworks.com/gif/water-blaster-montage.jpg Clockwise: Blue Blaster Main Battle Squirter, Ultra-Water Launcher, Squirter Pistol with quick change mags, Squirter SAW with heavy barrels.

+1  No really Neutron Bombs, then we could just pick and choose what ever gun we wanted.

Quoted: Glad all you internet commandos know what works for our guys. There is a reason that the AR platform has repelled all challengers over the past few decades.  The XM-8 was last to be defeated, and the SCAR will soon follow. -It is affordable -It is reliable- no, it's NOT an AK-47, but if you do your part, the rifle WILL do its part -It is intuitive in operation -It is effective- say what you will, but our guys have sent MANY a johnny jihad to test out that 70 virgins theory with our good old M855 ball ammo.-It is accurate- I can almost never go to the range anymore without seeing someone shooting sub MOA groups with a 20"HBAR AR. -Your best bet if you want to change anything up is to chamber the AR in a 30 cal platform, either .308 or 7.62x39, but then you lose the weight advantage of the 5.56 cartrige. As for the M9-  The same applies.  I own an M9 and have shot a large number of other pistols in that category including SIG's, Glocks, Rugers, Colts (yes, even the beloved 1911) and the M9 is better than them all.   Sniper Rifle-  That has always been a function of what works best.  Right now the Rem 700/M24 system is the best there is.  There is no need to change what ain't broke.  Anything heavier is tough to stalk with, anything lighter doesnt have the reach. Shotgun-  The Mossberg 590 or Rem 870 are equally suited for this role, and are interchangable in their application.  Any autoloader is a bad call because of feed issues with different ranges of shot. Until phased plasma and/or directed energy weapons come around, there is

No, it is not.
The M9 isn't shit, as some believe, but it does not come close to a 1911 or a Sig.

As for the part in blue I was under the impression that M855 did not perform well against shirts and skins types at close ranges.

Sig 552
ump-40
Glock21
M-40 sniper system.

Phased Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

G

"...just what you see here, buddy."

assault rifle: a good 5.56 bullpup, such as an AUG or F2000 (if it proves to be reliable)

pistol: HK USP.  since we're restricted to ball ammo, nothing less than a .45 will do.

i think the MG should be something in 7.62x51, not sure which model would be best.

HK G11.  Caseless ammo! Holds 3 50 rnd mags.  

world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

m9's suck
 that said, since we are not a sognatory to the haig conventions we should recind the policy decision to voluntarily abide by it's provisions.  modern ammo would solve most of out problems.
mpi

As a 9mm pistol, the M9 is excellent.  Some may prefer the Sig or Glock, etc, but the M9 is reliable, accurate, and durable.

Replace the M9 with the M1911 and replace a few m4s with M14s in each squad. That's about all I would do.
But then again it would be kewl to see the m1 carbine somehow come back in a special purpose role.

I think what our guys have works pretty well. The m4 is a damned fine rifle. Not only for lethality and accuracy but for it's ability to be so easily customized to fit the user's needs.


M9? Eh... pistols are pistols. I think Glocks would be somethign worth looking into. Just my opinion.
Unless the .mil switched to the Cx4 Storm and then they troops using pistol cal carbines could swap mags between theit pistol and rifle... cut down on need for different mags. Better than the MP5 IMHO. I've never shot one... just basing it on cross compatibility.

Quoted: Sigs rust too easily. I'd change the handgun to a USP 45 img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/wheelow/Weapons/DSCN5044.jpg (thanks to wheelow)

Yeah, you could use them for chock blocks for trucks or as a hammer for engineers.

Quoted: Sigs rust too easily. I'd change the handgun to a USP 45 img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/wheelow/Weapons/DSCN5044.jpg (thanks to wheelow)

Never seen a SIG rusted. If so they should have taking care of there tools.

Quoted: Quoted: Sigs rust too easily. I'd change the handgun to a USP 45 img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/wheelow/Weapons/DSCN5044.jpg (thanks to wheelow) Yeah, you could use them for chock blocks for trucks or as a hammer for engineers.

Wood would work better for a chock block and the polymer frame is too light for use as a hammer.

Quoted: m9's suck  that said, since we are not a sognatory to the haig conventions we should recind the policy decision to voluntarily abide by it's provisions.  modern ammo would solve most of out problems. mpi

WOW!  I'm blindsided by that HUGE deluge of information there.  It's clear to see you made your assertion based on careful consideration and really laid the facts out to support that "m9's suck"

And to respond,  yes, I have shot all the weapons listed in what I reccomend.  Granted in the USAF I am not carrying/using them on a day to day basis BUT, I have good friends in both the Army and Marines who DO carry and use those weapons, and they, unlike a large number of people who will blindly caw "THE M-## SUCKS!"  these guys have actually put metal to meat, and they say they are QUITE happy with the results that are delivered by the weapons and the M855 ammo.

Your buddies in the Army and Marines have their opinion, just like everyone else.  I am sure that there are plenty of guys in both the Army and Marines that would say otherwise.  Why?  Because they have an opinion.  Improvements can be made.

Back on topic.  I would like to see a good .45 back in service.  Maybe a 1911, or maybe an HK45  (looks promising)

Quoted: Your buddies in the Army and Marines have their opinion, just like everyone else.  I am sure that there are plenty of guys in both the Army and Marines that would say otherwise.  Why?  Because they have an opinion.  Improvements can be made. Back on topic.  I would like to see a good .45 back in service.  Maybe a 1911, or maybe an HK45  (looks promising)

I think the H&K 45 in SA/DA form would be terrific. I don't think an SA is the answer for the masses of green troops.

You may be right Vanilla, leave the 1911 and other SA's for the "special" guys.  The HK45 does look like a winner (on paper at least).  I havent heard any first hand accounts of people using them...yet.

Quoted: static.howstuffworks.com/gif/water-blaster-montage.jpg Clockwise: Blue Blaster Main Battle Squirter, Ultra-Water Launcher, Squirter Pistol with quick change mags, Squirter SAW with heavy barrels.

Load them up with pig's blood, and they just might work wonders.

Quoted: Sigs rust too easily. I'd change the handgun to a USP 45

Dunno, I'd still issue the HK Mark23 since if you ran out of ammo you could use it to bludgeon the enemy

That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm!

And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.  YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain....

i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me):

THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN!

Quoted: That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm! And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.   YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain.... i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me): THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN!

I'm a glock guy, but I feel you should be forewarned about the righteous flaming your about to recieve, I'll be easy, the rest won't.  Many units are going back to the 1911.  I wouldn't be shocked at all if the entire military did.

Quoted: That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm! And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.  YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain.... i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me): THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN!

Yes, there is a reason it was replaced and will not be brought back as the standard issue sidearm. Unfortunately, none of your reasons make any more sense than a rabbit with a pancake on it's head.

BTW, the Glock won't get it either.

Quoted: Quoted: That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm! And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.  YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain.... i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me): THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN! Yes, there is a reason it was replaced and will not be brought back as the standard issue sidearm. Unfortunately, none of your reasons make any more sense than a rabbit with a pancake on it's head. BTW, the Glock won't get it either.

Glock won't get it, cause it's Austrian and not American.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm! And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.  YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain.... i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me): THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN! Yes, there is a reason it was replaced and will not be brought back as the standard issue sidearm. Unfortunately, none of your reasons make any more sense than a rabbit with a pancake on it's head. BTW, the Glock won't get it either. Glock won't get it, cause it's Austrian and not American.

why? is the US govt no longer considering outsourcing small arms (or just sidearms) to foreign countries, or just austiria?
i doubt anyways that the glock (or any similar operating pistol) will be adopted

just as a matter of clarification (even though i directly stated it)

i am not advocating that the US military adopt a Glock sidearm.  I merely used the Glock as an example of technological advances that have rendered the 1911 obsolete as a front line military sidearm.

As I have said before, I think the US military has the ideal sidearm in the M9.

assault rifle : AK47
Handgun : FN FiveSeven
SubGun: Sterling
LMG: MG42
Sniper rifle: Savage 110


Felt like ing.

Pistol: Lorcin .380 or Raven .25
Rifle: Various ones produced by Century Arms.
Carbine: Hi-Point 9mm carbine
Shotgun: HR single shot.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: That looks REALLY practical to carry as a side arm! And as for the 1911 die hards: there is a REASON it was REPLACED.  Technology exists that is BETTER than a 1911.  YES, most modern semis are based on the 1911 concept, YES the 1911 is still heavily carried and favored by the civilian sector, and YES, it would greatly ruin my day to be shot by one; HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain.... i'm not saying we should use the G30 as the primary sidearm, but what I am saying is this (feel free to flame, it has no effect on me): THE 1911's CAREER AS A FRONT LINE MILITARY PISTOL IS OVER!! IT IS GONE, AND WILL NOT RETURN! Yes, there is a reason it was replaced and will not be brought back as the standard issue sidearm. Unfortunately, none of your reasons make any more sense than a rabbit with a pancake on it's head. BTW, the Glock won't get it either. Glock won't get it, cause it's Austrian and not American.   why? is the US govt no longer considering outsourcing small arms (or just sidearms) to foreign countries, or just austiria? i doubt anyways that the glock (or any similar operating pistol) will be adopted

Glock won't get it because

1. No external safety
2. No double strike capability.

Quoted: just as a matter of clarification (even though i directly stated it) i am not advocating that the US military adopt a Glock sidearm.  I merely used the Glock as an example of technological advances that have rendered the 1911 obsolete as a front line military sidearm. As I have said before, I think the US military has the ideal sidearm in the M9.

OK, I'll bite. How is it obsolete?

The only problem with the 1911 as a primary sidearm for our armed forces is our governments unwillingness to properly train those that will be issued the weapon.  That is, as a matter of fact, why it will NEVER return as the primary sidearm. It's easier to bring the banana to the retard than it is to train the retard to get the banana.

Just to say up front: obsolessence does not mean inefficacy

That said,  the reason I BELIEVE the the 1911 is obsolete as a front line military side arm:

- Any side arm needs to be able to be used to the maximum effectiveness by the absolute DUMBEST person that the DoD can recruit
- The 1911 maintainence effective.  It is far more complicated to field strip and clean than most modern combat pistols.  
- It is very heavy for the ammount of ammo it carries.  Hate to bring it up again AND I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THE DOD ADOPT A GLOCK but the Glock 30 compact carries 3 more rounds than the 1911, and weighs a third less.  Modern alloys and composites have eliminated the need for heavy steel
- Modern pistols are safer to carry OR faster to use than the 1911.  A 1911 user is faced with a choice that he or she must make. Either carry it "cocked and locked"  or spend critical time cocking the pistol when he or she needs it to save his or her life.  Carrying a pistol "cocked and locked" tends to alarm those who do not know much about guns, and that includes the indigent populations that we are often charged with dealing with.

My dad had a 73 Pontiac back when i was growing up.  Up until he sold it back in 98, it was his promary transportation.  The car performed more or less flawlessly throughout its entire life up until the day he sold it.  It probably STILL runs (given the new owner takes care of it).  My dad replaced his old pontiac with a new car with all the modern features one would expect from a new car, not to mention getting double the gas mileage from the new car AND it was faster!

Why did he sell a perfectly good car that worked perfectly up until he sold it?  Because there existed a car that better suited his needs in almost every way.  The same anaolgy holds true for the 1911.  It is an outstanding pistol.  It served our country well for DECADES, including three major wars and countless minor conflicts in between.  It is still an outstanding pistol that countless people love, and even if someone doesnt love the 1911 (me) they still have a great deal of respect for what it was/is.  That doesnt mean that it is the best for front line service any more.  There are better pistols out there that better suit the current needs of the mission, and THE MISSION COMES FIRST ALWAYS

Glock won't get it because 1. No external safety 2. No double strike capability.

thats what i figured

Quoted: just as a matter of clarification (even though i directly stated it) i am not advocating that the US military adopt a Glock sidearm.  I merely used the Glock as an example of technological advances that have rendered the 1911 obsolete as a front line military sidearm. As I have said before, I think the US military has the ideal sidearm in the M9.

OK, I'll bite. How is it obsolete? The only problem with the 1911 as a primary sidearm for our armed forces is our governments unwillingness to properly train those that will be issued the weapon.  That is, as a matter of fact, why it will NEVER return as the primary sidearm. It's easier to bring the banana to the retard than it is to train the retard to get the banana.

the only thingI would change is the ammo selection, I think the set up we have now is working good.

Quoted: Just to say up front: obsolessence does not mean inefficacy That said,  the reason I BELIEVE the the 1911 is obsolete as a front line military side arm: - Any side arm needs to be able to be used to the maximum effectiveness by the absolute DUMBEST person that the DoD can recruit - The 1911 maintainence effective.  It is far more complicated to field strip and clean than most modern combat pistols.   - It is very heavy for the ammount of ammo it carries.  Hate to bring it up again AND I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT THE DOD ADOPT A GLOCK but the Glock 30 compact carries 3 more rounds than the 1911, and weighs a third less.  Modern alloys and composites have eliminated the need for heavy steel - Modern pistols are safer to carry OR faster to use than the 1911.  A 1911 user is faced with a choice that he or she must make. Either carry it "cocked and locked"  or spend critical time cocking the pistol when he or she needs it to save his or her life.  Carrying a pistol "cocked and locked" tends to alarm those who do not know much about guns, and that includes the indigent populations that we are often charged with dealing with. My dad had a 73 Pontiac back when i was growing up.  Up until he sold it back in 98, it was his promary transportation.  The car performed more or less flawlessly throughout its entire life up until the day he sold it.  It probably STILL runs (given the new owner takes care of it).  My dad replaced his old pontiac with a new car with all the modern features one would expect from a new car, not to mention getting double the gas mileage from the new car AND it was faster! Why did he sell a perfectly good car that worked perfectly up until he sold it?  Because there existed a car that better suited his needs in almost every way.  The same anaolgy holds true for the 1911.  It is an outstanding pistol.  It served our country well for DECADES, including three major wars and countless minor conflicts in between.  It is still an outstanding pistol that countless people love, and even if someone doesnt love the 1911 (me) they still have a great deal of respect for what it was/is.  That doesnt mean that it is the best for front line service any more.  There are better pistols out there that better suit the current needs of the mission, and THE MISSION COMES FIRST ALWAYS

This, I will most certainly agree with. I am a 1911 aficianado, and I carry one nearly everyday, but I think, this will, before long, be the weapon of our countries armed forces:


Of course, I had to include a backdrop of the new camoflauge soon to be released as well.

I'll throw my two cents in since I've worked with all of them.

Assualt Rifle: SCAR in 6.8 SPC 10", 14.5 and 20"
Sniper Rifle: SCAR in 7.62 NATO in 20" (bolt guns with blind magazines have no place on a modern battlefield)
Sidearm: USP in .45 (still prefer a M1911) (Forget the Glock as already too many trained law enforcement shoot themselves; finger off the trigger)
SAW: M249 til some better comes along
GPMG: Either M240 or updated rail mounted MG3
Shotgun: Rem 870 MCS

all the guns from unreal tournament (the first one).

Quoted: all the guns from unreal tournament (the first one).

I agree. Sniper rifle > Lightning gun

Quoted: Dunno, I'd still issue the HK Mark23 since if you ran out of ammo you could use it to bludgeon the enemy i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/Zadvark/forum%20graphics/IMG_0224.jpg

That was my point in my previous post... the HK USP-series handguns are freakin monsters.

I like your thinking on the suppressor though. Is there a reason our soldiers can't have suppressors on more of their weapons?

That'd be another thing I'd add to my list.... suppress everything. Screw all the international laws and treaties.

Add to the list more lethal ammo and more weapons training for soldiers that actually engage the enemy. And I'm not talking more range time with static commie Ivan targets. I mean professional training like a lot of the guys on these boards pay for.

The guns are just tools.

Quoted: Phased Plasma rifle in the 40 watt range. G "...just what you see here, buddy."

Quoted: Rifle : FN SCAR Sniper Rifle: M21 DMR Rifle: M24 GPMG: M240 Squad MG: M249 Pistol : Ruger P95 . As stated in above post ; reliable, rugged and American Made. And the biggest factor : much cheaper to supply our troops with than Sig or HK.

Not to mention that HK + sand = NO THANK YOU. *points at test done by bigbore*

Quoted: HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ, and easier to maintain....

Safer to carry than a 1911?  A Glock?  The one with the safety in the trigger?  You mean that one?  lol

Math would indicate that grip safety + actual safety switch + interal safety = more safe than trigger safety.  

Man I'm just out to pick a fight today lol

Quoted: Quoted: all the guns from unreal tournament (the first one). I agree. Sniper rifle > Lightning gun

CTF-Face ftw!

Quoted: HOWEVER, when you can have a Glock 30 in .45 cal that holds 3 more rounds in the magazine than the 1911, is safer to carry, faster to employ...

....that's good material right there.

Just because something is more "grunt proof" doesn't make it better.  To use your writing style, there's a REASON that the units with the most training go BACK to the 1911.  I own Glocks and 1911's and I prefer the 1911.  That being said the HK is the route to go.


R