“Chicken and egg” problem; you can’t use caseless ammunition in most firearms, and new firearms that use caseless ammo aren’t being developed because nobody makes caseless ammo.
I think that firearms evolve more rapidly than ammunition, and this is more true with modern ammo than it was when you could make your own with lead, gunpowder, and paper.
US armed forces are not going to toss out all their 9mm ammo just to get three bullets through one hole. If the US doesn’t do it, NATO certainly won’t. In turn, non-military offerings will follow suit.
Standards turn out to be a variation of the “punctuated equilibrium” effect found in evolutionary systems.
And if this seems a bit stupid, well then, it’s not the most stupid thing I’ve seen in military hardware. I have yet to recover from learning that the US forbade the use of the BAR in France in WWI because they were worried the Germans would capture one and discover the technology. By that thinking, we should have never produced the weapon at all.
Like many of you, I am sure, I have a good collection of firearms and much firearms experience (U.S. Marine Corps, about three decades ago).
Briefly, my choice for all the criteria mentioned here would be the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, the “Mini” SPW version. It can hold a large capacity box magazine, fires the 5.56 round.
I don’t especially like the Galil – it is basically the AK Valmet chambered for the 5.56 round. I don’t like AK’s very much – too “clunky.”
I like the M-16 a lot, which is why I like this weapon. I had the opportunity to shoot one when my son was in the Marines and coming back from overseas deployment. They allowed civilians to come on ship for the last leg from Hawaii to San Diego, and they let us try out a variety of weapons. The M249 is an easy to handle as an M-16, but has many improvements. And that big box of ammo doesn’t hurt.
Ignoring the criteria set forth above ("you can hide it under your trench coat), my favorite infrantry weapon is the M-14. I have fired a lot of weapons, but nothing matches, in my mind, its accuracy, reliability, and, well, its elegance. Without a lot of special training, a reasonably skilled rifleman can hit range targets at 1,000 yards.
Are you sure about that? H&K didn’t even exist until 1949…they started doing business in 1950 making things like bicycles and sewing machines.
(Go to their website at http://www.heckler-koch.de and in the “Company” section you’ll find a link to their history)
“The Machinegun Book” even says that Hitler didn’t (at least initially) approve of the first German assault rifle (the Stg44) or the philosophy behind it.
As far as I can tell, the G11 didn’t come into being until the 1980s, I didn’t see any reference to a “prehistory” going back much farther than that.
Why would SEALS use a weapon that is not very accurate and has low penetrating power? SWAT maybe but SEALS?
From a vague memory of reading Rogue Warrior by Richard Marcinko I recall him mentioning that it used to be US military policy that they used US manufactured weapons (and probably everything). SEALS fought and eventually won the ability to buy whatever they thought was the best item (be it scuba gear, guns, whatever) regardless of where it was made.
So, if SEALS can literally pick any submachine gun made today from anyone willing to sell it to them why would they pick a weapon that is as lacking as you suggest? As a submachine gun I am guessing only close range accuracy really counts as it is not meant for long range encounters (I don’t think anyway…more the clear the room/airplane kind of thing).
Not trying to be snarky…I certainly do not know and am genuinely curious.
Everything that I’ve read about the H&K weapons says that they are known for their accuracy (the internal workings are different than most SMGs - same roller-locking system is also used in their assault rifles I think). I agree with your comment about close quarters, size and weight and first-shot accuracy would be critical in that situation. The silenced versions are also supposed to be very silent indeed.
I’d also hazard a guess that folks like the SEALs (and many other special ops groups around the world that are supposed to use the H&K weapons as well) tailor their weapons to the situation - if the goal is to sneak into a building, eliminate guards quietly while working in close quarters then you might choose a lightweight silenced SMG (MP5SD3) whereas if you expect to engage people out in the open, at longer range, and noise isn’t important, then maybe you’d carry an assault rifle.
The premier military H&K models are the USP and Mk-23
The failings of the 9mm Parabellum are well known, ti the point that the Europenas develpoed the 5.7x28mm round, the P-90 and the FiveSeven in response. If you’re doing CQB, and your bad guys are wearing armor, you want the 5.7mmSS, not a 9mm.
I’m not ignoring your question, Whack, but I don’t think I’m the guy to answer it. My knowledge on the subject is pretty much limited to what I posted above, combined with a one-time date with a semi-auto MP5 at a range (technically called an HK94, IIRC.)
I wasn’t trying to imply that the MP5 didn’t do the job for the SEALs…I just figure that in their position you have to make some trade-offs in terms of compactness, etc. I’d bet you’re right on about close quarters, airplanes and such.
It is a comfy feeling gun; I’ll certainly give it that. If I had the dollars, I’d try to obtain the semi-auto version.
Just for accuracy’s sake: the M-60 is a .30 cal; it fires a 7.62x51 round, the same as the M-14. That round was the standard NATO round for several years, until the 5.56 was adopted.
the M-60 replaced the M1919 (it has many, many variations), which was often called the “.30 cal machine gun.” Its original .30 cal round was the 30.06 rifle round, which is used in the 30.06 bolt action rifle and the Garand. Many were rechambered for the new NATO round, a smaller .30 cal, that was used in the M60 and the M-14.
For a squad automatic weapon, the M-249 is superior in countless ways. As a machine gun aboard air and water craft, the M-60 is still used in some places (as is the M1919, I am told)
You beat me to the FiveSeven. I’ve had the chance to fire the P90 and it is a remarkable firearm. It was never intended to be a replacement for the assault rifle, but for troops in rear guard areas or police forces, it is an amazing gun. The FiveSeven round is supposed to be able to defeat most soft body armor, but not overpenatrate through the person. A 50 round magazine with little to no recoil doesn’t hurt either.
I cannot get any when I google ofb 1945la (tried it with caps and quotes too and no hits).
What is this thing? I cannot picture a nuclear pistol. The Davy Crockett mentioned above is about as small as any nuclear “gun” got I thought.
The real stumbling block to my mind being you need a minimum amount of material for a critical mass. For uranium-233 that is around 15kg (~33 pounds). Plutonium needs about 10kg (~22 pounds). A bit big for a bullet and we haven’t even dealt with the explosive charges that need to surround the material that implode and start the chain reaction.
Whew! For a moment, I was afraid I’d have to explain it. I mean geez, doesn’t a blast radius of 500 yards and a range of 100 make you just a bit suspicious? :rolleyes:
Oh, and by the way, “critical mass” is misleading. The key factor in a spontaneous chain reaction is the fission cross section to low-energy neutrons (or is it high-energy? I can never remember). Anyway, what you have to do is set up conditions so that you have very reactive atoms very close together. You can vary the amount you need based on how reactive the stuff is, how dense it is, and how dense the neutron flux is.
Now, I’m not saying you could make a so-called “atomic bullet”. I do think you have a chance of making an atomic hand grenade. That was the basis of my whoose. My dad used to tell that as a joke:
Have you heard about the atomic hand grenade? It makes a crater 300 yards wide. The problem is, you can only throw it 100 yards!
