Do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?

[deann]

no....

 

[308]

Any opinions or preferences on optics such as Aimpoint, Trijicon or EoTech and how they actually stand up to combat duty?

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

mil-spec= best product for the cheapest amount of money.

no they do not.

 

[Charliehorse]

Built by the lowest bidder.

>Providing< they meet specifications (incl field duty), they should be built by the lowest bidder.
This $500 hammer crap by military contractors is outright theft from the American people who foot the bill.

 

[dwaineshort]

If you read the results from the last socom test its very clear they have some of the worst rifles. Most of the guns they tested shot 200 -500 rounds more before a failure then the m4.

 

[Charliehorse]

800+ rounds Ultimate AR.15 meltdown

 

[gaijinsamurai]

Any opinions or preferences on optics such as Aimpoint, Trijicon or EoTech and how they actually stand up to combat duty?

I love my Eotech (mounted on a SIG 556), but have heard more than one vet of recent deployments that they tended to have issues with long term durability. Aimpoints and ACOGs tend to have a better reputation.

We used iron sights during my time, and I will stick to those for SHTF.

 

[lonegunman]

Does the US military have the best guns they can buy? Probably not.

Trying to create a weapon that will work for everyone under every set of conditions found in combat is not possible. They do a good job of getting it mostly right, most of the time.

A small group of soldiers are complaining because that is what they do. They have an opinion, an idea of some form of weapon they would prefer and they are complaining. Everything breaks under enough stress or when heated to a lovely orange glow many times in a short period, if left dirty or improperly maintained. So weapons break under the best conditions.

I can tell you the worst weapons ever designed are the XM8 family of stupidity. I got to test fire several of them and they are total crap designed by a gaggle of officers who have never owned or operated a firearm of any type, much less designed one that was intended to actually work.

If you think it is bad now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just wait til they try and fix it.

 

[Martini_Up]

Who cares about guns? It's those boots we need to worry about... you know, boots-on-the-ground??



Not funny? How about quoting Napolean: "An army marches on it's stomach" so I guess we better learn how to march on our stomachs.... or perhaps get the best chow $$ can buy? Oh wait. Waterloo. I get it.

Happy Friday.

 

[Gunguy45]

660 rounds vs. 240 rounds for 22 Lbs. THAT is the main reason we use the 5.56 instead of the 7.62.

U.S. armies have NEVER been equipped with the latest and greatest. Not since the Henry (Winchester) was rejected in the Civil War.

Our troops are already burdened with so much extraneous crap, it's a wonder they can move.

The injury rates (non-combat-related) among infantry due to carrying excessive weights are ALREADY outrageous.

I agree, after talking with enough grunts to have an opinion, that there are things that need to change. The firearm is among the LEAST of them.

Afghanistan, with it's long-engagement ranges is an abberation, not the rule. And it's coming to an end.

The 5.56 performs very well up to a point. That point happens to be well within the vast majority of engagements faced or anticipated to be faced by the U.S Army.

Seriously folks, if the round didn't work, we wouldn't have kept it and NATO be damned.

As for the M4? No kidding. you have to field a crapton of weapons. Changing out to say the 416? Gonna cost 80 BILLION dollars. Where is the money coming from?

 

[Brutus57]

660 rounds vs. 240 rounds for 22 Lbs. THAT is the main reason we use the 5.56 instead of the 7.62.

U.S. armies have NEVER been equipped with the latest and greatest. Not since the Henry (Winchester) was rejected in the Civil War. QUOTE]

There would be some who would disagree with your above sweeping statement....US Army entered WWII with the finest infantry combat rifle of the time already in use, the M1 Garand. It was the "latest" and definitely the "greatest" at the time. One could say the for the M2 .50 cal. when discussing heavy machine guns....


But I do see your point that the average Joe or Jane doesn't get the top bidders' weapon, but the lowest bidders' weapon or sometimes what politics deem "the best". I would submit this....for all the bad mouthing of the 5.56mm why did the Soviets adopt the AK 74 with a 5.45x39 round?
Probably the same logic used in the US adoption of the M16.... more bullets for conscripts and much cheaper to manufacture in the US' case than the M14.

Brutus Out

 

[dwaineshort]

I believe most of the weapons tested in the last Socom test were mostly 5.56 weapon systems. Not arguing this caliber vs that one. What makes me sad was that the di m4's were having major failures with in two, or three mags on some of the test they were running. While some of the other weapon systems were going through 8 to 10 mags before a stoppage in the same test.