Weapons and Warfare

[Tyyr]

Yeah but it's hitting power falls off compared to the .50 before they hit max range. The .416 Barret is probably going to make a big splash in target shooting but I'm not convinced its going to replace the .50 for long range anti-material.

[Deepcrush]

Myself, I like the M1903.

[Lighthawk]

You know, I was hoping for a bit more debate on things, but it seems we have more or less a general agreement on our weapon ideology.

Alright, maybe this will stir things up a bit: Lets assume you're part of a military special forces team, you're choice of which if you wish to pick a real one or make up your own. What would be you're preferred role in the team, and what kind of gear and weapons would you choose. Assume money is no restriction. And if you feel up to it, what about the rest of the team? What kind of selection of skills, gear, and weapons would you like for urban, jungle, desert, ect fighting. Feel free to grab up a few vehicles as well.

[Deepcrush]

Well, you have to give us some more info. Who/What/Where/When/Why/How of the engagement.

[Mikey]

McMillan Tac-50 for sniper/anti-materiel rifle. Simple bolt-action means sturdy and accurate; and unlike the Barrett .416 or the ChayTac, it uses a standard NATO round and can use the Raufoss API. Besides, the proof is in the pudding and the Big Mac proved.

[Mark]

Well, you have to give us some more info. Who/What/Where/When/Why/How of the engagement.

Plus, whats the mission? That is going to be a critical factor. How far out from our supply lines are we going? Thats going to effect my choice in weapons (factoring in the weight and ammo). If I'm going to be schlepping around a heavy jungle area I'm not going to go with the AK 47 or M 16. Perhaps a P90 primary, with two extra mags. And a .40 cal Beretta for a sidearm.

In an open area like a plain or a desert, I'll go back to the standard M-16A2 for the accuracy and range.

But for urban combat or trench attacks, or even a variety of other missions that won't put us completely out of resupply range, I'll go with the Daewoo USAS-12 automatic shotgun with heavy buckshot or flachette rounds.

[Mikey]

For a standard assault rifle, I'd go with the HK 416. All the lightness and hydrostatic shock of NATO-standard 5.56 ammo, greater reliability than an M16/M4 including tested and true OTB capability, floating barrel, standard Picatinny rails - four of them on the forearm plus an optic one - allowing it to mount an M203 or M320 grenade launcher, an LSS/MASS, etc. I don't think I'd go with a USAS-12 or AA-12 unless I was sure that the mission was strictly against non-organized guerillas and in an entirely urbanized environment - the lack of range and penetration scare me otherwise. For less-lethal fire and breaching purposes, I'd have one rifleman per fireteam mount the M26 MASS underbarrel rather than make a soldier carry a rifle and a separate shotgun (although the new folding-stock semi-auto Benelli Marine JCS is sweet.) In addition semi-auto or auto shotguns lose some flexibility; less-lethal rounds, breaching rounds, etc. sometimes don't produce enough backpressure to run the recoil system reliably. That's why the JCS allows the soldier to select pump-action or semi-auto.

Much as I think it's a dead issue, if we're discussing a battle rifle or DMR, I'd go with the USN Mk14 Mod 0. While NATO 7.62 ammo isn't lightweight, the rifle is (comparatively,) and it's ROF is incredible. Close second would be the HK 417. In a pinch, even the HK 416 could do when equipped with the 20" barrel.

For a squad or fireteam support weapon, the good ol' M249/MINIMI is tops. It can share the same lightweight but fast NATO 5.56 rounds, even take a STANAG-compatible box mag in a pinch. Similarly, for a GPMG the 7.62 M240 is tops. For vehicular or emplaced MG's, do I even have to say it - the M2HB, of course.

I've already mentioned my choice of the McMillan TAC-50 for a sniper rifle; but if something smaller and more portable is needed for more independent and strictly anti-personnel missions, it would have to be the British Accuracy International AW 50 chambered in the Finnish .338 Lapua Magnum. Hard hitting ammo, and the gun won't quit.

Heavier support weapons, as has been said, would of course depend on the type, lenght, and location of the mission. Anti-material/light anti-armor weapon would be the true oldie but goodie - and still US Army Ranger fave - the Charlie G. The Carl Gustav, known to the Rangers as the RAAWS, is free from many of the field fragility issues of other recoilless rifles, and currently has available HEDP, HEAT, smoke, illumination, and frag rounds, including some rocket-assisted HEAT rounds. For longer-range anti-armor roles, the Javelin is damned nice, even if it takes a half a minute for the system's IR recognition to gear up. The downside to the Jav is that each round costs about $80,000 US. A US Marine SMAAW or SRAAW would suffice if the Jav is logistically infeasible. For airborne troops or other uses for a disposable weapon, the AT4-CS model would do.

[Mikey]

Oh, BTW - pistol sidearm, where issued, would be the P229 in .357SIG - the ballistics of a .357 magnum round, but for a semi-automatic pistol and as lightweight to carry as a 9mm parabellum. Plus the P229 is available in a DA-Kellerman design, if there are folks uncomfortable with a DA/SA... the DAK operates as a DAO, but only has a pull weight of about 6 - 6.5 lbs. If we need to stick to NATO standard ammo, I'd take the P229 in the NATO 9mm.

Or, perhaps, an HK45 which can take either the classic .45 ACP or the .45 Super without modification.

[Captain Seafort]

I'd go with the USN Mk14 Mod 0. While NATO 7.62 ammo isn't lightweight, the rifle is (comparatively,) and it's ROF is incredible.

This is the only major issue I have - a full auto 7.62 weapon is a very bad idea, especially if the weapon itself is light. Unless you're sort of AAA. If you want range and punch, the best option would be the L1A1 version of the FN FAL.

[Mikey]

Well, I've never fired either one, but the USN SEALs seem to like the Mk 14 Mod 0 just fine. As I mentioned, I believe that the DM is an outmoded concept - especially with the speed of current assault-rifle rounds like the 5.56. A 20" barrel assault rifle will generate ranges near that of a battle rifle, and will (naturally) fire a smaller ball, but at much greater velocities - leading to both greater accuracy at range and of course greater hydrostatic shock effects. I've heard anecdotally from studies from VietNam that a hit from a first-gen M16 in the solar plexus was enough to cause cerebral hemmorhage.

This is why I don't care for the DMR concept. I don't care if my bullets kill the enemy right away, or just put them out of the fight and kill them later.

[Captain Seafort]

Well, I've never fired either one, but the USN SEALs seem to like the Mk 14 Mod 0 just fine.

Me neither, but everything I've heard about 7.62 weapons is that firing them on full auto is an exercise in futility. Semi is another matter - "target is hit, and stays hit" is the most common phrase, in implicit contrast to 5.56.

This is why I don't care for the DMR concept. I don't care if my bullets kill the enemy right away, or just put them out of the fight and kill them later.

If I were ever in a firefight I'd want whoever I shot dead there and then. I've heard too many stories of what dead men walking can do while running on adrenalin.

[Mikey]

Hmm. Would you equip all your riflemen with battle rifles, then? Because with the trends in modern warfare, I'd say that America had one thing (only!) right in 'Nam - better to be able to carry 2.5 times the ammo, when you're not sacrificing much stopping power. What I'm saying is that with the speed of the 5.56 round, any decent hit on a bogey is going to put him down. I personally don't care if it means he's unconscious and bleeding inside his skull, or if he's dead with a bigger hole in his gut. Additionally, if it worries you, think of this: for a given weight allotment, a soldier equipped with an assault rifle can hit a target with 2 - 3 times as many rounds as a soldier equipped with a battle rifle. Plus, assault rifles can be equipped with grenade launchers; MASS; etc.

[Captain Seafort]

If I had the choice I'd give them the best of both worlds - the SM2, 7mm ammo part way between the hitting power of the old and the extra ammo of the new NATO standard, and a bullpup design which allows for much better control of the weapon.

[Lighthawk]

Well, you have to give us some more info. Who/What/Where/When/Why/How of the engagement.

I'm not talking about any specific engagement. Feel free to come up with your own mission layouts and how you'd equip for them. This is more of a general seeking around, what do you feel is right in what situation.

Plus, whats the mission? That is going to be a critical factor. How far out from our supply lines are we going? Thats going to effect my choice in weapons (factoring in the weight and ammo). If I'm going to be schlepping around a heavy jungle area I'm not going to go with the AK 47 or M 16. Perhaps a P90 primary, with two extra mags. And a .40 cal Beretta for a sidearm.

How about we consider the two extremes? Daily resupply, and you're on your own for an unknown amount of time. How do you adapt?

[Deepcrush]

I'm not talking about any specific engagement. Feel free to come up with your own mission layouts and how you'd equip for them. This is more of a general seeking around, what do you feel is right in what situation.

No, please... no details...