The replacement for the m4 is here

[SHASTINTOR]

Originally Posted by A_A Infantry

its funny that it says "SOCOM will be using it" and the terrorist have it in socom.
=)

No offense, but you DO realize that Socom does not parallel the world and the world does not parallel Socom....right? In real life, terrorists would never have P90s or AN-94s or the SIG series of weapons. Most terror cells fall back on the trusty old Rocket Propelled Grenade, AK47 and 9mm UZI. Some are better equipped with mortars, RPK's, FN FAL's and Galil's, but its mostly the cheap, reliable and easy to use weapons theyre using.

The SIG line of weapons are very advanced, extremely reliable and very accurate. The Swiss make excellent weapons and the 552 is a great example. Many elite military forces around the world use the 552 for room clearing and even support sniper roles.

The P90 is by NO means a cheap and low tech weapon. It is relatively new and used by many special forces around the world for CQC and is primarily issued to crews of vehicles like tanks and cargo trucks in place of a pistol as a PDW.

The AN94 is so advanced, high tech and expensive, that Russia only issues it to its best special forces because the weapon is too complex for their basic conscripted troops. It isnt your basic gas operated blowback weapon. Not to mention being extremely expensive and requiring HOURS of maintenence to perform correctly.

Socom has MANY MANY things wrong with it if it were going for realism, but it isnt. The Socom series is so unique and fun because it ISNT realistic. It fools the player that doesnt know much about warfare and tactics into thinking it is realistic.

If there were a game that was as realistic as possible minus being shot, no one would play it because it wouldnt be fun. DAYS of recon and positioning for an objective and then maybe 10 minutes of all out fighting, only to break contact as quickly and violently as possible. Not my idea of fun either.

[Scuba Steve]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what happened to the X-M8? I thought that was becoming the replacement for the U.S. Military?

[Jimdalf]

There are no definite replacements so far, to my knowledge... the way the military works, it publishes requirements and multiple companies submit their designs... this is the offering from FN, H&K have tried the HK416 and I don't know who is making the M8

Also the different branches (army, navy, airforce, marines) have different requirements and so aquire different weapons... I think the 416 and M8 are the armies weapons so far, adnd the SCAR is the navy's, but when the best emerges it will generally be adopted by all of the branches

[SHASTINTOR]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what happened to the X-M8? I thought that was becoming the replacement for the U.S. Military?

Yea.....untill it began overheating and actually melting the composite material it was made out of.

Its a good idea, but the XM8 is really a piece of ****. The marines hated it when testing it and it is poorly made. Although it proved to be reliable by not jamming, it overheated often and cause the reciever and surrounding composite material to overheat, warp and even melt in some instances; not something you want to happen to you in a firefight.

The modularity and multi-role weapons are a good idea, but the military's dream weapon that can do it all just doesnt exist. IMO they have to get away from this do it all wonder weapon that the military wants. They need to focus on creating weapons which do specific things, but do them well. For a basic infantry rifle, they need to make something that DOESNT JAM, is lightweight and doesnt require lost of maintence. Accuracy only has to be marginal and the rate of fire must be controllable. Given the military's current strategy of basically shooting in the general DIRECTION of the enemy, and not actually aiming with accurate semi-automatic fire, accuracy is not as important as it used to be.

For a machine gun role, the requirements are the same. Heavy grade barrel that doesnt overheat quickly, reliable feeding system which doesnt jam, quick reload time and a heavy cartridge preferably the 30 caliber 7.62.

These have to be SEPARATE weapons. For some reason the military is convinced that they have to have weapons that can do it all in one package. They dont exist. They can only do it all if they are mediocre in all aspects.

If they want a good idea, they should go back to the 7.62 with all their weapons and make them compatible with each other's ammo. The advantages of a lighter cartridge do not make up for the disadvantages of it.

[Jimdalf]

Originally Posted by SHASTINTOR

For a machine gun role, the requirements are the same. Heavy grade barrel that doesnt overheat quickly, reliable feeding system which doesnt jam, quick reload time and a heavy cartridge preferably the 30 caliber 7.62.

If they want a good idea, they should go back to the 7.62 with all their weapons and make them compatible with each other's ammo. The advantages of a lighter cartridge do not make up for the disadvantages of it.

They already have the M240 in the machine gun role... they just want rid of it because it is "too heavy"... personally I think that is ******** as the gun is not really all that heavy... I guess the govt. thinks that the youth of today just don't have the muscle to be the soldiers of tomorrow

And 7.62mm assault rifles are a mixed bag along with the 5.56mm weapons... the FN FAL is a monster of an assault rifle and if you do need full auto fire you better hope your enemy is 20 foot tall

[SHASTINTOR]

No no, burst fire is the optimal way to fire a weapon, but they need to have a 7.62mm round. The 5.56mm of today just dont have the knockdown power. The advantages to having it, which is the ability to carry more, the theory that injuring the enemy causes greater consumption of resources than killing him.....ect..... are moot in today's form of warfare. Many accounts that are being heard from Iraq and Afghanistan that the 5.56 isnt effective. The round penetrates right through the enemy and doesnt even slow them down. Many soldiers are reporting that it takes 5 - 6 rounds to put an enemy combatant down and this is just unacceptable.

The military needs an updated M14 style assualt rifle with less recoil and modern technology applied to give it lighter weight and better ergonomics with a select fire semi-automatic and 3 round burst fire rate.

The M14 was a great rifle, but was discarded for the M16 for "advantages" that the bigwigs in Washington believed it had. Ill tell you that the M14 never had such horrific jamming failures as the M16 had and still has even today. In Vietnam when the first M16 and the M16A1 were used, on average, over 50% would fail in ANY conflict with the enemy, sometimes leaving a man totally exposed and shot to death less than 15ft. from the enemy because of the lack of a dependable weapon. Dont get me wrong, the M16 has come a LONG way since then, but it is still plagued by problems.

IMO, the military should have never discarded the M14. The M16 was a great idea and the theories behind it may have worked to some extent, but there was nothing wrong with the M14. If it aint broke, dont fix it.

[Jimdalf]

Dude I know all of what you are saying... but 50% is almost certainly not an average, it was probably just one incident that ended like that... the L85 wasn't too bad a gun but occasionally it would prove too fragile so the myth that it breaks at the slightest touch (I am just plain clumsy though so any weapon in my hands just dies it is that simple)

I prefer 7.62 to the .223 weapons but the M16 round is by no means non-lethal... a three round burst does terrible things to a human body

[A_A Infantry]

Originally Posted by SHASTINTOR

No offense, but you DO realize that Socom does not parallel the world and the world does not parallel Socom....right? In real life, terrorists would never have P90s or AN-94s or the SIG series of weapons. Most terror cells fall back on the trusty old Rocket Propelled Grenade, AK47 and 9mm UZI. Some are better equipped with mortars, RPK's, FN FAL's and Galil's, but its mostly the cheap, reliable and easy to use weapons theyre using.

The SIG line of weapons are very advanced, extremely reliable and very accurate. The Swiss make excellent weapons and the 552 is a great example. Many elite military forces around the world use the 552 for room clearing and even support sniper roles.

The P90 is by NO means a cheap and low tech weapon. It is relatively new and used by many special forces around the world for CQC and is primarily issued to crews of vehicles like tanks and cargo trucks in place of a pistol as a PDW.

The AN94 is so advanced, high tech and expensive, that Russia only issues it to its best special forces because the weapon is too complex for their basic conscripted troops. It isnt your basic gas operated blowback weapon. Not to mention being extremely expensive and requiring HOURS of maintenence to perform correctly.

Socom has MANY MANY things wrong with it if it were going for realism, but it isnt. The Socom series is so unique and fun because it ISNT realistic. It fools the player that doesnt know much about warfare and tactics into thinking it is realistic.

If there were a game that was as realistic as possible minus being shot, no one would play it because it wouldnt be fun. DAYS of recon and positioning for an objective and then maybe 10 minutes of all out fighting, only to break contact as quickly and violently as possible. Not my idea of fun either.

yea i said that mainly because its unrealistic. i dont think that any terrorist anywhere in the world will be able to get a hold of an M16A2 with a M203 and a laser or scope. or a M82. sorry for the confusion

[SHASTINTOR]

Originally Posted by Jimdalf

Dude I know all of what you are saying... but 50% is almost certainly not an average, it was probably just one incident that ended like that... the L85 wasn't too bad a gun but occasionally it would prove too fragile so the myth that it breaks at the slightest touch (I am just plain clumsy though so any weapon in my hands just dies it is that simple)

I prefer 7.62 to the .223 weapons but the M16 round is by no means non-lethal... a three round burst does terrible things to a human body

No. Look up the original M16's history and you will see how bad it was in Vietnam. When the entire military makes over 100 changes to the weapon to prevent it from jamming within 10 years of it being introduced, then there are some SERIOUS problems with it. The biggest one wasnt even it's design but the fact that there were no cleaning kits issued with it because Washington said that the new rifles were self-cleaning and didnt need to be cleaned. Also they used a different kind of gunpowder which further fouled the chamber and barrel with carbon.

And look up some AAR's and acounts from Iraq and Afghanistan. Youll see what I mean about the complaints of the .223. The enemy is almost always malnurished and very skinny, which often time means the bullet will pass right through their body, rather than hit bone, or richochet around inside of the body as the .223 was orginally meant to do. The round just doesnt have the profile and knockdown power of a 30 cal.

[Scuba Steve]

Originally Posted by SHASTINTOR

Yea.....untill it began overheating and actually melting the composite material it was made out of.

Its a good idea, but the XM8 is really a piece of ****. The marines hated it when testing it and it is poorly made. Although it proved to be reliable by not jamming, it overheated often and cause the reciever and surrounding composite material to overheat, warp and even melt in some instances; not something you want to happen to you in a firefight.

Very interesting, I did not know that.

I understand what you say about the .233 rounds. I have read the book Black Hawk Down countless times, and several of the soldiers involved in that state the .233 round would not drop a man easily. One soldier recalled several soldiers laughing at a Delta sniper for using the "old-school" M14, yet admired him when his 7.62 rounds would drop someone with ease.