Jump to content

Advanced M4/M16


Recommended Posts

Most of you guys are just rationalizing why there aren't M4/M16s in the game? Who cares, we're talking about modding it in anyway. Some people like different things. It's more about adding some variety is all.

Edited by Brettzies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be SHOCKED if we moved to the 5.7

why would you say that. 15+1 rounds and kevlar penetrating. why not?

Try Mel's Sniper Country PX. The FN-Herstal Five-seveN pistol is available with 10- or 20-round magazine. Wanna know WHY the US military will NEVER use the Five-seveN as a standard sidearm? Lol, you asked...

1.) Identify the typical enemy- equipped with an assault rifle designed by a poor Russian in 1947, wearing plain clothes, and poorly trained by comparison. Also by many credible third-party accounts, stoned on some crazy home-brew narc's they make over there. By NO means a target worth of that weapon's specific capabilities. NOT wearing any body armor or helmet most times, and purportedly known to take up to five 9mm rounds to put down. The common enemy right now requires a different type of round to most effective3ly engage in close quarters.

2.) While the Five-seveN is a respectable pistol, it's 5.7mm round packs relatively LITTLE power at impact. Compare that to the 9mm we have already which STILL can't knock-down a baddie, and it's clear.

3.) The US Army started tests with other pistols to potentially replace the M9 last year or the year before (I forgot which). They're looking at larger calibers, like .44 and .45. originally the .45 lost faovr because too many whiners couldn't deal with the weapon's recoil. Nowadays, they're just gonna have to figure it out. It's a sore wrist or a lopped-off head- take your pick, weenie.

4.) Price tag! Yeah, nothing is free in this world. We're an armed force on a budget. Again looking at Mel's Sniper Country as a good middle-of-the-road price guide, the FN Five-seveN sells there for $874.00 US. That's one DANG expensive pistol. I saw one at the Cabela's store in Buda, TX for a little less ($860-ish). The ammo isn't cheap, either, at about $23-$28 per 50-round box. It's also available off-the-shelf in rather limited supply so far, as demand is comparably limited. There are only so many of these expensive (but VERY sweet) pistols out there so far. The Beretta 92FS goes for a little over $600.00 US. Springfield Armory XD .45? Try $480.00 US. Just over half the price, and probably time and a half to two times the knockdown power at ranges conducive to pistol engagement. I could buy 8 of those for the same price as 5 of the FN's, and be that much more confident in the ability of my personnel to kill what they're shooting at with them too. We're on a budget, remember? And the various 9mm and .45 cal rounds are already WIDELY available on the market or in service.

5.) Ammo- remember those screwy cats from Geneva and the Hague? They made some pretty specific rules about ammunition, in so much as what CAN and CAN NOT be used on the battlefield. While the 5.7mm round likely wouldn't violate any of those laws, I don't know that NATO has yet approved of it's use, or if anyone at all has yet gone before the global war power politburo folks and sought approval for the round. The .45 and 9mm are already kosher with everybody not immediately downrange of them. Less hoops to jump through makes less expenditure of funds, which supports #4 above even further.

My Source.

Cheers!

p.s.- apparently, the acquisitions folks in the DoD have yet to ever PWN some AI's on Splinter Cell, so they probably don't know the Five-seveN exists anyway. Making your purchases based on what seems cool in a Tom Clancy theme game isn't always wise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually making my judgement based on actually firing the gun.

Also I'm thinking more about when we enter a war with a real army. ie. china, north korea.

I will agree the 5.7 would be overkill on people not using body armor as it would exit them causing minimal damage. That's why I chose the p2000 over the fn 5.7 for my conceal carry weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there's info about the round being designed NOT to overpenetrate. But at roughly half the diameter of a .45 round, and given reasonable proportion otherwise, figure the volume times the density of whatever, and then multiply by the muzzle velocity, and tell me which round exerts more force on impact. A .45 is less likely to go through body armor, sure. Even if the target IS wearing body armor, the .45 will ring his little bell. The firer will have every opportunity to get a subsequent round off into the same target.

But I feel pricetag is the most important issue there, given the minor budget crisis we have here in the US DoD. What can we convince over 500 Congresspersons to spend their constituents' money on this year, when said constituents are screaming for budget cuts AND lower taxes AND Social Security reform AND public health care AND blahblahblah? We're lucky we're not on the battlefield with potato cannons and water pistols...

Speaking of potato cannons, it's the WEEKEND! Hooters of Wilmington tomorrow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with the OP and would like to see the option of different weapons in the game. I've been out of the loop for awhile so all this chat about what country makes the best toys, licensing agreements, etc. is beyond me and, IMO academic to the OPs intent.

Also I'm thinking more about when we enter a war with a real army.

You don't need to be wearing a uniform to be a threat.

That's why I chose the p2000 over the fn 5.7 for my conceal carry weapon.

No offense meant :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me on this I talked to a Swat team member who has had to use a p90 on a person before... It took around 15 rounds to drop the person who was running at him with a knife.

Not the best for dropping power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

' date='Jul 29 2006, 08:16 PM' post='403937']

Speaking of potato cannons, it's the WEEKEND! Hooters of Wilmington tomorrow!

Are those the same as "milk wagons?"

Not sure, m8. I would like to see more weapon options in the game. For starters, the rebels seemed to have access to some decent rifles and MG's. Average rebel carried HK G36, if I'm not mmistaken. I believe that was the G3 MG on top of those neat little armored cars. The Aguila7 guys liked the MP5SD. Blahblahblah. I can see from publisher's standpoint where it might be reasonable to add a second player armory, and perhaps even go back at some point and allow players in SP/COOP to pick-up and use enemy weapons. These aren't AK's after all, so they might actualy be of decent manufacture (HK? you betcha) and in good repair.

And I'm still betting dollars to pesos that these mighty-fine SF dudes know how to fire a WIDE variety of wepons effectively, or could figure it out in a pinch.

As for M16/M4, etc? I'm sure the mod community can come through on that one, and I'd look forward to seeing it. Like the old M4 Armoury for [GR], it would be cool and add a little change for those who can appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

416-14main.jpg

416-10__1main.jpg

:wub: is that nice or what :drool:

Would be cool to see the HK416 in the game.

Speeking of advanced weapons: apparently more and more modern guns are using the bullpup design. This design is supposed to be better suited to modern urban warfare. Would be nice to see a gun based around an AUG, SA80 or TAR-21. Maybe even chambered for a 6.8mm round which may be NATO's next choice of caliber.

BTW we are not allowed real guns here. So I have no idea what I am talking about, so be nice. :tomato:

Also, while that weapon LOOKS pretty cool (updated sights, plenty of rails, etc...) it is STILL an AR-15 uppper and lower receiver group. Those two takedown pins that hold the two groups together are, in my opinion (15 yeras of it and counting) the weak link in the weapon.

Think of it this way- those two pins are ALL that hold the lower receiver (buttstock, grip, trigger mechanism, magazine well) to the upper receiver (bolt, bolt carrier, barrel, chamber, both sights). Your buttstock makes contact with YOU. Your sights do not. they are on different parts of the weapon, connected to one another by two pins that are made to slide in and out to allow quick disassembly of the weapon. THESE PINS WEAR OUT. At which point your accuracy will be compromised further.

Also, I'm glad H&K made an effort to update the sights, as the M16/M4 front sight post was pretty easy to bend. Even a seemingly insignificant bend in the post can throw you off considerably at range, and makes zeroing the weapon a true PITA. The rear sight was on a relatively weak bezeled screw-in mount (for windage adjustments) that also could be bent given a little careless handling (or a couple hasty trips to dirt city under fire).

The M4 IS a great rifle (carbine, to be proper) in that it makes the compromise between the classic rifle and a CQB SMG. And it's served us well over the years. But it's time has come, and I feel that entire AR-15 family needs to ride off gracefully into the sunset and let the good folks from Europe put a worthy successor in its place.

Assuming FN doesn't have anything better up their sleeve (and if they do they had better hurry the hell up), I'd really like to see the M8 family get RFI'd to the US Army. In my job, I'd likely never see one before I retire anyhow, but at least by then I'd be able to get an M4 and not a doggone M16A2 (or just M9, as is the current status quo), as they'd get hand-me-downed from the infantry folks. Yeah, PAQ-4, M68, and 210 rounds. MUCH better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me on this I talked to a Swat team member who has had to use a p90 on a person before... It took around 15 rounds to drop the person who was running at him with a knife.

Not the best for dropping power.

was he using the AP (steel tip) rounds instead of the hollow point/sporting rounds (ones with the plastic tip to make them expand on impact) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me on this I talked to a Swat team member who has had to use a p90 on a person before... It took around 15 rounds to drop the person who was running at him with a knife.

Not the best for dropping power.

was he using the AP (steel tip) rounds instead of the hollow point/sporting rounds (ones with the plastic tip to make them expand on impact) ?

Makes a difference, but even after the impact and expansion the round still wouldn't carry that much more force over to the target. 6.8mm just isn't that darned big. 7.62 isn't much bigger, but boy does it make a difference.

And I do't know about SWAT folks, but I should assume they're covered by similar guidance. The military is bound to Geneva and the Hague (for those who electo to comply) NOT to use hollow-point rounds. They have been deemed to cause unnecessary and excessive injury. Apparently, it's assumed that not all soldiers come equipped with a DAMAGE METER to let them know they're about to die and should find a medic. Wonder where they get THAT notion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes a difference, but even after the impact and expansion the round still wouldn't carry that much more force over to the target. 6.8mm just isn't that darned big. 7.62 isn't much bigger, but boy does it make a difference.

And I do't know about SWAT folks, but I should assume they're covered by similar guidance. The military is bound to Geneva and the Hague (for those who electo to comply) NOT to use hollow-point rounds. They have been deemed to cause unnecessary and excessive injury. Apparently, it's assumed that not all soldiers come equipped with a DAMAGE METER to let them know they're about to die and should find a medic. Wonder where they get THAT notion...

That's the one thing I don't understand. Well I understand about the phosphorus shells being overkill but the point of war is to kill, wound, or incapacitate the enemy into giving up. Why hollowpoints are considered bad and fmj are considered good i don't get. i mean they are both designed to kill.

And it would make a difference for expansion. If the round expands and does not leave the body then ALL the energy the round had went into the person. If they were using the AP rounds it's very likely that the round went through the person and imparted little energy to the person. that's to say that a shot to a vital organ is the only thing that is going to stop that person when using AP rounds.

And I don't think that local police are bound by the genevia convention because I know for a fact that my local police use the varment .223 rounds in their AR-15s (plastic tip inserted into a hollowpoint to force expansion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the point of war is to kill, wound, or incapacitate the enemy into giving up.

The Geneva Convention (and what I consider common sense) indicate that the intention of combat should be to wound, not kill. This serves two purposes; the minimizing of fatality, and the removal of more troops from the field of combat. A dead soldier doesn't need a medic and two buddies to carry off out of the field. A wounded one does. One good hit with a non-mushrooming round, and you've created an injury that will require more than the injured person's attention. Same hit with a hollowpoint, and you've created enemy fertilizer. One down, many more to go.

At least, that's the principle behind it. Victory through attrition, not death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the point of war is to kill, wound, or incapacitate the enemy into giving up.

The Geneva Convention (and what I consider common sense) indicate that the intention of combat should be to wound, not kill. This serves two purposes; the minimizing of fatality, and the removal of more troops from the field of combat. A dead soldier doesn't need a medic and two buddies to carry off out of the field. A wounded one does. One good hit with a non-mushrooming round, and you've created an injury that will require more than the injured person's attention. Same hit with a hollowpoint, and you've created enemy fertilizer. One down, many more to go.

At least, that's the principle behind it. Victory through attrition, not death.

That principal may work fine agains conventional army forces. However, it does not work too well against the doped up fanatics in the middle-east.

If you shoot someone holding a rocket launcher you definatley do not want them getting up again, as there is opium in their system and they cant feel pain.

It is more likely to be western military medical personel and resources used to treat wounded enemies.

Reports on the internet suggest that American troops are asking to be issued with old M1911 .45 cal hand guns and 7.62 M14 rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That principal may work fine agains conventional army forces. However, it does not work too well against the doped up fanatics in the middle-east.

If you shoot someone holding a rocket launcher you definatley do not want them getting up again, as there is opium in their system and they cant feel pain.

It is more likely to be western military medical personel and resources used to treat wounded enemies.

Reports on the internet suggest that American troops are asking to be issued with old M1911 .45 cal hand guns and 7.62 M14 rifles.

Alas, you're both right. Anyone considered CRIMINLA or INSURGENT (not to suggest synonymity of the two) would obviously NOT be bound by some government's good word to follow the laws of land warfare as set forth in Geneva and the Hague. DRUGS are illegal almost everywhere, and you can get them almost ANYWHERE. Funny, eh? Good thing most of those morons can't shoot worth a damn when they're stoned (actually, nor when they're sober, but anyhow...). On the other hand, half of the sober US Army soldiers can't qualify with an M-16A2, so the point isn't entirely valid anyhow. Who cares? Just us gamers...

Hollow point 6.8mm versus hollow point 7.62mm. Do the math, dude. Same muzzle velocity (for simplicity sake) times volume of the round times density of composition material equals force exerted on impact (assuming no overpenetration). The bigger round wins every time. The point to the smaller-caliber rifles is to produce a FASTER round with a SMALLER impact area, so as to concentrate the force of impact on the smallest possible area. THIS works against body armor, and is the concept that FN followed with the Five-seveN and P90. They made these for SWAT/counterterrist dudes to go after folks wearing possibly wearing body armor.

But if the smaller rounds are better, then why did the MP5 10mm (chicken) come after the MP5 9mm (egg)? For the rest of the world who can't afford to blow a couple grand on body armor (cause AK's are cheap), the bigger round hits harder and is more likely to keep Mr. Badguy down. The subsonic rounds used in TRULY suppressed weapons are a compromise, the ULTIMATE compromise, made for sake of being absolutely the quietest Splinter Cell wannabe out there. In relative terms, they're not that deadly.

Finally, if we follow the logic of bending or breaking the rules in order to more effectively combat an enemy who follows NO rules, then we ourselves are enemies of law and order around the world. Whoever this 'WE' may be. It's the same concept as saying, "Well everyone else on this road form 6-8 am goes 80 miles per hour, officer, so why can't I?" Officer Snuffy doesn't care. Laws are laws, and we're all obligated to follow them, even if no one else seems to. (FTR, I personally think Lynndie England and her merry band of miscreants should have been tried for war crimes by an international tribunal. We're from the same home town. I've met her. She DOES look like a troll IRL...) "Do the right thing, even when no one else is looking. It's called integrity." THAT was my old platoon sergeant's entire welcome speech to our platoon. Good words to remember...

(Springfield XD45- bet on it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the point of war is to kill, wound, or incapacitate the enemy into giving up.

The Geneva Convention (and what I consider common sense) indicate that the intention of combat should be to wound, not kill. This serves two purposes; the minimizing of fatality, and the removal of more troops from the field of combat. A dead soldier doesn't need a medic and two buddies to carry off out of the field. A wounded one does. One good hit with a non-mushrooming round, and you've created an injury that will require more than the injured person's attention. Same hit with a hollowpoint, and you've created enemy fertilizer. One down, many more to go.

At least, that's the principle behind it. Victory through attrition, not death.

If this is true then it should be against the genevia convention for our soldiers to drop bombs onto the bad guys standing around. (as seen in multiple videos on the internet) But we aren't being sought out to be tried for war crimes.

Vietnam, dropping napalm and firing flame throwers in tunnels should be against the genevia convention. napalm munitions are not going to wound they will kill. again we aren't being sought out for war crimes.

We can have all these rules but we all know when that first bullett goes flying over your head you won't think about wounding the person shooting at you. You'll think about killing them. If you are face to face with a bad guy you won't think about just wounding him you'll pump round after round into their chest until they are not moving. If you come fist to fist your not going to knock the guy out and walk away, you'll slit his throat.

I believe the genevia convention has some solid rules to follow as far as prisoner care, torture and such (something this administration is ignoring but that's another issue) but when it comes down to war you are going to do what is needed to stay alive and kill the opposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, napalm was used to DEFOLIATE areas. If there happened to be badguys standing around in there, well it sucked to be them. Stuff happens in war.

Flamethrowers serve a similar purpose, plus fire DOES have a pretty distinct effect on the battlefield. Folks tend to be MUCH more scared of fire then they are of bullets. Those are all but gone from the inventory, and were rarely (if ever) used after WWII (which was before Geneva).

Bombs? Well, to target ONE dude with a bomb might be bad news for Peter Pilot. To target a group? You'll get away with it. If we're allowed to used 155mm howitzers to target enemy infantry units, then a 500-lb bomb is scarcely different. Effective? Yes. Designed specifically to maximize carnage and mutilation? Not really. You'll die a lot more quickly from taht (and painlessly I'm sure) than from bleeding to death internally over the next several hours because the surgeon can't find all the pieces of that bullet inside you. BIG DIFFERENCE form the bleeding-heart liberal perspective.

As we've previously established, when the dookie hits the fan one will do what is necessary to stay alive, preferring to go to jail over the grave. Fair enough. But you go ahead and get caught carrying unauthorized ammunition or even an unauthorized weapon in Iraq or the 'stan.

I'll smuggle some good smokes and a shank into the joint for ya, bud. Really, I will...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Geneva Conventions were written quite some time ago (mostly in the 1890s) and the Hague convention was written in 1907 - all were revised in 1946 following WWII. They are primarily designed to ban "unhumanitarian" weapons from use on the battlefield, which means things like JHP ammo, fleshetts, chemical and biological weapons. At the time F-16s dropping LGBs on groups of people from 20,000 feet was not really envisioned, nor was wasting infantry with the 30mm on an AH-64 from 1km+ ... if it was maybe they would have banned it ... but they didn't.

Police forces, not being military, are not bound by the Geneva convention; so they can use JHPs and all manor of other things.

Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...