Best modern infantry rifle?

EMTSATX

Banned
If you could equip American forces (using our current mission requirements) what infantry rifle would you use?

Also, if you like handgun would be great.

I recently read an article that stated the Marines love their current incarnation of the M-16. It made me think I carried an M-4 it was OK. I hated the Beretta M92.

I never fired my weapons off range due to mos (medic).
 

sloreck

Well..for handgun I would go with .45 caliber. A new updated large frame M1911A equivalent. I could live with a .40. A pistol is a last ditch close range weapon, IMHO you want something with stopping power which the 9mm cartridge does not provide, even if you are wearing kevlar the impact from a .45 will be very unpleasant. Of course an extremity hit with a .45 will put you down.
 

EMTSATX

Banned
sloreck said:
Well..for handgun I would go with .45 caliber. A new updated large frame M1911A equivalent. I could live with a .40. A pistol is a last ditch close range weapon, IMHO you want something with stopping power which the 9mm cartridge does not provide, even if you are wearing kevlar the impact from a .45 will be very unpleasant. Of course an extremity hit with a .45 will put you down.
Click to expand...
My exact thought.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I think the M4 is the best. Its adaptable and it is at a point where its problems have been solved.

I don't think the bullpup model is the way of the future in the way that some do (not that it matters, but of all of the rifles I have fired, my least favorite was the L85).
 

USN vet

M4 is a good weapon, as good as any other rifle out there. For a sidearm, the Glocks are hard to beat. Been carrying one for 18 years and can't think of any pistol I'd rather carry.
 

Creidiki

EMTSATX said:
If you could equip American forces (using our current mission requirements) what infantry rifle would you use?
Click to expand...

Current American forces with current force structure, current logistical capabilities, current training and current mission use current rifle for a reason. So I would not change a thing. If I needed to suddenly radically change army structure, like WW1 and WW2 mobilizations which made the army 10x larger in 3 years, then simple, cheap ,reliable and easy to manufacture is the first choice. If the GI's don't like it, then tough luck :)

For side arm, I would give rifleman a stipend of $300 and freedom to purchase a weapon of their choice, because why the fsck not. Side arm is used when air support, artillery, mortars, machine guns and rifle fire fails to do the job. Next, lets discuss knives, sharp sticks and rocks. :evilsmile:
 

wietze

Creidiki said:
For side arm, I would give rifleman a stipend of $300 and freedom to purchase a weapon of their choice, because why the fsck not.
Click to expand...
because of logistics nightmare, it will also mean they will have to purchase ammo (army can't cater for all those different calibres). which brings the risk that some idiots will purchase hollow point ammo (which is huge no no for a soldier because of the geneva convention)
 

Creidiki

wietze said:
because of logistics nightmare, it will also mean they will have to purchase ammo (army can't cater for all those different calibres). which brings the risk that some idiots will purchase hollow point ammo (which is huge no no for a soldier because of the geneva convention)
Click to expand...

Hmm, in that case let the soldier buy the handgun of their choice as long as it can fire army issued ammo. My point was, that chances of pistol being fired in anger are slim to none, they are military version of security blanket, so why bother.
 

Redbeard

Banned
wietze said:
because of logistics nightmare, it will also mean they will have to purchase ammo (army can't cater for all those different calibres). which brings the risk that some idiots will purchase hollow point ammo (which is huge no no for a soldier because of the geneva convention)
Click to expand...
Pistol ammo and spares would be about the least demanding logistic job you could think of. A few boxes of 50 rounds would last for most wars, and 99,9+ % of the rounds would be fired on the firing range. Rifles are of course a different matter, but not necessarily much.

In an Afghanistan like scenario with light infantry on foot patrol the weight of each round is crucial - that is why 5,56 mm has been popular. You can carry several 5,56 mm rounds for one 7,62mm, but if a bunch of 5,56 mm guys meet a bunch of 7,62mm guys the first seriously risk being outranged and outpowered. If our guys are heavy infantry in armoured vehicles the weight of rifle ammo will matter very little but under all circumstances the most important issue about any piece of equipment is: reliability!
 

Cryhavoc101

EMTSATX said:
If you could equip American forces (using our current mission requirements) what infantry rifle would you use?

Also, if you like handgun would be great.

I recently read an article that stated the Marines love their current incarnation of the M-16. It made me think I carried an M-4 it was OK. I hated the Beretta M92.

I never fired my weapons off range due to mos (medic).
Click to expand...

As the long arm I would equip everyone with an M27 (which is effectively an HK416) + M320 grenade launcher module with a good x4/holo combination sight and modern predictor sight system for the GL

I would ensure that the Magazines provided were of best quality and utility and a decent pod grip - bipod

Combined this should provide an accurate and reliable weapon system - while not introducing a weapon that is very different to the current M4 setup

As for pistol - well I guess the latest 9mm Glock '17' gen 4 would be the best compromise.
 
Last edited:

wietze

Creidiki said:
Hmm, in that case let the soldier buy the handgun of their choice as long as it can fire army issued ammo. My point was, that chances of pistol being fired in anger are slim to none, they are military version of security blanket, so why bother.
Click to expand...
that would be a better idea, but then you are stuck on 9mm, because of standardisation. would of course only work in countries where you can freely buy guns.

Redbeard said:
Pistol ammo and spares would be about the least demanding logistic job you could think of. A few boxes of 50 rounds would last for most wars, and 99,9+ % of the rounds would be fired on the firing range.
Click to expand...
the demanding job would not be the ammo amount, but the plethora of different calibres if they could buy the handgunthemselves.
a few boxes of 50? i would expect them to expend that amount in a month on training alone. a handgun for self defence is worthless if you are not capable of handling it properly, and train on that (same applies for a rifle)


and for what model? a big calibre has a high stopping power, but that is not all. another would be in calibre 5.7 (like the FN five-seven). but as a compromise, good ole 9mm HP GP.
 

Creidiki

wietze said:
a big calibre has a high stopping power,
Click to expand...

BS makes the flower grow and that’s beautiful. What is the unit of measure for stopping power watt or btu? In my experience, when people talk about "stopping power" is roughly comparable to "largest handgun calibre I'm comfortable shooting" anything smaller doesn't have stopping power. 44 magnum and .22LR both equally useless when compared to 5.56*45 or heaven forbid 7.62*51

Handguns suck in self defence, handguns suck in firefight their only redeeming quality is that you can carry them in places where carbine/shotgun/rifle is not available, that's why my anwer to handgun question is "meh, whatever"
 

wietze

that is why i mentioned the 5.7, which has been designed to penetrate basic body armour

stopping power is usually the kinetic energy of the bullet in joules
  1. 9 mm 519J
  2. .45 ACP 564J
  3. .357 Magnum 873J
  4. . 10mm 1,057J
  5. . 5.7FN 420-470J
  6. . 5.56×45 mm 1,796J
 

Questerr

H&K 416 for a rifle. It's functionality is identical to the M-4 so you don't have to retrain troops or rewrite manuals and it's more reliable than the M-4.

FN FNP .45 Tactical for the sidearm.
 

Redbeard

Banned
wietze said:
that would be a better idea, but then you are stuck on 9mm, because of standardisation. would of course only work in countries where you can freely buy guns.

the demanding job would not be the ammo amount, but the plethora of different calibres if they could buy the handgunthemselves.
a few boxes of 50? i would expect them to expend that amount in a month on training alone. a handgun for self defence is worthless if you are not capable of handling it properly, and train on that (same applies for a rifle)


and for what model? a big calibre has a high stopping power, but that is not all. another would be in calibre 5.7 (like the FN five-seven). but as a compromise, good ole 9mm HP GP.
Click to expand...

A handgun is absolutely last resort in warfare and if you need to improve your abilities in conducting war I would recommend a lot of things above handgun firing. But anyway, each time you spend a box of 50 rounds it will weigh about as a bottle of water - and a lot of those are shipped. Anyway my impression is that a very large amount of the individual equipment used by soldiers on missions like Afghanistan or Iraq is purchased by the soldier himself. It is almost like in medieval times, when the knight was supposed to bring himself weapons, horse and armour - we just need the enturage of esquires. Under Danish law it would be extremely complicated to even own a handgun though, but I really don't see any particular logistic problem.

I do recall a few years ago a Danish officer in Afghanistan was punished for carrying privately purchased open nosed ammo (i.e. not full metal jacket, but "dum-dum") in his officially issued service handgun (I believe then a 9mm SIG-Sauer). The purpose of course was to ensure the optimal stopping power needed in exactly last resort defence, but such ammo is illegal according to international law and a moron journalist made a big deal about "Army uses illegal ammo!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top