# If you only had one weapon...



## Desert Fox (Nov 17, 2006)

If you were thrust into the thick of battle and you were stuck in a muddy foxhole with bullets whizzing overhead, but you could only have one weapon, what would it be


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

An atom bomb


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

I'm an infantryman - a shovel!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2006)

Um lets see I would take the M-4 Carbine. I dont think it is the greatest weapon but I would take it only because I am very very familiar with it and I am an expert shot with it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2006)

A .45....


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2006)

A radio to call in the air support and then an assault rifle - M16 or similar or a sub-machice gun - G36...


----------



## RE2005 (Nov 17, 2006)

Ak 47 and a couple of handgranades should be enough...
Nick


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

French answer - "But Ah 'ave already only one weapon, but eet ees too painfool to cut eet off when Ah want to runne away!"


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

Sheer charisma?


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 17, 2006)

As an old Unarmed Combat Instructor explained to us.

If they use their fists, get a knife.

If they use a knife, shoot them with a pistol.

If they have a pistol, get a rifle.

If they have a rifle, get artillery.

ALWAYS hit with a bigger weapon first, and don't stop until they don't move.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 17, 2006)

You guys are all foolish - Mk 19 baby!


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

A Harrier might be fun...


----------



## johnbr (Nov 17, 2006)

An A10.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

One of those comms gadgets they have in Star Trek, so I can ask Mr Scott to beam me up, just in the nick of time, and then attack with the Enterprise's phasers.


----------



## Soren (Nov 17, 2006)

I wonder if Desert Fox meant in WWII ?? If so, then the StG.44 100% !

If not, I'd probably still like to have an assault rifle, preferably from Switzerland or Germany. (The SIG-550 perhaps)


PS: I've never heard of a Harrier or A10 getting stuck in the mud


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 17, 2006)

Maybe we can limit it to firearms, so no Harriers or Atom Bombs,  
I'd say an MG42 with a hell of a lot of ammo!


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

I was expecting someone to say that. Spoilsport!


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 17, 2006)

Ok then , I'd have a Thompson Sub Machine Gun. Nice.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 17, 2006)

Karl Gustav


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2006)

Ya know I'll take back my first response...

A sawed off Mossberg...


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 17, 2006)

the Australian SAS and tell them cold beer is in the enemy encampment hahaha


----------



## ndicki (Nov 18, 2006)

A lorryload or two of bottles of vodka. I would prepare the terrain during the night by laying my vodkafield to cover all approaches...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 18, 2006)

i was gonna say a tank but if it's limited to rifles.... tough call......


----------



## MacArther (Nov 19, 2006)

A FG42 with plenty of ammo, or a BAR with plenty of ammo. If I'm in a trench, there's not going to be a forced march for a while, so I might as well hit them with the heaviest gun I can carry without any support personel.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

And then they do over run you and you have to run....


----------



## Twitch (Nov 19, 2006)

If we're talking WW2 give me a Thompson also.....


----------



## ndicki (Nov 20, 2006)

Desert Fox said:


> Ok then , I'd have a Thompson Sub Machine Gun. Nice.



Heavy, slowish rate of fire, difficult to handle, etc. Bad choice.

How far away are they, BTW? That's important, too.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 20, 2006)

> And then they do over run you and you have to run....


I take my 1911 and two clips and bail faster than you can read this sentence.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 20, 2006)

Flamethrower might be fun, too.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 20, 2006)

Yesssss, marshmellows and enemies, how can it get better?


----------



## Henk (Nov 20, 2006)

I would take a MP-44 or a MG-42 and nail the living shit out of the attacking enemy. The MG-42 because it was a good enough machine gun and the noise it made were famous during WW2 to make the enemy soldiers very scared. The MP-44 because it was a very fine assault rifle.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 20, 2006)

[assume you mean WWII hardware]

Since I'm alone, I'll be running my @ss off opposite the well armed enemy with my WWII M1 carbine with as many clips as I can carry. Not a long range weapon, but 110gr at 2000fps and a light load is better than most other weapons in retreat and within 200yds. Nothin but asshole and elbows.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

Well if we are going WW2 I would take either a Mauser or M1, not sure which one yet.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 21, 2006)

Well, if you wanted quick supressing fire and decent accuracy, the M1 seems like the good choice. However, if you want to hit things precisely then the Kar. But you knew these things, so I'm just rambling.


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2006)

I can't think of anything better than to have a rifle which is both full and semi automatic, accurate, and at the same time shoots a 125gr round at 685 m/s. The Germans tested the MP-44 against their own thickly armored steel-helmets and found the 7.92x33 Kurz round would penetrate it completely out to 700m, not bad. Can't help but think what the safe range was for the thinner Allied helmets !


----------



## Henk (Nov 21, 2006)

The MP-44 is the thing to go with.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 22, 2006)

Agreed - it's no coincidence that nearly all rifles developed since 1945 have taken at least some of its features.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)

Difficult to shoot prone.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 24, 2006)

About the only disadvantage, though.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 24, 2006)

...okay.

So we are now in a clean slate fantasy?

WWII scenario did not have MP-44 ammo to be had. M1 Carbine was much more prevalent to scavenge.

Hey, I'm making this scenario to be to my advantage based upon reality.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 25, 2006)

That's about as subjective as you can get, too - depends where you are. M1 carbine ammo you can look for till you're blue in the face in, say, Northern Holland, Burma or Leningrad!

Also, the M1 carbine wasn't very good at actually killing people - didn't they find that out the hard way during the early part of the Korean War?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 25, 2006)

that might be because of the grunt behind it though


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 25, 2006)

I suspect that if you counted the bodies that the 6,000,000 M1s has put in the ground you may find that statement would sound a little foolish. They say the same about the .223 (5.56x45 NATO).  I wouldn't let anyone shoot at me with either. But your point is well taken.

It's WWII. If I only had one weapon at my disposal, I would want one that was handy. Easy to carry. Based upon my only having one weapon, I have to surmise that I am in less than an ideal situation. Desperate somehow. Only one weapon implies that my load out is only what I can carry. Thus, I want the lightest weight with the most massive amounts of firepower possible.

A 12lb+ submachine gun with a small sight radius is not going to be my choice.

I'll take the 5.5lb carbine and load up with extra ammo. 7lbs of weight difference is a LOT of ammo for the M1 Carbine. Absolutely accurate out to 200yds (take my word for it). Assuming that some desparation is coming into play based on above, 200yds range is all that you need when your primary goal is to get back to the supply lines to get multiple weapons, friendly fire support, and a commo link to call in doom upon your enemies with the big guns.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 26, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> I suspect that if you counted the bodies that the 6,000,000 M1s has put in the ground you may find that statement would sound a little foolish.



The US Army's statement, although I find it's reasonable. If you look at the physics, you cannot compare the .30 short with the NATO SS-109 5.56 round. Velocity, penetration, impact and all that.

Personally I still prefer an old fashioned 7.62 SLR/FN/R1/G3/CETME etc on the grounds that you can shoot through walls, trees etc with it. But the weight argument is valid - I've tested!

So for WW2, I'll have a Sturmgewehr.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2006)

I was not think about the Sturmgewehre and with all these valid points I am with ndicki on this.


----------



## rochie (Nov 26, 2006)

ndicki is spot on ww2 the stg-44 after that the good old slr my favorite weapon that ive fired


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 26, 2006)

I am going to be stupid and say Pazerfaust as that is one killer weapon with lots of barrels. But no I think i'd prefer a flamethrower, as well as a STG-44 for when they get too close and I have to bail out. Oh, and don't forget the vodka and a fuel-pump so I can surround myself with a flaming wall of petrol and alcohol. Yes, that should keep the buggers out for a little while...


----------



## ndicki (Nov 27, 2006)

Panzerfaust? Lots of barrels?     If the figure following zero is lots, then I'll give it you!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 27, 2006)

Understand that the M1carbine (110gr at 1900fps) is not the same ballistically as the 5.56x45mm (55-62grs at about 3200fps). But with the M1 carbine having about twice the kinetic energy of a .357mag, I don't think we're talking about a popgun either.

stg-44 gets the cool factor. But not the thumbs up for a long dreary march. Too damn heavy. And it aint shootin' thru no trees. Not even the .30-06 or .308 will do that unless the tree is a sapling and your target is right behind it. Tests have proven that virtually any small arms caliber will deflect significantly with even slight brush.

Perhaps we should refine our requirements. Example, one might choose a completely different weapon for fortified defensive positions with long fields of fire, versus one for solo or squad patrol, versus one for attacking a semi-fortified position. Too many variables. Thus my assumption that I must choose only one because of some dire circumstances that exist. I'd much rather pick the proper gear for the situation if that is my choice.

Give me a M-14 any day of the week if nothing else enters into the equation.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 27, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Give me a M-14 any day of the week if nothing else enters into the equation.



The L1A1 SLR or R1 FN FAL are better!


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 27, 2006)

I own both. We'll agree to disagree.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 27, 2006)

Can only be one thing; the Lee-Enfield! Any version will do, but I'd like the '18 inches of steel' sword-bayonet - if it is a desperate situation we are talking about?

I don't really rate the M1 Carbine, StG44 or 5.56mm NATO round too much, my reasons why should be known. There are plus points though; the M1 Carbine performed well against thinly clothed targets (Obviously excluding the Soviets in WW2), the StG44 was a good weapon and the 5.56 is light and readily available.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> I am going to be stupid and say Pazerfaust as that is one killer weapon with lots of barrels.



What are you talking about? The Panzerfaust was a recoiless gun not a rocket launcher and it had one barrel not many. It would have been useless against troops coming at you.

Below is a panzerfaust.


----------



## rochie (Nov 28, 2006)

always liked the look of the M-14 but never got the chance to fire one would of been nice to compare it against L1A1


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 28, 2006)

BREN nout can beat it


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Nov 28, 2006)

I would have to respond with an M-1 Garand. The rifle has been battle tested and rated on the military channel as one of the top 10 rifles and assualt rifles, it was rated better than the Stumgewher 44. I don't believe it was as heavy as the thompson, fired a good hard hitting .30 caliber round, and could be fitted with a grenade or a knife. Only problem with it though would be the small eight round clip and difficulty to reload mid-clip.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 28, 2006)

Opps I meant the Fligerfaust... That is the one with the multiple barrels. Rumoured to have been tested in the Battle of Berlin against Russians...


----------



## k9kiwi (Nov 29, 2006)

FN FAL.

And don't tell me it wasn't a WW2 weapon.

Designed in belgium prior to ww2 the plans/drawings were smuggled out to the British.

One reason for it not being produced was the inordinate amount of retraining tactcal decisions that would have been needed at war.

Yup .308 or .303 cal FN FAL, go kick some.

Called the SLR in later years.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

For me=LOADS of smoke gernades. that way I could be a coward and run away


If not, the Bren gun. Like i said before, nothing can beat it.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 29, 2006)

Good piece of kit, the Bren. Her Majesty lent me one of hers for a while.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> FN FAL.
> 
> And don't tell me it wasn't a WW2 weapon.
> 
> ...



My dad used an SLR. It was an FN FAL with a few minor tweaks. Strange tweaks. For a start, the fire selector was removed so you could only fire in semi-automatic. SLR stood for Self Loading Rifle. It had something to do with British Pride (especially at the enfeild company, who had been making guns for the British Army for hundreds of years) in using weapons that were not British Designs.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 29, 2006)

Fliegerfaust! I was just about to suggest that HealzDevo. Yes, it would have been frmidable against troops - better than the targets for which it was designed (aircraft).

I heard that some Panzershreck rockets had HE warheads, anyone else hear of this?



Joe2 said:


> For me=LOADS of smoke gernades. that way I could be a coward and run away
> 
> 
> If not, the Bren gun. Like i said before, nothing can beat it.



heheh! With you on the Bren, but a bit dodgy in .303, and I'd rather have an MG42.

I was after less weight (more ammo) and a bayonet.


The FN FAL wasn't designed in WW2 (though it's progenitor was). I think that the SLR was an improvement over the FAL, it had GRP instead of wood and it wasn't at all accurate on full-auto - IIRC these measures also saved weight?

It could also use the L4 LMG's (Bren's) 30-round magazine, there was also the SUIT sight and British bayonets.

The only improvement I would add is a folding stock, which the Argentine version had - but some people don't like folding stocks.


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I don't really rate the M1 Carbine, StG44 or 5.56mm NATO round too much, my reasons why should be known.



No we don't know your reasons, so please explain.



> There are plus points though; the M1 Carbine performed well against thinly clothed targets (Obviously excluding the Soviets in WW2), the StG44 was a good weapon and the 5.56 is light and readily available.



Err.. the M1 carbine has no problem penetrating a helmet at 100y so why should clothes be a problem ?? 

And regading the 7.92x33 Kurz round, well it would penetrate the thick German steel helmet past 700m, so its lethal as far away as you can reliably hit a human sized target.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 29, 2006)

Soren said:


> And regading the 7.92x33 Kurz round, well it would penetrate the thick German steel helmet past 700m, so its lethal as far away as you can reliably hit a human sized target.



In fact MUCH further away than you could reliably hit a human sized target. With less than about a 450mm sight radius and square notch sights? 200m would be about it in aimed methodical fire. Less under stress of combat.

And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.

M1 Carbine.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 29, 2006)

You know better than to provoke me Soren?  

Very well. SAS reports on the M1 Carbine state that an overcoat is defense against one at 50m! (IIRC). There is also a report on a bullet from one failing to stop a soldier point-blank (he was finished off with a 12guage). Strange that it should pierce a helmnet though - I wonder if this is due to clothes spreading the load? (like Kevlar), odd. 


As for penetration of the 7.92 Kurzpatrone, yes I am well aware of it. You do know though that penetration is often at the expense of lethality? (Think Mogadishu). The terminal ballistics are nasty though IIRC.

The StG's bad points were that it was easy to burn your hands with and too flimsy for hand-to-hand combat (Problems the Schmeisser shared) also, as has been said and like the Schmeisser, it couldn't be fired from prone too well. A good weapon though.


As for the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO, well I'm sure many would disagree, but the M1943 Soviet has proved superior, even to the SS109 (and that is far from ideal). Of course, the Corbon may prove me wrong(?) but I have no data on that and it ain't standard issue(?).


Hi Matt308,

I know your point about weight, which is why I chose the Enfield, hence:



> I was after less weight (more ammo) and a bayonet.



- Lighter than an MP40 BTW.

The M1 Carbine was light, cheap and easy to use, though not for me.

The Enfield doesn't require mags either, saving weight and is lethal both at point blank or over a mile.


Don't worry about the range either, the StG was designed purely for 'realistic combat ranges' i.e. upto 300m. In Iraq though (Desert Storm), the AK is lost out due to being innacurate at over 400m though, so this 'rule' may well be wrong after all?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 29, 2006)

I would probably use an M-16A2 with a M203 40mm Grenade launcher, a radio, smoke grenades, and a F-15 to drop napalm.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 29, 2006)

If I had to use a WWII wepaon, it would be the Thompson .45 caliber SMG! Either that or the M1 Carbine with loads of ammo and 30 round clips.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 30, 2006)

Keep on em P38. I'm on your side.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> In fact MUCH further away than you could reliably hit a human sized target. With less than about a 450mm sight radius and square notch sights? 200m would be about it in aimed methodical fire. Less under stress of combat.
> 
> And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.
> 
> M1 Carbine.




Exactly.




> You know better than to provoke me Soren?
> 
> Very well. SAS reports on the M1 Carbine state that an overcoat is defense against one at 50m! (IIRC). There is also a report on a bullet from one failing to stop a soldier point-blank (he was finished off with a 12guage). Strange that it should pierce a helmnet though - I wonder if this is due to clothes spreading the load? (like Kevlar), odd.



Just because it fails to stop a man doesn't mean it isn't lethal Schwarz, it just means it doesn't spread the load as much as other rounds. And about the overcoat, well I'd have to see it to believe it, cause the M1 certainly has no problem piercing a WWII helmet - and since its got a good amount of extra velocity than a pistol round, which can be lethal even against a std. Kevlar vest, I know an overcoat isn't gonna save you. 




> As for penetration of the 7.92 Kurzpatrone, yes I am well aware of it. You do know though that penetration is often at the expense of lethality? (Think Mogadishu). The terminal ballistics are nasty though IIRC.



Nope, cause the 7.92 Kurz round flies so fast that it causes damage to organs far away from the actual entry hole - hence why the 5.56 NATO is so effective.



> The StG's bad points were that it was easy to burn your hands with and too flimsy for hand-to-hand combat (Problems the Schmeisser shared) also, as has been said and like the Schmeisser, it couldn't be fired from prone too well. A good weapon though.



The Stg.44 is sturdy Schwarz, and so is the MP-40. Also I have never heard of anyone complaining about the Stg.44's grip getting to hot to touch, infact thats why its got a sleve right where you grip, to make sure you DON'T burn your hands.



> As for the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO, well I'm sure many would disagree, but the M1943 Soviet has proved superior, even to the SS109 (and that is far from ideal). Of course, the Corbon may prove me wrong(?) but I have no data on that and it ain't standard issue(?).



Infact as far as lethality goes, the 5.56 NATO is better than the M1943, both because its faster (Remember what I told you about speed and damage?) and crucially because it shatters once inside you - causing massive internal damage.

The M1943 is still a very lethal round though..


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 30, 2006)

It appears that Soren and myself are in agreement with you Matt308 - and we rarely agreee on anything! 

For example:



> Nope, cause the 7.92 Kurz round flies so fast that it causes damage to organs far away from the actual entry hole - hence why the 5.56 NATO is so effective.



I see your point, but most vital organs are at the front of the body and shock is probably the greatest killer, on the other side there are the properties of high-velocity projectiles, also over-penetration has its merits and under-penetrations a *****. The 5.56 NATO is effective mainly because it tumbles. Why do you think dum-dums, hydra-shock and hollowpoints are so effective? Also, in a way; shotguns, the .45 ACP, bean-bag guns etc. They all have low penetration.



> I know an overcoat isn't gonna save you.



It might, but I wouldn't rely on it. Nor would I rely on the bullet to penetrate an enemies overcoat. If you have any 'Weapons of the SAS' books, there's usually something on it in there.

Do you have a source for the helmet penetration BTW? (The M1, not StG - I already have that).


The StG's handguard is ineffective, but you often see combatants in WW2 holding it by the magazine well - like the MP40. That had a problem for hand-burning too, but not if you were used to holdingf it properly.

You can see how unsuitable the MP40 was, as versions that expeced to see hand-to hand fighting (Police, MP's etc) had Bergman-type woooden butts. Still, there were always knives and entrenching tools, but I'd personally prefer a bayonet or butt.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 30, 2006)

And reports of the M1 Carbine not penetrating a heavy over coat at 50yds is pure bullfeces. 900ft-lbs of energy does not bleed off that quickly. You won't find single person on the planet willing to suffer a shot from an M1 carbine at 50 yds wearing a wool coat.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> And reports of the M1 Carbine not penetrating a heavy over coat at 50yds is pure bullfeces. 900ft-lbs of energy does not bleed off that quickly. You won't find single person on the planet willing to suffer a shot from an M1 carbine at 50 yds wearing a wool coat.



Yep, and I know from first hand experience that it'll go straight through the std. G.I. helmet at 100y - and nomatter how thick your overcoat is, its a piece of cake by comparison. 

I'll still go with the Stg.44 though, just because of its sheer power, accuracy and automatic fire capability.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 30, 2006)

AND it is VERY cool. 

Wish I owned one...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> And I know I'm a broken record, but has anyone ever carried 12.5lb rifle + what 4, 5, 8 30-round clips of ammo? That coupled with your normal load out gets frickin' tiring REAL quick. This ain't video games here boys.



Does a 23.1 lb machine gun with 4 200-round belts count?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

I was waiting for the military dudes to chime in. 6lbs more on your load out in a 20 mile run is a b!tch. Correct me if I'm wrong Adler.

[The author has asked a rhetorical question. While the author expects no answer, he knows that he will get one.]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

blank

[The reader decided not to answer the author]


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

[Thus the rhetorical question is defined. The author is proven correct via silence from his audience]


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2006)

[surely the auther is incorrect as he was expectinging an answer and got none of sorts...].....


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

Thought you might like to see this definition that I cut and paste.

[The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the question asks. For example, "Why are you so stupid?" is likely to be a statement regarding one's opinion of the person addressed rather than a genuine request to know.]


----------



## ndicki (Dec 1, 2006)

And on my runs, etc, I was carrying CEMO/CEFO and an SLR. Painful, but I'd rather have pain and a rifle I think I can count on, than less pain and a rifle that I don't think I can count on. Which does not say I don't believe your figures about the M1 Carbine - only that I don't want one.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2006)

Whats an auther?


----------



## ndicki (Dec 1, 2006)

A female autist, you should know that. Like Dustin Hoffman (a well known authim), but a girl.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 1, 2006)

Well done.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 1, 2006)




----------



## mkloby (Dec 1, 2006)

Depends on the mission - one hump I had 100lbs of gear, M-16 with 3 or 4 30 round mags, plus the A bag of a 240... I had never been so happy to be ordered to dig a fighting hole in my life...


----------



## ndicki (Dec 2, 2006)

mkloby said:


> Depends on the mission - one hump I had 100lbs of gear, M-16 with 3 or 4 30 round mags, plus the A bag of a 240



Is that all? My belt set used to weigh in at some 30lbs, never mind all the other sh*t in my bergen! The only blessing was that we NEVER, EVER had helmets or body armour...

And while I was in training, we used to have to carry our Officers on our backs while they beat us on with riding crops and umbrellas...


----------



## ndicki (Dec 2, 2006)

Which may explain why my knees and lower back are totally knackered.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2006)

I normally only had to carry my M-60D and my cans of ammo belts about 100m to the aircraft....


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)

I once lived in a shoe box in the middle of the road.


----------



## ndicki (Dec 2, 2006)

Aye, an' us Dad'ld thrash us t' sleep wi' 'is belt, an' all.

An' tha tells that t' young people these days, an' they'll not believe thee.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2006)




----------



## Desert Fox (Dec 2, 2006)

I retract my earlier statement (Thompson SMG) and I'll shall instead carry a Steyr AUG A3 with grenade launcher attachment into battle with me


----------



## mkloby (Dec 2, 2006)

Desert Fox said:


> I retract my earlier statement (Thompson SMG) and I'll shall instead carry a Steyr AUG A3 with grenade launcher attachment into battle with me



I never liked the M-16 w/ the M203... throws off the whole balance of the weapon...


----------



## Desert Fox (Dec 3, 2006)

That may be so...but think of the firepower!


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 3, 2006)

My choice would be:

Pistol : Smith Wesson No. 29 (44 Magnum)

Rifle: M16 with all the goodies


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Dec 3, 2006)

> If you only had one weapon...




I would just bring the most wonderful, the most marvelous poisinous gas. It would kill everybody!


----------



## Le Stuka (Dec 3, 2006)

Either a bazooka or an MG42 or an M1897 trench shotgun:


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2006)

Okay if we are going here.

M-14 and Glock 22 in .40. But I do like this new FN...


----------



## MacArther (Dec 3, 2006)

Why can't they keep their guns 5.7, instead of switching to the lower 5.56?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 3, 2006)

Wait, just thought of another weapon. What about the G-36? That would be a nice automatic rifle to use in a combat zone.


----------



## Soren (Dec 3, 2006)

That new FN looks sweet Matt, but I bet its got one hefty price tag.

If you need a nice modern Assault rifle then either go SIG, H&K or Steyr ! 

Haba haba !!
http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/uploads/pics/G8HB0593.jpg

The Belgian/American FN is nice though...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 3, 2006)

Hi ndicki,



> And on my runs, etc, I was carrying CEMO/CEFO and an SLR. Painful, but I'd rather have pain and a rifle I think I can count on, than less pain and a rifle that I don't think I can count on. Which does not say I don't believe your figures about the M1 Carbine - only that I don't want one.



Bang-on, took the words right outta my mouth (thieving barsteward!  ).

Also what DerAdler said about weight not really being a factor for vehicle crews (but compactness is). I think we should go back to Musket-length rifles with monopods myself.



> The only blessing was that we NEVER, EVER had helmets or body armour...



You were definateley in the British Army then? (Semi-Rhetorical question - here we go again...).

Given the choice, I'd ditch other stuff for armour (like arms, ears, teeth etc leave my brain out too - dead weight).



> And while I was in training, we used to have to carry our Officers on our backs while they beat us on with riding crops and umbrellas...





ndicki said:


> Aye, an' us Dad'ld thrash us t' sleep wi' 'is belt, an' all.



 



mkloby said:


> I never liked the M-16 w/ the M203... throws off the whole balance of the weapon...



Ah, but the AUG is a bullpup, so it actually helps balance the weapon. (The SA-80 uses a lead weight BTW ). 'sides it acts as a kind of compensator too, though I always thought the M16 had too little recoil.



Screaming Eagle said:


> Pistol : Smith Wesson No. 29 (44 Magnum)



Ever seen Dirty Harry? (Another Semi-Rhetorical question - I love 'em!).


As for modern (standard issue) weapons, well that'd be the AK74M, Steyr AUG or VSS/A91 for me. I like the Uzi and SLR too.8) The Winchester shotgun someone mentioned's a beaut too - combat triggers = 8) !


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Why can't they keep their guns 5.7, instead of switching to the lower 5.56?




Hey Mac, the 5.7x28 is a pipsqueak round compared to the 5.56x45. However, I have my eye on the FN PS90 at only $1450 its a beaut. 50rd mags. Capable of penetrating a nato helmet at 200yds with proper ammo.8) Unfortunatly that ammo is illegal in US.


----------



## ndicki (Dec 4, 2006)

I think it was the British Army; we did spend a lot of time getting cold, wet and miserable in places like Dartmoor and Woodbury Common, not to mention Achmer and Vorden. Then they gave us Compo to cheer us up. The bacon burgers were the worst meat by-product even permitted for human consumption.

And we even had FV432s which broke down every ten to twenty kilometres - usually shedding a track or busting the transmission. Or both.

And my FN-derivative wouldn't fire on fully automatic unless you stuck a matchstick in the right place - which I never did bother to try.

If you can think of any other army that fits the bill, I'll give it due consideration.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2006)

Just love the P-90 ! Nearly no recoil, great accuracy and a mindblowing rate of fire !

Those Herstal guys can sure make weapons !


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 5, 2006)

That they can. And they are not afraid to make weapons they didn't design if they know it is sound. They also make the M2HB .50BMG "Ma Deuce". I love these guys.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2006)

Exactly, they also manufacture an updated version of the trusty US-army Minimi.

Always wanted to try the Five-Seven pistol, haven't had the chance yet though.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 5, 2006)

I don't like the looks of the Five-Seven. Purely cosmetic analysis though. Nothing more. Appears to be unbalanced. Looks too much like that old .22 pistol from the 50s. What the hell was the name of that thing. The barrel sleeve was held on with a knurled nut. It is now being manufactured under a new name. Jeez my mind is losing it.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 9, 2006)

I always liked the g.p.mg (s.f) 7.62mm general purpose machine gun ( sustained fire ).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Also what DerAdler said about weight not really being a factor for vehicle crews (but compactness is).



When did I say that? I was conserned about weight. If my Blackhawk had ever gone down, I was carrying that M-60 and its ammo when I egressed.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 13, 2006)

Quote: Posted by schwarzpanzer 
Ever seen Dirty Harry? (Another Semi-Rhetorical question - I love 'em!).

Yes I have seen Dirty Harry as that is where I got my inspiration from. As a matter of fact I own all 5 movies. The gun that Harry used was in fact a Smith Wesson model 29 in 44. Magnum. But during production they had to use a model 57 in 41 Magnum as Smith Wesson did not have a model 29 in stock. The Model 29 and Model 57 are identical except for minute differences in bore size, chamber dimensions, and exterior markings, none of which are visible in the film.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 13, 2006)

Screaming Eagle. I have read your scenario before and have no knowledge of its validity. However, I do know that my fellow gun nuts have debated this ad nauseum in other forum. Do you have any insight as to whether that is true. I recall the debate originating for multiple Model 29s needing to be on the set and Clanahan always using a Model 29 during close shots.

BTW. Dirty Harry jumped the shark when they gave him a Desert Eagle. Pathetic. Wasn't that the third film? I liked him best in The Unforgiven. Classic Eastwood cowboy character.


----------



## MacArther (Dec 14, 2006)

> Dirty Harry jumped the shark when they gave him a Desert Eagle. Pathetic. Wasn't that the third film?



What do you mean by "jumped the shark" in regards to Dirty Harry having a Desert Eagle?


----------



## k9kiwi (Dec 14, 2006)

> And my FN-derivative wouldn't fire on fully automatic unless you stuck a matchstick in the right place



Well done you for not trying it.  

The barrel fouling is horrific, the recoil insane, and the first two rounds will be the only ones within a bulls roar of the target if you are really lucky.

That is surely the Rambo newbie / knobber trick of the century.

Me, I always worked on the theory that if ONE 7.62 doesn't screw his day up completely, 20 will not make much of a difference.

And I now have 19 more people to screw up with my magazine.  

PS. When the R.S.M. gets a hold of you after THAT little trick you had better suck them up to your throat. Because he will surely kick them there for you and it will hurt more when he does it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 14, 2006)

Hi DerAdler,

You said you only had to carry it to your chopper.

Anyway, if your chopper did go down, I'm sure the weight wouldn't be such a concern? (At least it's a gun!! )

Would you rather that, or an M4A1 to get you back from behind enemy lines I wonder?


Thanks for the Dirty Harry trivia Screaming Eagle. My dad had a S&W M29 long ago, but they've been illegal in the UK for a while now. 

I think Matt is talking about the AMT Automag (he throws it in the sea). There's a new Dirty Harry film coming out apparently.

As for the SLR, everyone I know who used it worshipped it. So close to being perfect, the only disadvantages were it's size and weight. IMHO the best assault rifle EVER was the one it ironically replaced, the EM2 - changed my mind on bestest weapon again!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 14, 2006)

Oh was it the automag? My mistake. Shows how much I paid attention to that waste of celluloid. Either way, once Clanahan gave up the traditional wheelgun, the franchise was floundering. That's when it went downhill (ie jumped the shark).


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Schwarz,

Which SLR is it you're talking about ??


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 15, 2006)

L1A1, though I also mentioned the Argentinian FN FAL (folding stock). Why you ask?

I know someone (Norweigan) who used a Hk G3 copy - he also loved it, it was very close to the L1A1 in effect.

I suppose assault rifles aren't that much of an advantage over SLR's, are they?

I wonder how effective an SLR, bullpup, carbine would be?...

Still, some people like 5.56mm's, no accounting for taste...

For what it's worth, I think PDW's, Assault rifles, AR's/SAW's/LMG's should be intermediate, around 6.5mm (As Fedorov theorised). With full-sized 7.62 Marksman SLR's and GPMG's - there, sorted! What are other's views?


----------



## Soren (Dec 15, 2006)

Schwarz,

I was asking since there's more than one type SLR out there - the SLR-15 for example.

About the SLR L1A1, well I don't like it, its too powerful for its size making it near uncontrollable in full auto - might as-well use an M-14 then.

I agree about the 6.5mm round being the way to go, but not for damage reasons, but for ballistic reasons. The 6.5mm round will extend the effective range of the assault rifle a couple of hundred yards, something I'm sure the grunts will appreciate.


----------



## dinos7 (Dec 15, 2006)

ummm.............. thats a toughy.................. a B-52, bomb the hell out em


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 17, 2006)

tough break about S&W Model 29 being banned in the UK that would really suck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi DerAdler,
> 
> You said you only had to carry it to your chopper.
> 
> Anyway, if your chopper did go down, I'm sure the weight wouldn't be such a concern? (At least it's a gun!! )



I wanted my M-60 if I went down...

We also had 2 M-4 Carbines and 4 M-9 Pisols to go along with the two M-60s.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 18, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I wanted my M-60 if I went down...
> 
> We also had 2 M-4 Carbines and 4 M-9 Pisols to go along with the two M-60s.



That'd be a decently armed aircrew


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2006)

That was standard on every mission that we flew in Iraq.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 20, 2006)

Well prepared too.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

dib dib dub dub


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

dib dib dub dub? I don't know that colloquialism.


----------

