Gun Hub Forums banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you had total controll over the issued weapons of a
military force, what would you pick? (small arms)

I dont mean someone elses country, i mean ours.
Or if our country split up and you were in charge of
arming your side, etc. Lets ignore (just this once)
supply probs and interchangeability with other countries.
Feel free to "invent" things that dont exist and or
ignore the G-convention.

Heres my choices

Rifle-M14

Sniper rifle-Rem 700 type now in use

S.A.W- Heavy barreled M14-possibly Mag and belt fed (new invention)

Sidearm-1911A1

Sub gun-Thompson

Shotgun-M14 type "new invention" belt fed and mag fed
with an easy to remove "duckfoot" on the muzzle so Buckshot
will spray flat.(also can be a S.A.W)

HMG-good ol' big 50 Browning

What do you all think

Thanks,
Youngblood
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
I have multiple ones for some of them, this is because they would be chosen based on the situation, but standard issue is on top.

Rifles: G36 in 6.8x43 SPC
:L1A1 SLR
:A bullpup carbine in 5.45x39

Sniper Rifles: MSG-90A1
:Arctic Warfare Super Magnum

SAWs: M249 in 6.8x43 SPC
:MAG/M240

Sidearm: Glock 21

Shotguns: Mossberg 590
:USAS-12

SMG: UMP-45

HMG: M2HQCB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
Oh, goody....glad someone FINALLY brought this topic up!!!

Pistol: 1st Choice: Colt M1911A1 in .45 ACP
2nd Choice: SiG Sauer P220 in .45 ACP
3rd Choice: HK USP in .45 ACP
(Beretta SUX and 9mm ball is not a man-stopper)

Assault RIFLE: 1st Choice: Colt M16A4 w/ALL the goodies attached
2nd Choice: HK G36
3rd Choice: Steyr AUG

Battle Rifle: 1st Choice: M14
2nd Choice: HK G3

Designated Marksman Rifle: 1st Choice: M21/M25 or scoped M14
2nd Choice: Stoner SR-25/Mk 11 MOD-0
3rd Choice: M16A4 HBAR w/ ACOG or
Leupold scope

Sniper Rifle: 1st Choice: Winchester/FN Model 70 (pre-64 action) Special Police Rifle in .300 Winchester Mag or 7.62x51 NATO (M118 Special Ball)
2nd Choice: Remington M24/M40A3 in .300 Winchester Mag or 7.62x51mm NATO (M118 Special Ball)

Anti-Material Sniper Rifle: 1st Choice: .50 caliber Barret M107
2nd Choice: .50 caliber Barret M95 repeater

Sub Machine Gun: 1st Choice: HK MP-5/10
2nd Choice: Colt M4/M4A1 (I still think of those as SMG's)

Shotgun/Trench Gun/"Skeleton Key": 1st Choice: Remington M870 pump or Mossberg M590 pump, 12 gauge
2nd Choice: HK Benelli M3 Super 90 (pump/auto combo) or HK M1014(???) semi-auto in 12 gauge

SAW: M249 SAW...seems everyone has adopted this (US, UK, Canada, NATO, etc....)

GPMG: 1st Choice: FN MAG-58, aka U.S. M240 series GPMG
2nd Choice: MG-3 (MG-42) in 7.62x51 NATO

Heavy: Only one choice, good ole Ma Deuce: M2 .50 cal Browning....

Grenade Launcher: Mk-19 and M203's on rifles. However, I still believe in the rifle grenade...no one hardly seems to use them anymore. Lots of talk, but not much use it seems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
I modified my post a bit.

1st: MP-5 would be in 10mm, full power loads.

2nd: I lengthened the Shotgun category a bit to read:
Shotgun, Trench Gun, "Skeleton Key". Shotguns are used over in SW Asia to blow open door hinges and locks.

3rd: I added an anti-material sniping rifle category (i.e. .50 cal sniper rifles).

Yeah, it is wise to have the SMG and pistol to fire the same ammo, but I think full-powered 9mm in a SMG is better than low-power 9mm in a pistol. Many nations do that, full power rifle ammo in MG's, and lower power rifle ammo in rifles...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
I would make it up to each individual soldier to decide what he/she wants, b/c that way they will make the most use of their weapons if they are as comfortable with them as possible. However, the 'reccommended' ones would be:

Rifles (for issue to combat troops -- more likely to need real power):
- M1A/M14
- SLR/FAL
- G3
- Anyhting in 'serious' calibre

Rifles (reserve/support troops -- less likely to use):
- Smaller-calibre weapons (.223 maybe?)

SAW:
- Heavy-barelled versions of FALs, M14s etc with bipods. Belt feds would be nice. :D
- Maybe M249/MINMI for high-mobility, high-volume suppressive fire

Machinegun:
- MG3 ( :evil: )

SMGs
- P90 (great for spec ops -- almost silent suppressor version available!)
- UMP-45
- MP-5 (in 10mm)

Sidearms
- Glocks various (good for reserve/support troops as little weapons training really required -- point and pull!)
- M1911 (Had to say it, didn't I ;)) Would like larger mag caps and double-action. Plus better sights. three-dot would be standard.
- SIGs? Heard good things.
- FsNs

Sniper rifle:
Nothing semi-auto -- impractical in battlefield. Something in .338 Lapua maybe?

Other:
- Large combat knives for all! :D
- Where possible, shoulderarm mags would be duplexed
- Seethrough mags would be a bonus
- NVGs might be a good idea.
- Grenade launching would be provided to all frontline combat troops (infantry that is) that wanted it
- Red-dot sights interchangeable with ironsights an advatage on rifles and other shoulder-arms, ala SA80
- Almost forgot! Stoner SR-25s for infantry perhaps?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
barmybrit said:
Sniper rifle:
Nothing semi-auto -- impractical in battlefield. Something in .338 Lapua maybe?
Bah, I have semi auto as my first choice because for Squads, I think a good DMR is better than bolt-action. But, yeah, for the .338 Lapua, which is why I have my Arctic Warfare Super Magnum.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,691 Posts
Hmmm, no one has mentioned the South African SS 77 for the SAW or GPMG role. Its in between the M249 and M240 in terms of weight, and is in 7.62.

How about the ROK SOPMOD M14 as the basic issue rifle, with a grenade launder for the grenadier and a USMC M14 DMR for the designated marksman, and an SS-77 for the squad automatic weopon. That, or a heevy barreled M14 in a McMillan M2A stock, an integral Smith muzzle brake, Harris bipod, and Beta C-mags.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,245 Posts
barmybrit wrote: "I would make it up to each individual soldier to decide what he/she wants, b/c that way they will make the most use of their weapons if they are as comfortable with them as possible. "

Do that, then you will have a logistical and maintenance nightmare on your hands.......hence why you have standardization across the board.
Perfect example: the U.S. Civil War. Some quartermaster records indicated 23 different types of ammunition required for small-arms alone...not very good from a logistical point of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
I think our U.S. military is already very well equiped. As much as i love the M-14 battle rifle the ammo is to HEAVY for all troops. The M-14 is good for certain special forces missions in a limited roll butt i would rather carry 200 rounds of M-16 ammo on a 20 hike through the bush than 200 rounds of M-14 ammo. I allways feel sorry for the guy who has to carry the SAW...hes allways the last guy and your squad only moves as fast as he does...but your glad hes there when thae action starts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
bren10man said:
barmybrit wrote: "I would make it up to each individual soldier to decide what he/she wants, b/c that way they will make the most use of their weapons if they are as comfortable with them as possible. "

Do that, then you will have a logistical and maintenance nightmare on your hands.......hence why you have standardization across the board.
Perfect example: the U.S. Civil War. Some quartermaster records indicated 23 different types of ammunition required for small-arms alone...not very good from a logistical point of view.
Youngblood said:
Lets ignore (just this once) supply probs...
As for sniper rifles, I was meaning actual sniper teams (pairs, shooter, observer), as opposed to a squad's designated marksman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
794 Posts
Battlerifle would be M14's

Battlecarbine would be Thompson's

Handgun would be 1911's

SAW would be BAR's in 7.62 with 30 round mags

Shotgun would be 870's

Heavy machine gun would be .50cal

If troops could not make the grade with the big rifles they would not be RIFLEMEN!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
More modern SMGs (e.g. P90) have much longer ranges.

I think that even the Sten was supposed to have been able to hit @ 100 yards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Standard infantry rifle: FN-FAL in 7.62
Standard pistol: Sig P226 in 9sillymeter

C7 and C8 rifles would be reserved for special forces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Assault Rifle/Battle Rifle: Cetma 7.62 NATO
(or HK91, G-3, etc, etc: They are all decended from the Cetma. Didn't pick the M-4/M-16 family due to its fouling and jamming 'at just the wrong time' history)

Sub-gun: M-3 Grease Gun 45ACP
(I know, I know, old and not much range: but it puts out a lot of lead, its controllable in full auto, and its built like a brick)

Sidearm: Any 1911 or clone 45ACP
(Just can't improve of perfection, and when I hit something, I want it DOWN on the first shot)

Siper Rifle: Remington M24 7.62 Nato
(Just a good, solid, dependable weapon....nuff said)

Machine Gun: MG-3 7.62 Nato
(Around since WWII, still front line in many countries, simple and dependable....and so copied that you just know something is right about this weapon)

Notice a pattern in my choices? Only two calibers of ammo to carry, so supply becomes much easier. All weapons were picked because they do the job they were designed for, and don't try to be a jack of all trades, and all are know for being reliable in harsh conditions, yet easy to maintain.

Its why I'm not worried that the subgun might lack range, (remember not to make the same mistake they made with the M1/M2 Carbine) its not designed to reach out that far....massive, controllable close range firepower is its bread and butter
And I know the Cetma choice flies in the face of this websight, but again, its a MUCH copied design, with a pedigree that goes back to the MP-44. And its grandchildren are still front line with many countries.....must be doing something right.
The 1911 just makes sense: same ammo as the subgun, and controllable knock down power.
And I just like the design of the MG-3: simple, yet able to put a whole lot of lead down range in a short time. And that fast barrel change design means you can keep putting it down range all day long.

Anyway, my mix would sure make for an interesting army, wouldn't it?
8)
__________________________________________________________________

"a generation that ignores its history has no past -- and no future"
R A Heinlein
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Ok, here's my take on things.

General infantry rifle:

C-8A1 (flattop, 16" barrel, able to mount the M-203)

Specialist infantry rifle:

C-8A1 (Flattop, RIS, 16" barrel, Suppressor, Able to mount M-203, and various combat optics/lasers/etc.)

Support Troop rifle:

C-8 (Iron sights, 14.5" barrel)

Designated Marksmen rifle:

SR-25 (Flattop, supressor, scoped with variable power optics)

LMG:

C-9 (Iron sights, Minimi/M-249)
Alternate C-8 SFSW (Special Forces Support Weapon, Beta-C, 16" bbl, bipod, HBAR)

GPMG:

FN MAG-58

Heavy Support Weapon:

Mk. 19 AGL (or equivelant)
M2HB .50 Cal

Snipers Rifle:

C-7CT (20" SS, Free-floated barrel, flattop, bipod)
McMillan Tac-50
SR-25

SMG:

C-8 CQB (10.5" barrel, RIS)

Sidearm:

Sig 226 in 9mm

Shotgun:

Remington 870

Reason for sticking with the C-8 system almost across the board? Reduction in parts and ammunition types, and increase in cross-training levels. Is it ideal? No, but it's a good compromise, and with the newer heavy 5.56 ammo coming out, and a 16" barrel to make them fly a bit faster, they'll be that much more potent than they are today.

NavyShooter
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top