What is the main military weapon of your country?

[Albrante]

This is because the bullet of 9mm size produces a superior entry would to larger caliber weapons and is unlikely to pass through the target so much as bound around inside and chew up internal organs.

In order to make a superior entry wound a 9mm has to enter the target. With modern body armor in todays urban warfare and the no doubt increasing effectiveness of said armor. Even today pistol/smg rounds and somtimes even the 5.56 have trouble punching through this armor.

[Mable harbour]

Just a small question here - why so many nations using the M4? It has a barrel too short to get even marginally decent velocities from the anemic cartridge it fires. While I wouldn't want to have someone shooting one at me, I'd rather have a more serious cartridge in my soldiers' guns. at least a 6.5mm if not a 7.62 rifle. A 200+ yard advantage in reach and greater stopping power are worth the expense and training required for using a real rifle cartridge.

because they are what teh US forces use and everythign the US uses it automatically the best Plus they are tacticool, you can mod them easily and hang loads of great (pointless) stuff off them.

As for the lack of effectiveness, the US govenremnt says that 5.56mm does the job perfectly fine and that the M4 is the best rifle they can buy and as we all know the US govenrment always tells the truth and hasn't ever been directly involved in sabotaging arms trails to the benefit of certain US manufacturers.

Of course the entire history of US small arms procurement is a shining example to the rest of the world. (of what not to do)

And of course keep in mind this is the highly biased OPINION of Crookfur.

What, exactly, are you trying to say? That the short barrel of the M4 hasn't been proven to have a detriemntal effect on the fragmentation behavior of the SS109/M855 thus reducing leathality at even short ranges? That the general incomptance of the US small arms procurement since the 1900s hasn't been accademically recognised and documented and that the M4 has consistantly come off worse in all the recent trails it has been involved in?

Is the M4 a good rifle? Undoubtably. Is it the best solution available? Absolutly not. Do i fap over the HK416? Nope and i personally beleive that HK's offensive agaisnt the M4 has done more harm than good by causing Colt and the US govenrment to dig in thier heels.

Ok I admit it, all my stuff is a channeling of the tanknet group think via my own twisted mind

Both the HK416, 418 and the M-4 tested inferior to XM-8. Even the new SCAR fell short when compared to the XM8 in terms of reliability. Also, the lethality of ss109 comes from it's tendency to bounce around inside the target and has nothing to do with its "fragmentation behavior." The M4 is also one of the oldest rifles out there and has been in use in one for or another for years. It is unrealistic that the DAD would adopt a new rifle and in turn construct a new system of education and qualification for that rifle AS WELL AS train all existing troops in its operation unless said rifle was grossly superior to the M4 which no rifle is save the xm8 which was canceled because of durability issues. The above "facts" provide no actual information, only opinion disguised as information. If anything it substantiates Ostonopolis' claim.

[Mable harbour]

This is because the bullet of 9mm size produces a superior entry would to larger caliber weapons and is unlikely to pass through the target so much as bound around inside and chew up internal organs.

In order to make a superior entry wound a 9mm has to enter the target. With modern body armor in todays urban warfare and the no doubt increasing effectiveness of said armor. Even today pistol/smg rounds and somtimes even the 5.56 have trouble punching through this armor.

Keep in mind your target won't be far enough away from you (should you be firing a nine-mil) to make shooting him in the face an unrealistic option.

[Mable harbour]

Our standard side-arm is the Desert Eagle

You do know that the Desert Eagle is relatively inaccurate, overly heavy, and unreliable, right?

The Hydrogen bomb is considered by many to be the most powerful of our weapons...

You don't have any, you're not big enough.

We can't produce any. To say we havn't bought any would be false.

[Takaram]

You also know that it is chambered in a round that makes the M16 pale and can punch holes through 1/4 inch thick sheets of steel?

True, but wouldn't you want some kind of accuracy. The bullet isn't that big.

A .44 Magnum, which the Desert Eagle is chambered in, is a 240 grain bullet. By comparison, an average .30-06 round is 180 grains, a nine millimeter is about 120 grains, and a .223, which is an M16 round, is a pitiful 55 grains. "The bullet isn't that big". When it is bigger than a bullet you can kill an elk with, it's pretty damn big.

When compared to other bullets, then yes, a Desert Eagle fires a massive round. But to try and compensate for the massive recoil and relative inaccuracy of the Desert Eagle with a large bullet would be ridiculous. Not the emphasis on the word "that".

[Techno-Soviet]

Our standard side-arm is the Desert Eagle

You do know that the Desert Eagle is relatively inaccurate, overly heavy, and unreliable, right?

The Hydrogen bomb is considered by many to be the most powerful of our weapons...

You don't have any, you're not big enough.

We can't produce any. To say we havn't bought any would be false.

Of course, if you can't produce any; good luck maintaining any.

[Mable harbour]

Our standard side-arm is the Desert Eagle

You do know that the Desert Eagle is relatively inaccurate, overly heavy, and unreliable, right?

The Hydrogen bomb is considered by many to be the most powerful of our weapons...

You don't have any, you're not big enough.

We can't produce any. To say we havn't bought any would be false.

Of course, if you can't produce any; good luck maintaining any.

The technology was given, thus the technology is there. It's the resources that are lacking that make production impossible. Maintenance is the easy part. :-D

[Albrante]

I hesitate to show my lack of knowledge but what does Nuke maintainence entail?
I would of though it means making sure its not leaking. If so wouldn't a Geiger counter suffice?

[Idaho Conservatives]

You also know that it is chambered in a round that makes the M16 pale and can punch holes through 1/4 inch thick sheets of steel?

True, but wouldn't you want some kind of accuracy. The bullet isn't that big.

A .44 Magnum, which the Desert Eagle is chambered in, is a 240 grain bullet. By comparison, an average .30-06 round is 180 grains, a nine millimeter is about 120 grains, and a .223, which is an M16 round, is a pitiful 55 grains. "The bullet isn't that big". When it is bigger than a bullet you can kill an elk with, it's pretty damn big.

When compared to other bullets, then yes, a Desert Eagle fires a massive round. But to try and compensate for the massive recoil and relative inaccuracy of the Desert Eagle with a large bullet would be ridiculous. Not the emphasis on the word "that".

The recoil of the D-Eagle isn't that bad; I've actually shot one. The weight of the gun really keeps it down. And when do you need extreme accuracy when someone is in your face?

[Mable harbour]

Less maintenance than you think. Though significantly more than lesser nuclear weapons

[The Grand World Order]

Our standard side-arm is the Desert Eagle

You do know that the Desert Eagle is relatively inaccurate, overly heavy, and unreliable, right?

The Hydrogen bomb is considered by many to be the most powerful of our weapons...

You don't have any, you're not big enough.

We can't produce any. To say we havn't bought any would be false.

Of course, if you can't produce any; good luck maintaining any.

The technology was given, thus the technology is there. It's the resources that are lacking that make production impossible. Maintenance is the easy part. :-D

And from whom have you bought these weapons, and a link to the thread in which it took place?

EDIT: Nevermind, I looked through your post history. You haven't purchased any nuclear weapons.

Even still, with a "Reasonable" economy and a calculated defense budget of roughly two billion, I highly doubt you'd be able to place the purchase, or even maintain the weapons.

So, you don't have any nukes. You haven't been given any, you haven't purchased any, and you wouldn't be able to afford maintaining them, as well as a military and government capable of this economic warfare you speak of, even if they were given to you for free (Which hasn't happened.)

[L3 Communications]

Our standard side-arm is the Desert Eagle

You do know that the Desert Eagle is relatively inaccurate, overly heavy, and unreliable, right?

The Hydrogen bomb is considered by many to be the most powerful of our weapons...

You don't have any, you're not big enough.

We can't produce any. To say we havn't bought any would be false.

Of course, if you can't produce any; good luck maintaining any.

The technology was given, thus the technology is there. It's the resources that are lacking that make production impossible. Maintenance is the easy part. :-D

And from whom have you bought these weapons, and a link to the thread in which it took place?

Even still, with a "Reasonable" economy and a calculated defense budget of roughly two billion, I highly doubt you'd be able to place the purchase, or even maintain the weapons.

I feel bad. 1% of my GDP is more than his entire nation's.

[Slaytesics]

XM8's

[The Grand World Order]

I feel bad. 1% of my GDP is more than his entire nation's.

It's ok, it might comfort you to know that my most successful company, the Emorden-Geist Weapons Manufacturing Corporation, has a net worth about 2.5 times larger than your own nation's GDP.

lolol asshole GWO strikes again!

[L3 Communications]

I feel bad. 1% of my GDP is more than his entire nation's.

It's ok, it might comfort you to know that my most successful company, the Emorden-Geist Weapons Manufacturing Corporation, has a net worth about 2.5 times larger than your own nation's GDP.

lolol asshole GWO strikes again!

lul but thats expected =P

Since there's about ten thousand redundant threads of everything, I really don't know (nor care) if I've posted the "main military weapon" of my nation in this thread:



that thing, made by VT. Summed up in three words:

It. Kicks. Ass.

[The Grand World Order]

You also know that it is chambered in a round that makes the M16 pale and can punch holes through 1/4 inch thick sheets of steel?

True, but wouldn't you want some kind of accuracy. The bullet isn't that big.

A .44 Magnum, which the Desert Eagle is chambered in, is a 240 grain bullet. By comparison, an average .30-06 round is 180 grains, a nine millimeter is about 120 grains, and a .223, which is an M16 round, is a pitiful 55 grains. "The bullet isn't that big". When it is bigger than a bullet you can kill an elk with, it's pretty damn big.

You can theoretically kill an elk with a .22 Magnum... it all depends on your aim. .45ACP rounds often are 250 grain, too. Then again, you're seeming to forget that the Desert Eagle is widely recognized as firing the .50 Action Express, which is a 300 grain round, not a 240. Then again, grainage actually varies, as different bullets are released for different purposes- for example, the SLAP version of the .50BMG is something like 60 grains heavier than .50BMG Ball rounds.

The Desert Eagle isn't a good choice for issuing to the military for more reasons than accuracy. It's heavy as all fuckout for a handgun (Not to mention HUGE), and it's unreliable like hell.

[Lord Tothe]

IC: Soldiers are permitted to carry a personal sidearm of their preference. 1911A1 colts in .45ACP and Glocks in 9mm and .45ACP are the most popular, but there are large numbers who like the .357 and .44 magnum revolvers.

OOC: I have spoken with several owners of Desert Eagles. They say the gun is horribly unreliable when shooting revolver cartridges. The .50 version is OK, but they prefer a .45 or 9mm standard-size pistol for self-defense or concealed carry. I'd rather have a 1911 or a good .357 revolver for my personal use.

[Crookfur]

Mable harbour :

Have you actually read back what you are typing?

On side arms: even in urban conflicts sidearms would be left behind in weight critical situation because the main arm is significantly more effective across the entire range of expected engagement scenarios where as the side arm merely duplicates a little bit of the main arms capabilities.

At what point did I actually mention the XM-8? I merely stated that the M4 has been found to perform worse than pretty much everything it has been tested against.

You are obviously confusing SS109 with the early .223 loadings. The initial 5.56mm loads were very unstable in flight and tended to tumble drastically on impact leading to the initial claims of massive wounding capability and the bouncing about you have referred to. Of course the unstable flight profile whilst not a major issue in warm places like South East Asia was a big problem in colder climates such as northern Europe where the big fight would take place. Thus the rifling got modified and things tightened up into the M193 loading. Then along came SS109 with its highly stable steel cored round which if it hits while going fast enough will tumble and fragment but if not will remain pretty stable and reliably pass straight through causing a relatively small amount of tissue disruption, enough to kill eventually but not nearly as quickly as if the same round had been fired from a longer barrelled weapon and thus fragmented.

You do seem to be reading a lot more bias into what was initially supposed to be a fairly light hearted posting than is actually there so let me make my personal point of view on what the "best solution available" would be:

A rifle that uses a short stroke gas operation to fire an intermediate rifle cartridge, in short the same "ideal" solution that has been rearing its head consistently since the 40s.

I'm not against the US government using the M4 or any other M16/AR-15 based weapon and I freely admit that there are good reasons to keep it, one of which you have illustrated. What I am against is the ignorant assumption of US equipment=best or even Soviet equipment=best or people using illogical/incorrect assumptions and conclusions to support their IC choices.

[Idaho Conservatives]

IC: Soldiers are permitted to carry a personal sidearm of their preference. 1911A1 colts in .45ACP and Glocks in 9mm and .45ACP are the most popular, but there are large numbers who like the .357 and .44 magnum revolvers.

OOC: I have spoken with several owners of Desert Eagles. They say the gun is horribly unreliable when shooting revolver cartridges. The .50 version is OK, but they prefer a .45 or 9mm standard-size pistol for self-defense or concealed carry. I'd rather have a 1911 or a good .357 revolver for my personal use.

I'm with you there, and I think that Grand World Order has a point to make too. I don't think that the Desert Eagle is the best combat handgun on the planet, but it certainly does have its merits; for those reliability issues and brick-like weight, you get a pistol that hits like a freight train. But I'll take the Colt M1911 myself. Very accurate, incredibly reliable, and still packing all the firepower you need within 50 yards (and beyond that range, I don't think I'd be using a pistol anyway).

[Buxtahatche]

The Buxtahatche Confederation's primary weapons are...

INFANTRY
RIFLE - M14 with synthetic stock, 120 rounds ammo (basic load)
PISTOL - M1911 with synthetic grips, 40 rounds ammo (basic load)

COMBAT ARMS (other)
RIFLE - M14 with synthetic stock, 80 rounds ammo (basic load)
CARBINE - M1911 with 16" bbl Carbine Conversion Kit, 160 rounds ammo (basic load)
PISTOL - M1911 with synthetic grips, 40 rounds ammo (basic load)


OoC:
The Desert Eagle in .44 Magnum is as worthless as a rusted-out Nambu 8mm. It stovepipes with alarming regularity when hot (even when well maintained), has an incredible recoil for a semi-auto handgun, and weighs enough it is inconvenient (to say the least) in one-handed use. It's value in a combat environment when follow-up shot speed is CRUCIAL is dubious at best and indescribably deficient at worst. The .50 AE version of the weapon is, while somewhat more reliable in my experience, still a dubious weapon for anything other than bluffing (+2 circumstance bonus on bluff checks on people with low firearms skill).

Give me a good 1911 in .45 ACP or .38 ACP any day of the week over those monsters. They are simply lighter, hardier, more reliable and easier to manage.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Unlike most militaries, Sumer has developed a system whereas the weapon fits the mission needs, and the troops are trained to that, rather then a catch-all system employed elsewhere. To this effect, in infantry, issue weapons vary slightly.

As a main element, all troops are issued with a side arm, the ESh-7 service pistol. This practice rose through trench warfare and the raiding tactics developed mid-way through the Great Europa War.

As there are two main types of combatant soldiers (And cross-training is the norm), there are two issued "standard" weapons. A Typical Sumerian Armoured Infantry fireteam consists of two "Spearmen", and one "Bowman". This triad set up is intended for use in rapid clearing of trenches and other close quarters environments, such as urban settings. The "Bowman" is issued with the LaTi-6 Battle Rifle for long-range precision and automatic fire. The LaTi-6 is, in effect, a combined DMR and LMG, and doubles as both the squad automatic weapon and its ranged engagement option.

The "Spearman" is equipped for close assault and is thusly equipped with the LaSh-36 (Or LaSh-6) combat shotgun. A 44cm sword bayonet is standard issue as well. Both the LaTi-6 and LaSh-6/36 weapons mount the 44cm bayonet.

Additionally, "Spearman" troops also carry the MKb-42 carbine, based on the ESh-7 pistol but with a longer barrel, full automatic capability, and a three-point quick-drop sling. The MKb-42 is used by "Spearman" troops when more range then the LaSh-6 is needed, and shares commonality with the ESh-7 pistol to allow its use.

It should be noted that Armoured Infantry rarely work very far from their IFV, and as such weight is not so much a problem. Other specialist infantry units, depending on their needs, organize differently, with Airborne troops almost exclusively using the MKb-42 and ESh-7 as primary arms, for example.

[Grays Harbor]

The main weapon of our military is our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Anything else is just the tools they use to accomplish the mission they are tasked with.

[Crabulonia]

(FT)

Our good ol' fashioned Follas-2 laser revolver (with shark cannon attached), takes a very strong arm to control it without shattering bones.






Our slightly newer Follas-2 SMG/Assault Rifle (shark cannon attachments can be added), takes a less strong arm to handle as the power in it has been lowered but speed increased.

[L3 Communications]

*snip*

PHYSICSTIP: Lasers don't have recoil. >_>

One of the things I've learned from playing Rifts.

[Sorgan]

Tricky question. Generally we don't encourage war (as we have a 0.5% of the population in the armed forces.) we usually take what is given and don't complain which includes a G3 Rifle, a P339 Sidearm, and for generals, A ceremonial sword of the sorts.