Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry, Comment Group 6
Compiled by David Barth on September 15, 2008 from an article
in Military.com.
Survey of Soldiers Regarding Weaponry.
Comment Group 1.
Comment Group 2.
Comment Group 3.
Comment Group 4.
Comment Group 5.
Comment Group 6.
Comment Group 7.
Comment Group 8.
Comment Group 9.
Comment Group 6
***** Comment ******
The 45 ACP is a stopper. There is no good reason not to return to the old work horse. If you are not allowed to have
hollow points then a big bullet helps. Oh, by the way, even the FBI uses a hollow point in its .40 S&W.
As far as the M4 goes I understand that H&K has a upgrade of the system that will fire after being buried in sand.
Nuff said? When will the penny pinchers get it that if even one life is saved, it will be worth the cost?
Posted by: George at May 30, 2007 06:37 AM
***** Comment ******
First off, great article. Sad news, but necessary.
During my nine years I carried the M8 and M9 pistols. For long arms, I've used an early M4, a few M16s, and I qualified
on the M249 and M60. I've used an M14 (which is why I own an FN FAL), as well.
The Beretta M9 is a damn fine pistol, one of which I'm proud to own. However, I've never been a proponent of the 9mm Para,
and believe that somewhere between the stopping power of the .45 ACP and the magazine capacity of the .40 S&W,
is where we need to be looking.
Since we cannot use hollow point (HP) ammo, we might as well use Glocks, which are absolutely a fantastic field kit
and only really fail to load on hollow point ammo.
I'd recommend the M8 (Sig Sauer P228). Our unit found the large hammer spur made the manual
decocker absolutely vital, and it's stuck on the left side of the frame (bad news for lefties). You really do have to
stay on top of cleaning them, which doesn't bode well for field ops under almost any real conditions. Regardless, I'd
bet even money that the M9 malfunctions are due to poor magazine maintenance practices (like leaving them loaded 15
deep for weeks on end).
For a new issue rifle, my taxes would be well spent developing a .30 cal (7.62mm) recoil-operated modular long arm
weapon system. I've never used a SCAR or one of the G36 family of arms, but I've heard great things about
them.
The M249 is a great noisemaker (I've even heard of them hitting targets on occasion), and I like where the FN people's
minds were with the barrel change process, but I've heard far too many pros sing the praises of the Heckler & Koch
HK21. I understand
fully the rationale of the smaller calibers' preference, but it never really sat that well with me. This should
definitely be decided by people with serious time behind the trigger.
As far as RoE [rules of engagement], we need to set the standard high and remember that we're the pros. Insurgents
can fight however they like, but we're under too great of scrutiny to lower ourselves to their levels.
Posted by: Riverrat Dave at May 30, 2007 06:27 AM
***** Comment ******
Any grunt who served from Hue City to Sadr City knows bigger is better in a firefight. The M4 is what it is: a
piece o'crap. The 9mm is a joke. The FBI has known this for years and agents get a .40. Why do we always let the
boots down?
Posted by: mad dog at May 30, 2007 06:16 AM
***** Comment ******
All models of guns jam now and then, but 30% of small-arms pistols jamming is too much. The Army should retest the
small arms pistols and modify them to work better in the desert. Close combat troops and Commanding Officers rely on
small arm pistols a lot.
The M16 was phased out to have something better, but 20% rifle jams is not any better. Bring back the M16, and redesign
it to make it work in the desert. The M16 was the call sign for the Army for nearly 40 years. Save some money. No need
to get new rifle.
Posted by: Chi at May 30, 2007 05:00 AM
Comment Group 7.