What is Digg?246 Comments
- Arkavus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+140@scullyshouse
Actually the AK-47 has higher stopping power than the M-16 but is not as accurate and also is not as fast a bullet, which can be surprisingly helpful. The AK-47 also has higher recoil, which only hurts the accuracy even more.
@GawtMilk
You're actually wrong about the AK-47 having less stopping power. It fires a larger round and if you've ever seen the two different weapons fire into some concrete blocks you'd know it has more stopping power. You're probably getting the idea of the M-16 having more stopping power due to the fact that the 5.56 round it fires tumbles end over end once it enters the target.
@archonsg
I don't know when you fired the M-16 but it's definitely not as bad as you're making it out to be. It has undergone a lot of changes since it was first introduced into the army and developed that stigma of being unreliable, because of course it was at the time. It is actually, very reliable now though. You still can't throw it in sand and pull it out and still fire obviously.
What we should do, is buy the HK 416. You can literally cover that gun in sand, pull it out, and continue firing with no problems at all. In fact it's been done, just watch Futureweapons. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69How many of you are basing your arguments on your experience with playing Counter Strike? I'm honestly curious about that, because something tells me that quite a few of you are doing just that.
If you're gonna make these arguments, at least have the common courtesy to append your comment by saying how the hell you would even know what the hell you're talking about. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55I say we give our troops lasers. Bullets are so last century. Pew pew!
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -47/+89The AK47 has huge recoil and lower stopping power than the M16. It's only redeeming factor is that it's reliable...it can get twenty years use even with the constant dust storms of Iraq / Kuwait or muddy jungles of Vietnam. That, and that it is cheaper to make. The M16 is a much more powerful, accurate, tactical weapon (large range of attachments) than the AK47.
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45@Arkavus stopping power means nothing in a military arm, in a general sense you do not want to kill the enemy only wound him. This is because a dead soldier removes one soldier from the field, where a wounded soldier removes 2 and possibly more who have to care for the wounded and also saps the resources of the enemy because he has to care for the wounded.
The M-16 round is designed to fragment on impact and thus cause a much more devastating wound and impart all of the bullets energy into the target because it will not exit. The AK47 round will exit the body and thus all the energy after the exit is wasted. It looks impressive when fired at concrete blocks, but the picture is much different when fired into "ballistic gel". - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -21/+58***** a' we got some gun nuts here. I know in CS:S the AK sucks... that count for anything?
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -19/+56Which is precisely my point.
You can have the "best" weapon possible with the best stopping power, best accuracy and what not but if its prone to jamming, its worthless. What's good a weapon if all takes is a bit of carbon built up and it'll jam never mind dust and sand. I know because I have fired that damned weapon (M16) enough to know just how easily sand and crap can foul it up, mostly via the magazines and the rounds as it gets loaded into the firing chamber.
Soldiers on the field have long been complaining about chamber jams and weapon failures have been one of the biggest problems in "non effectual combat response" but ironically enough, no one is willing to do anything about it. - dmonkey1001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The M-16 has far less stopping power, as it only uses a 5.56mm round vs the 7.62mm AK round. A smaller round was used on purpose to allow for greater accuracy, low recoil, low weight, and higher capacity weapons. What we are seeing now is that the battle field is changing, and small arms are increasingly being reserved for urban combat scenarios. Such scenarios often lend to close quarters fighting where short stock weapons with high stopping power are ideal.
Also, the M16 is reliable when kept clean. The AK has a much looser bolt configuration, which makes if less likely to jam when small debris find their way into the weapon. - geoncoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23 Being a former soldier I can attest to the excess carbon buildup and the possibility of jamming on the M16. One of the first things you have to learn with the M16 is SPORTS (Slap the magazine, pull the charging handle to the rear, observe the chamber, release the charging handle, tap the forward assist, squeeze the trigger). If a round is stuck, then try like hell to eject the round from the chamber. If this doesn't work then your in a ***** load of trouble. This solution seems like a simple fix and I wouldn't be surprised to see Colt releasing a future modification to the M4 and M16 with these features.
- bflfab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22@zclip
That is why he said AK-74. They are two different guns, the AK-47 and the AK-74:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74 - TemplarCrosland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@zclip
You sir did not read the above comment well, and are grossly uniformed.
The post above stated the AK-74 which does fire a 5.56x39. It is similar to the M4 round. The weapon you spoke of was the AK-47 which fires a 7.62x39. Even when speaking of this weapon though it still does not fire a round like the old M60 or newer M240 which fires a 7.62x51.
Learn from something other than counterstrike.
Also I serve now in the Army and am stationed in Camp Phoenix Afghanistan, as a Cavalry Scout, though I am merely the SECFOR here. Therefore my knowledge is a little validated. Also I love my M4, with an attached CCO (red dot scope) its accurate as *****. The M4 does not need replacing in this Cavalry-man's opinion. - ryodoan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18700 yards, eh?
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22It's appallingly apparent that most of you are only aware of the M-16 "Urban legends", and have never actually fired one. The M-16 is a VERY reliable weapon. It is also is amazingly accurate, especially if one of the red-dot scopes are attached.
That story about the ranger not being able to fight is *****. If his weapon failed to that degree he either: had some HORRIBLE luck, or more likely, he didn't keep his weapon properly cleaned. The mechanical parts of the weapon operate like clockwork, you don't clean out the carbon deposits and it will fail. Worst case scenario, there was a dropped weapon on the ground he should have been able to use.
The thing that's funny is the military doesn't make these decisions lightly. It would costs billions to update all the weapons in the arsenal, it would cost just as much to properly dispose of the current arsenal. What would the army gain with this? Not a lot. It would be like the average American spending an extra $5000 on a new car because it would save them 1 MPG.
What people should also keep in mind is that the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Times are usually very sensationalized. Take what they say with a grain of salt. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@Arkavus
The fact that it 'tumbles end over end' is what gives it it's stopping power. People aren't concrete blocks. A bullet that goes cleanly through someones leg won't be as damaging as a bullet that tears up someones leg. That, and the fact that it's got lower recoil and a higher capacity clip add up to a more damaging weapon. - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why do we do this? Every month some manufactuer of the "New and Improved" shows up wants a huge contract and then starts flooding the media with articles on "what a disservice" our government is doing, and how we are "shortchanging ourselves" and yadda yadda yadda. And we ALL fall for it.
A month ago it was the HPV vaccine, have to have it, what a disservice we were doing, and whatya know Mereck is just paying of legislatures so they have a market to sell their goods.
Sure, the M416 seems to be an improvement, but is it such that we must disgard all our M16s? What are we going to do with M16s? Sellem on black market to terrorists? And why? cause M16s clog sometimes, is that really the biggest problem in Iraq right now? When an IED roadside bomb goes off is the problem really our jamming M16? Did we fail to beat back the Republican Guard because our M16s kept jamming? Doesn't appear to me that our armies greatest weakness is jamming guns, sure some guns same, is that worth COMPLETELY rearming our entire military?
See this for what it is, a gun manufacturer made a gun, sought out the approval of soldiers and now turns to public opinion to force a military contract which will justify their R&D.
Our military is doing just fine with the weapons they have and still could take out just about any force on the planet. Yes, we need to constantly update cause if your not getting better your getting worse, but comon to see this as anything but a Advertisement Article (or Adverticle) is just being foolish - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@brstilson its not that simple, especially when you factor armour and cover - which is always present in some way or another. If you're hiding behind a brick wall and the enemy has a gun that can put bullets through brick walls, you can see where this is going.
- bpevans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This article is essentially just a H&K marketing pitch spun by the author.
Colt responded with the following letter which is worth the read:
Dear Editor,
Until the cancellation of the XM8 program in 2005, Army Times and its staff writer, Matthew Cox, strongly promoted the HK XM8 for its adoption as the service weapon for the US Army. In his recent feature article, “It’s better than the M4, but you can’t have one” Mr. Cox attributes cancellation of the XM8 program to “a sea of bureaucratic opposition.” Mr. Cox fails to mention a DoD IG report on the Acquisition of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (D-2006-004) dated October 7, 2005, which addresses the XM8 Program and is found at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. This DoD IG report clearly stated the rationale, which indicated the XM8 offered no potential efficiency over the present weapons systems, as well as including mismanagement by those persons responsible for the program, both of which clearly may have been a strong consideration in the cancellation of the program. Another related and informative DoD IG report is Competition of the 5.56 Millimeter Carbine (D-2007-026) dated November 22, 2006 and is also found at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. Now, promoting the HK 416, Mr. Cox references unnamed experts, misrepresents data for comparison between the HK 416 and M4, misleads readers by using findings in a 2001 SOCOM report on the M4 and a Marine Corps test of the M4 in 2002 but he does not inform the reader of measures taken immediately by the Army and Colt to eliminate those problems, uses quotes to imply the M16 and M4 are the same weapon used 42 years ago, which they are clearly not, and bases his argument for adoption of the HK 416 for the entire US Army on use by a group of elite operators within SOCOM who rightfully develop their own kit of weapons and modify them to their needs. His stated rationale is based on unsupervised tests made on a rifle made in Germany.
Additionally, his writing very wrongly alleges that Army leadership is not providing our men and women in uniform the best weapon available and, more disturbing, his article irresponsibly raises a concern to the Soldiers, Marines and Special Operations Forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families that their service weapon is not reliable. This is absolutely not a true statement and could cause serious morale issues to those engaged in day to day combat operations and to those in leadership positions in these units. To go further I would question his loyalty to those in uniform and his lack of real credibility, truthfulness and personal integrity in writing an article of this nature.
The M4 speaks for itself as to its combat credibility. Before its introduction into the US Army inventory in 1994 it was subjected to the full range of functioning and environmental tests required by the US Army test and evaluation process. Later, as a result of the 2001 SOCOM report on the M4, referred to by Mr. Cox, the US Army and Colt immediately conducted a joint effort to rectify the problems raised. This effort took until spring 2002 and manufacturing changes were implemented at Colt by fall 2002. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps conducted their own test of the M4 with weapons produced prior to the fall 2002 manufacturing change and they experienced similar problems as SOCOM. These issues were also resolved with the manufacturing changes implemented thereafter. From fall 2002 to today, government quality deficiency reports for the M4 have been nearly non-existent and that is attributable to the joint effort between the US Army and Colt to solve the problems raised in the 2001 and 2002 reports. Additionally, regarding reliability of the M4, from fall 2002, US government inspectors at the Colt plant have overseen the firing of nearly 4,000,000 (million) endurance rounds with only three endurance gun failures: one in January 2004, one in July 2005 and one in August 2005. The government quality assurance representative at Colt holds the documents supporting this testing. In June 2006, Colt had the opportunity to endurance fire an HK 416. At 3,000 rounds, a broken firing pin spring was found in the HK 416. Without a spare part, the endurance testing was ended. Other findings in those 3,000 rounds of firing were frequent loosening of the hand guard retainer screw and the cyclic rate of fire was over 1,000 rounds per minute. The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system and was initially rejected by the Army for the M16 in the 1960’s. Colt Defense has the present ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the US Army and other US Services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon. Attached is an email written to Mr. Cox by a recognized weapons expert, Mr. Chris Bartocci, author of Black Rifle II, who provides background on the M16 and M4. Anecdotal examples of fouled weapons are not taken lightly, yet the information is not helpful if the type of fouling is not clearly defined. In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system. This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system. Is a gas piston operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests. Additionally, there are a number of reasons for fouling of weapons to include the reliability of the ammunition and reliability of magazines. The M16 and M4 have undergone major enhancements since introduction of the M16 into the US military inventory in the 1960s. These enhancements have improved functioning, reliability, maintenance and versatility for the individual Soldier and Marine throughout the years. Currently, there is a government funded operational evaluation being conducted for SOCOM by Colt and Ultra Chem Technologies (UCT) for greaseless operating parts on the M4 to improve maintenance, functioning and the wear of select parts of the weapon. In closing, at the 2006 Laboratory and Industry Day sponsored by the Chief of Infantry and Commanding General United States Army Infantry Center & School, Fort Benning, Georgia, the M4 Carbine was listed by the Commanding General and included in his brief as one of the many success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
James R. Battaglini
MajGen, USMC (Ret)
Chief Operating Officer
Colt Defense LLC - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19It always has to turn political. We are talking about guns here, Haliburton has nothing to do with the M16, AK-47 or any other gun in this article. Go whine about how much you dislike your country elsewhere.
- Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13“The truth is, to change out a fleet takes a tremendous amount of money,” Radcliffe said, referring to the task of outfitting a million soldiers with new weapons.
Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an “off-the-shelf” weapon like the 416.
-------------------------------------------
Pretty sad that's all it would cost, relative to the overall cost of the war. We are spending what? 2 billion a week on this war right now, and we can't scrape up a billion for 100 million rifles.
I have many guns, but make sure I have a handgun and a rifle that are 100 percent reliable should I ever need them. For me right now that is a Glock 19 and an AK-47. I do realize than an M4/M16 is superior in accuracy, and possibly stopping power, but that wouldn't help me in the next new orleans if it didn't function in a ***** environment. Same with the glock, there are way better pistols out there from an accuracy and stopping power perspective, but I have no other guns, including higher prices guns, that have never had a FTF, FTE, etc.
I find it very disheartening that we cannot give our soldiers the same. Sure there are always problems with any lot of guns, there are people with horrible glocks and AK's, but thats the exception not the rule. From what I know, the M16/M4/AR15 models have always been regarded as great weapons...when clean. We need to face the facts that our men and women need better.
I have seen demonstrations of the HK416, and it looks like a gun you can trust your life to.
We don't need "new technology in 10 years" like general asshat mentioned, we need an accurate weapon with world class reliability. They bury those damn HK416's in the sand, pull em out, and they keep firing. Try doing that with an M variant. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The AK47 has huge recoil and lower stopping power than the M16."
This OBVIOUSLY from someone who has never fired either. The 7.62x39mm round when fired from a Kalashnikov, does have higher recoil than the .223 from the AR, it is in NO WAY "huge." It is extremely controllable for fast follow-up shots. And the 7.62 round does in fact outperform the .223. The 7.62 is, ballistics wise, a near-twin to the .30-30, the quintessential deer round. Most states ban the .223 for harvesting deer because it is just too under-powered to reliably take one down with one shot.
The best of both worlds is the 6.8mm Remington SPC. Chamber the 416 for *that* round, and you have the near-perfect combat rifle. - BenZacharia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Then go back to blogging about WarCraft then.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Or better yet, the brown note gun, you make the opposing force ***** their pants, literally.
- cgoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When the military says it will be expensive, they aren't kidding. H&K, while a decent product, is generally way over-priced for the performance. I have no doubt that the 416 is a fine weapon, but the M-16 platform has been bettered over the years, especially the civilian AR platform. I've watched videos of an AR-15 shoot (on full auto per magazine) for 200 rounds, dropped in water/sand and fired for another 200 rounds. Rinse and repeat for 1200 rounds without a single failure. I'd say that's pretty good.
The M-16 might not have the complete reliability of the AK-47 you can't beat the accuracy and modularity (swapping uppers can give you .50 cal, 6.5MM Grendel, 6.8MM Remington, 7.62, etc.).
At the end of the day the HK416 is just an evolution of the M-16 design anyway, it's not a completely new rifle. I might be a little old school, but I'd like to see weapons manufactured in the United States handed to our troops, not from Germany or anywhere else. What happens if Germany decides to force H&K to cancel the contracts because they don't agree with our stance on terrorism?
Wiki link to HK416 (interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK_416 - hybridcreation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"yawn. does the u.s. make anything other than movies and weapons?"
It's funny you say that because the article is about H&K's, which are considered by some to some of the finest weapons in the world...and they're GERMAN, you idiot.
I swear some people don't care how stupid they make themselves look, as long as they get off a good anti-US blast.
And I'll bet that computer you're on has a really good American processor in it. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6A billion dollars for a 100 million rifles? I can't wait for this $10 gun to hit the market. I am going to buy 10 of them at least.
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah and the majority of Digg is just too ***** dumb to notice it. In fact I doubt they even read the damn thing. I think 95% of the people that posted here have never shoot a gun before and they are telling the military to get this rifle because the read it in the Army Time. ***** stupid if you asked me.
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I hate to be anal, but wasn't the entire article about the reliability M4 CARBINE and the up-n-coming HK416 CARBINE hopeful replacement candidate, not the M16 AR? The article itself said that the M4, in at least one test, failed 3 times more than the M16. It seems like all this AK vs M16 (and M16 discussion itself) is a tangent to the original point of the discussion of what carbine is the best for our boys.
I have never fired a gun before in my life and I'm pretty liberal, but I'm a gun-nut at heart (and no, I don't play CS or Tom Clancy games). Do any of you ex- (and current) military types have any experience with M4 and its reliability? - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The problem here is that the Army has relied upon the Armalite AR-15/Colt M-16 platform for a long, long time. While the M-16 is a versatile weapon, it has had a long history of problems which few that actually deal with the grime and environmental conditions of combat would refute (many of my fellow gun enthusiasts refuse to admit the inadequacies of the AR-15 because they only shoot them on the range or in environments favorable to how the AR-15 was designed). Nonetheless, our military has huge stockpiles of weapons, spare parts, magazines and ammunition for the M-16, and our riflemen are trained around it. It is costly and logistically difficult to just swap out a rifle for another. Therefore, I can understand the Army looking into a rifle that can address many of the shortcomings of the M-16 without creating an unmanageable burden of deploying it and stocking parts for it.
HK makes some fine weapons, and the gas/piston operation used by the G36/XM8/416 is a drastic improvement over the M-16's direct impingement. Perhaps they can provide a bridge between the old M-16 and a much improved future weapon.
However, I think this weapon is just pissing up a flagpole, and THAT is why it isn't in soldier's hands. Considering all the logistical, training and supply problems, HK's offering would still be a large investment for the military to make, all the while not addressing more serious concerns over the M-16 platform.
M-16s are dirty, dirty guns (mostly due to the direct impingement operation, but also because sand and dirt permeate the damned things so easily) and modern combat situations are putting a real stretch on 5.56mm. Sure, they're cheap, light weight, high-velocity and pretty accurate. But they are designed to inflict damage on soft targets (human tissue) by tumbling and violently fragmenting. This is great when shooting Charlies wearing black pajamas, but with today's proliferation of body armor and hard cover (urban combat), it isn't. Also, while improvements have been made, they don't perform well on short-barreled rifles (as many rounds don't, but 5.56 is notorious) i.e. carbines.
I'm not saying 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 are leaps and bounds better. In some cases they can weigh almost twice as much, and are much more difficult to control in full-auto. There have been lots of different rounds in development that fill in the area between the two extremes of 5.56 and 7.62, but god knows when we'll see any of these solutions take foot.
In the meantime, we need weapon platforms that at the base are light, simple, easy to use, easy to clean, and easy to modify based on a situation (in other words, flexibility) and can take advantage of 5.56 and 7.62. I think if we're gonna commit in any significant number to a new gun, let's go all-out. I think solutions like FN's SCAR and Robinson XCM are a move in the right direction (particularly the SCAR). Of course, two big problems right off the bat there are cost and supply. - aspec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's called money, where the ***** have you been?
- p2502, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you come up with the technology, and i'll get right on selling that to the D.O.D.
- altered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think you're thinking of the XM29, aka the OICW. It's also made by Heckler & Koch (who produces the 416). It's a good concept, it uses a standard 5.56mm rifle, with 20mm Airburst grenade system on top, all controlled by a fire control module which has night/day optics and motion tracking and whatnot. The problem is it's way too expensive, and they haven't gotten it down to anywhere near it's target weight yet. Still, a very interesting system and worth a google
- bubba1971, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Reminds me of one of the rules on the old "Murphy's laws of combat" posters: "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder".
- implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The problem is that if you want to change weapons for the general fighting force (not special forces), you'd have to change ALL of the weapons, to prevent problems with parts incompatibility. So, unless the military is going to spend enough money to change out all the M4's and M16's they currently have in service (and they aren't likely to do that, especially when they're fighting a war in two different countries and maintaining forces in a whole lot more), then they simply have to stick with what they've got.
- ThisBlows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yes, we make the economies of third world nations thrive by outsourcing our jobs and ***** canning our own.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Reliability", i.e. it won't jam up, isn't everything. The M-16 series stays accurate at greater distances than the AK. Plus, the AK is cumbersome and heavy, firing a larger round. The US has a 7.62 equivalent in the M-14, but only the Marines use them from time to time.
Besides, the Army's doctrine basically holds that bullets don't win wars; fragments do. In other words, lure an enemy in (or trap them), then call for air support or artillery against them. Rifles don't kill people; missles and shells kill people, at least in Army doctrine. - BushidoReverend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So I didnt see link for the HK 416 and being as I'm a good Digger, I dug around.
The H&K 416 (The gun that never jams)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ObWpWXrt9I - KillerLettuce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What I said needs to be repeated: "How come everyone on Digg is all the sudden some special forces solider that knows everything about guns. STFU and back to eating your Twinkie"
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yet again, from someone who has obviously has never handled either.
While undeniably powerful (.30-06 Springfield), you do realize the BAR weighs 20 lbs EMPTY, don't you? And do you also know that the M240 *IS* essentially a BAR with it's action inverted to facilitate belt feeding? Carry that 25 lb. ***** and all the ammo it eats by hand in the field by yourself. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@linkedlist - The AK-74 fires a round similar to the 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington) that the M16 fires. It is the 5.45x39mm. You can see it is actually smaller than the M16 round, whose full designation is 5.56x45mm.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I say we give our troops lasers. Bullets are so last century. Pew pew!"
Lockheed's new F-35 is supposed to replace the gatling gun with a laser weapon in about 8 years or so (unless USAF has changed their mind about implementing it). The initial production run will have the tried and true 20mm cannon, but Lockheed supposedly has a working example of a beam weapon to replace the gun, and they're refining it for production.
My reservations....each time you fire it, you have to give it 120 seconds to cool down. So if you miss....eh, you'd better have some sidewinders ready if you're doing combat air patrol. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15"Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an “off-the-shelf” weapon like the 416."
***** suckers can pony up almost a billion for subsidized digital OTA tuners but not for this? Errrr.... Foxbat angry. - Tripw0l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4btw, here's a demonstration video of the gun
http://digg.com/videos/educational/H_K_416_demonstration_video_from_futureweapons - DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The best point is how silly it is that the army is using a 42 year old weapon design."
That's irrelevent. Our B-52s are older than the pilots that fly them, but they get the job done. My old ship, the USS Enterprise is over 40 years old....and will be in service another 20 years.
Newer doesn't always equal better. There's a raging debate in the Naval Aviation community right now about the Navy's fighter forces. The majority seem to think that the newer Super Hornet is inferior in every way to the creaking 30+ year old Tomcats that have been retired. - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11plutarch: "There's something fundamentally wrong with a government that asks their troops to carry out a mission and then refuses to give them reliable tools with which to perform that mission."
Does this include the congressmen and women who would like to cut off funding for the war all together?
By the way, I do have an uncle with Downs Syndrome. He's a really nice guy, but I'd be willing to bet on him kicking your ass in a fight if you called him retarded to his face. - KillerLettuce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7How come everyone on Digg is all the sudden some special forces solider that knows everything about guns. STFU and back to eating your Twinkie
- caution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just a note from a guy who's been enlisted since 1987:
- the only thing I believe in the Army Times is the pay charts and cut-off scores.
- the M4 is a fine weapon.
- i really miss the .45 M1911A1
- the Army needs long-term solutions such as funding for FCS over and above current operational budget
- the military is going to require more than its current percent of the US GDP to prepare itself for the future-- right now it's below 4%. Move it to 6% for 10 years so we can fix what's broken
Interesting to see so much discussion about this article. I didn't know digg folks were so interested in the military. - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6i say, either bring out the mech suits and the giant fighting robots, or we should just go back to clubbing each other to death with mammoth bones.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It sucks when bureacracy prevents a soldier from getting the best, but wars are won with logistics not with rifles that never jam. The Army has countless examples of choosing the weapon that makes the most sense logistically, and is not necessarily the best weapon. The Sherman tank in WWII was a piece of crap, but the Army could hundreds a month. The Army has invested billions in the M-16 family, and the M-4 is compatible with the investment. This better weapon is not, and it suck up resources to keep out in the field.
And besides, the Army has already choosen a replacement to both the M-16 and M-4. It will take a few years to deploy, but there is no sense is deploying a replacement for the M-4 now, when its true replacement is coming in a few years - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7But you sure as hell can keep people from blowing them up.
- patrsup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As usual everyone can prognosticate about almost everything with no real knowledge - the army has never gone for the best in any category - it goes for the cheapest made by whomever is best represented in congress. I can remember the army being forced to buy aircraft they did not want or need but they were made by "friends" of Teddy Kennedy...
The current emergency defense bill is loaded with this stuff – stop just reading the headlines and get into who affects what if you are really interested.
One more personal observation – we bought Hercules dirt bikes for the cavalry scouts until someone in a congressman’s district started asking about it. We then went on to buying Japanese through a dealer in this congressman’s district. They cost more and were less supportable in northern Europe but the congressman was happy. -
Show 51 - 100 of 239 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is