Requirements for Replacement of Currently Issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-80.

[JASmith]

...What I'm addressing with the various duty positions is the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers would be encumbered if they were to be saddled with anything heavier than an M4, with less ammunition capacity...

which explains the difficulty of creating a "one size fits all" requirement or specification.

A cartridge like the 6.5X25 CBJ in a small family of weapons, e. g., a pistol of near-classic appearance, an 8" barrel weapon collapsible to an 8" X 12" X 1.5" package, and a folding-stock carbine could be of significant interest to these folks.

The challenge is that the nominal performance requirements would almost certainly be different than those one would ask of a cartridge/weapon system devoted to the dismounted infantry.

Cheers!

[Tony Williams]

A cartridge like the 6.5X25 CBJ in a small family of weapons, e. g., a pistol of near-classic appearance, an 8" barrel weapon collapsible to an 8" X 12" X 1.5" package, and a folding-stock carbine could be of significant interest to these folks.

I had the same thought with respect to the cartridge, but IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9 shown below. It's good for 200m, very light and compact and a real honey to shoot, being very controllable in full auto:

[JASmith]

I had the same thought with respect to the cartridge, but IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9 shown below. It's good for 200m, very light and compact and a real honey to shoot, being very controllable in full auto...

I had noted that the armor defeat capability of the sabot-based round is really helped by longer barrels, so figured that we should hold some options open for the purposes of exploration.

It's a further reminder of the need to create a set of notional requirements instead of just one. We've got too many folks in this thread who think of the dismounted infantry as a system best optimized with a combined-arms approach. I applaud the thinking because the approach actually strengthens the conclusions will reach.

I will submit, however, that even today there's a bunch folks, e. g. Civil Affairs teams, who do get out in the boondocks without a lot of immediate support. Folks like that need weapons appropriate for a wider variety of engagement ranges than the nominal squad and platoon.

But, the wide-ranging discussions sure complicate a forum thread and makes it very difficult to track back and reference!!

[stanc]

...IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9...

I really like the MP9, and consider it nearly the ideal PDW. Only complaint I have is the charging handle; the first time I tried to pull it back, my fingers slipped off and I ended up with a couple of skinned knuckles.

I truly detest the T-handle, not only on the MP9, but the M16, too. Give me a proper bolt handle on the side...

Oh, one other thing: IMO, it isn't feasible for a PDW like the MP9 to replace all pistols. The are some individuals (e.g., high-ranking officers, military police, criminal investigators) for whom a pistol is simply better suited, due to size and weight.

[Tony Williams]

IMO, it isn't feasible for a PDW like the MP9 to replace all pistols. The are some individuals (e.g., high-ranking officers, military police, criminal investigators) for whom a pistol is simply better suited, due to size and weight.

I agree that there there will still be some use for pistols for those who will probably never use them except to threaten people, especially if they need concealed carry. However, for only about double the size and weight, a compact SMG like the MP9 offers vastly greater effectiveness and is the obvious choice for a PDW.

[JASmith]

...for only about double the size and weight, a compact SMG like the MP9 offers vastly greater effectiveness and is the obvious choice for a PDW.

One presumes that the MP9 doesn't need to be always opened up and deployed on a sling for instant use. How does one carry the darned thing when working on a vehicle, at a desk, etc.?

Are there cases that allow it to be carried in more than one position?

[Tony Williams]

[JASmith]

Han Solo are we?

It is easier to carry than the M-1 Carbine which was issued to folks very much like the ones in the list LRRPF52.

Having said that, I can see a quick transition to an under the shoulder or back carry for everyday duties.

[stanc]

I can see a quick transition to an under the shoulder or back carry for everyday duties.

There was a shoulder holster made for the MP9's predecessor, the Steyr TMP. One might think that shoulder or chest carry could also be made for the MP9.

Here's a Portuguese soldier w/MP9 on leg rig in Afghanistan.

[JASmith]

Stan,

Thanks -- Looks like that one is nicely tied down and comfortable to wear.

Cheers!

[stanc]

Thanks -- Looks like that one is nicely tied down and comfortable to wear.

Joe,

Notice the strong resemblance to the PDW worn in thigh rigs by the white-clad soldiers in the "Moscow Incident" (begins at 0:57 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW57mVNNJM8 ).

Looks like another instance of life imitating art...

(And yes, I sure do like that scene. )

[stanc]

The M4/5.56 is an excellent system and only really needs the original fire-control mechanism (AUTO-not for auto, but for the consistent trigger pull)...

Doesn't the M4A1 have full-auto and consistent trigger pull?

An amusing tidbit for Variable, if he's reading this thread: I just learned that the Army has developed a Flame-Resistant Army Combat Uniform, or FRACU. I wonder if there was a Battlestar Galactica fan with a sense of humor involved, as it looks to me as if the acronym would have to be spoken as "frak you."

[Tony Williams]

Here's a Portuguese soldier w/MP9 on leg rig in Afghanistan.

Yes, that's the same rig as in my photo, only worn lower. The gun actually clips into it sideways and can be pulled out very quickly (and of course fired single-handed with the stock folded if you're in a hurry).

Incidentally, the scope sight on the one in my pics was a 1.5x Trijicon, which I found extremely well suited to the gun in 6.5mm calibre. If you use it in 9mm (a quick barrel change is all that's needed to swap between calibres), then the shorter range would make a 1x holographic red-dot sight more suitable.

[McCoy]

Why not just outfit the soldiers for geographic specific needs like rifle scopes (Afghanistan) with a 2.5-10 variable range, or say a 1-8x or here's a idea don't use a round that was designed to wound and not kill. But wasn't that the whole idea behind the 5.56 to cause wounding as to take up more resources from the enemy. Why yes, yes it was!

[Tony Williams]

Why not just outfit the soldiers for geographic specific needs like rifle scopes (Afghanistan) with a 2.5-10 variable range, or say a 1-8x

Fine, but the gun/cartridge combination needs to be able to shoot effectively out to long range, or a powerful scope is a waste of effort.

or here's a idea don't use a round that was designed to wound and not kill. But wasn't that the whole idea behind the 5.56 to cause wounding as to take up more resources from the enemy. Why yes, yes it was!

I have heard this one for many decades, but no-one has ever been able to point to the source for it.

I suspect that it is a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention ban on "causing unnecessary suffering" - which says nothing about not killing the enemy!