Why no new weapons for our troops????

[eckherl]

Sidenote on the Desert Eagle and its weight: For exactly the same weight of a loaded DE .50AE, you get a MP7A1 with two 20-round magazines.

I definitely know what i'd pick if i had to choose between those two. Not that i would have to choose, as the MP7A1 would be the default sidearm, not the DE.

I am with you on that one.

 

[Waylander]

Sadly I never had the opportunity to get a MP7 into my hands but from description and pictures it looks like the ideal weapon for vehicle crews.
Not that heavy, small dimensions (Especially with the folded handgrip) and still some serious firepower and enough ammo.

The UZI is just too shaky. maybe newer ones are better manufactured but the ones the Bundeswehr got were not very precisionally maunfactured.

-------
Another thing about new weapons.

What do you think is the minimum and maximum weight for a good 7,62mm GPMG.
For example a MG3, while being an excellent weapon, IMHO hits the weight border with it's 12,5kg.
Even more if one attaches some optics, etc.
On the other hand in a more static use this weight increases stability.

What do you guys think?

 

[Chino]

It is hard to convince someone who's never humped 30+ kg in gear and walked miles without proper sleep for several days and then do combat assaults, that a empty pistol weighing 2kg is ridiculous.

Together with extra mags the Desert Eagle package must weigh over 3kg.

For this weight package I would prefer to carry extra grenades or a couple of extra 5.56mm mags.

Besides...

Everyone in the section has another job beyond firing a rifle and they have to carry the load for this other job. They could be SAW gunners, M203 grenadiers, LAW gunners, Designated Marksmen etc. These are all the things that affect the outcome of battle, not a pistol.

 

[Chino]

The UZI is just too shaky. maybe newer ones are better manufactured but the ones the Bundeswehr got were not very precisionally maunfactured.

That could be why it is so reliable. Loose tolerance.

What do you think is the minimum and maximum weight for a good 7,62mm GPMG. For example a MG3, while being an excellent weapon, IMHO hits the weight border with it's 12,5kg.

On the average Asians are smaller built than Caucasians.

So if you guys find that a 12kg hunk of metal is heavy, it is even worse for us. Only the bigger and fittest guys can hump a GPMG but even they end up tiring faster than the rest of the platoon.

IMO, it would be ideal if they can develop a GPMG around 8kg.

This is already available in the form of the FN Minimi 7.62mm.
http://www.fnherstal.com/html/Index.htm

On the other hand in a more static use this weight increases stability.

It'll be great if we know more about the performance of the 8kg 7.62 Minimi.

But it is not entirely impossible to have a stable GPMG weighing 8kg.

For example, in SAF we use the Ultimax 100. It is still one of the world's lightest LMG at 5kg empty. Yet, it is the weapon with the least felt recoil due to its constant recoil principle. This also make its controllability and accuracy very good. I have live fired it several times. But you can always watch that video on Youtube to see what I mean.

If someone use this same principle to build a 7.62 GPMG, they might come up with a really lightweight and stable GPMG.

 

[Waylander]

If one could get 8kg with the firepower and stability of a MG3 I would be happy, but I doubt that it is possible.
Maybe with a smaller rate of fire.

As for the UZI being reliable.

I fired everything with it. Emptied magazines, small salvos, 1 shot, nothing, jams, etc.

All with the weapon being "secured"...

In the end you can put it on autofire and just throw it into a room to clear it from the nasty boys.

 

[kato]

The UZI is just too shaky. maybe newer ones are better manufactured but the ones the Bundeswehr got were not very precisionally maunfactured.

Or maybe the ones you got? :

My company went to the shooting range with original 1959-1962 MP2 Uzis (wood stock) a single time, along with US Army soldiers (MP) touting their early '90s built MP5s - and the end results were very comparable.

---

I liked my MG3, weight-wise. Not too heavy to carry around. Just, with all the extras, it easily got a bit cumbersome - once you add the spare barrel (which will always get in the way of your other gear), and that - damn heavy - little bag with the spare bolt assembly, the oil can and the glove...
Not even talking of the damn AA tripod i was forced to lump around once :shudder

 

[Waylander]

Baaah, the Tripod?
Be it AA or ground fire these ones are nasty little ****.

And I don't talk of precision.
A UZI is easy to shoot and one can get good results very fast.

But reliability is just bad.

 

[DefConGuru]

I have a VERY big issue with the fact that no new weapons have been issued to our troops in the field. For instance, the M-16, a Vietnam vintage rifle, is still in general use today!!! As well as other weapons, such as Browning M1919 series, the M2, and other outdated Machine guns.Now i know for a fact that the military is working on better armor for our troops, and that's fantastic. But we NEED to get our troops some better weapons, and here are my reasons for thinking so:

1. We need to end wars much quicker than we are right now, the war in Iraq being a perfect example

2.The saying "if it aint broken don't fix it" won't cut it if some country takes the initiative on this issue

3. The infantry needs some new toys to play with

1. guns don't end wars, diplomacy does, or at least a concerted aerial bombing campaign

2. they've "fixed" many issues with add ons and upgrades to existing military firearms with mounted scopes/sights/lights etc.

3. The infantry likes using guns that are effective, proven, and reliable. Most soldiers do not have the mentality of "new toy" syndrome like many militaries do, which only plays as a burden on the taxpayer meaning you.