I want one.
www.military.com/news/article/army-worki...
I want one.
Your mom wants one!
www.military.com/news/article/army-worki...
I want one.
Your mom wants one!
, my mom might want one.Gotta say, it is interesting, but I question the value of a new .50 cal. It is designed for anti-vehicle use, our current enemies aren't known as users of armored vehicles. It's R&D money better spent on new personnel armor and weapons. From what I've heard from soldiers doing the door kicking, what we really could use is a new 7.62mm carbine.
Edit: Or something like this for field engagements. news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/sc_afp/usm...
In my opinion the .223 is better than the 7.62, just saying.
For long range accuracy, absolutely. But at the ranges most of our combats have been at over the last 9 years you need a close-quarters weapon with stopping power, which the .223 just isn't as good at.
In my opinion the .223 is better than the 7.62, just saying.
For long range accuracy, absolutely. But at the ranges most of our combats have been at over the last 9 years you need a close-quarters weapon with stopping power, which the .223 just isn't as good at.
you're right but maybe a new caliber would help. maybe a G11? We'd rock out with some G11's dontcha think?
you're right but maybe a new caliber would help. maybe a G11? We'd rock out with some G11's dontcha think?
The H&K G11? No. It uses a 4.72mm round, which is even smaller than the M16 family's 5.56mm (the .223 caliber round), and the weapon is heavier than the M16. The only thing the G11 has going for it is a very high rate of fire. The problem I see with it is that shooting someone with it is like hitting them with 10 darts at once. Yeah, it'll hurt, but I doubt it has any more ability to drop someone than the old 5.56x45mm NATO round.
Gotta say, it is interesting, but I question the value of a new .50 cal. It is designed for anti-vehicle use, our current enemies aren't known as users of armored vehicles.
Bolded for emphasis.
Gotta say, it is interesting, but I question the value of a new .50 cal. It is designed for anti-vehicle use, our current enemies aren't known as users of armored vehicles.
Bolded for emphasis.
I am still of the mindset that it was R&D money thrown at something we don't need. The M2 is still more than serviceable. While a lighter, more easily man-portable .50 cal is nice, we don't need it right now, nor are we likely to in the near future.
Gotta say, it is interesting, but I question the value of a new .50 cal. It is designed for anti-vehicle use, our current enemies aren't known as users of armored vehicles.
Bolded for emphasis.
I am still of the mindset that it was R&D money thrown at something we don't need. The M2 is still more than serviceable. While a lighter, more easily man-portable .50 cal is nice, we don't need it right now, nor are we likely to in the near future.
I dunno Escef...
Being on the receiving end of a .50 is a real, real bad situation...
And the M2 is very old and very heavy... also, changing the barrell sucks, especially under fire. I know because... well, you know I was a soldier once...
Being on the receiving end of a .50 is a real, real bad situation...
So is being on the receiving end of a freight train at full speed, but that doesn't make it a powerful weapon on its own
Being on the receiving end of a .50 is a real, real bad situation...
So is being on the receiving end of a freight train at full speed, but that doesn't make it a powerful weapon on its own
Really?
Your attempt at being witty isn't.
I dunno Escef...
Being on the receiving end of a .50 is a real, real bad situation...
And the M2 is very old and very heavy... also, changing the barrell sucks, especially under fire. I know because... well, you know I was a soldier once...
While you do speak truth on this (though I don't know if you've ever changed an M2 barrel under hostile fire, I'm pretty certain it's a nerve wracking thing to do), I don't see a need to replace the M2... yet.
And that word "yet" is the entirety of my argument, really. We are not in a situation where the need to foot-transport an M2 is a reality, nor are we likely to be involved in the kind of conflict that would make a newer .50 cal needed. If we weren't still involved in a very different kind of war, or not actively at war at all, I'd say go for it. I just do not believe now is the right time.
Your attempt at being witty isn't.
It's a silly joke and an argument combined, aren't I the greatest?
And that word "yet" is the entirety of my argument, really. We are not in a situation where the need to foot-transport an M2 is a reality, nor are we likely to be involved in the kind of conflict that would make a newer .50 cal needed. If we weren't still involved in a very different kind of war, or not actively at war at all, I'd say go for it. I just do not believe now is the right time.
When it comes to R&D I think it is better to be prepared for that "yet" before it is actually needed. The US may put too much into preparing for that "yet" but it may be better than waiting for the actual need and then rushing something through development.
And that word "yet" is the entirety of my argument, really. We are not in a situation where the need to foot-transport an M2 is a reality, nor are we likely to be involved in the kind of conflict that would make a newer .50 cal needed. If we weren't still involved in a very different kind of war, or not actively at war at all, I'd say go for it. I just do not believe now is the right time.
I can agree with that.... well, at least I don't disagree with it...
I would think "tha fitty" is still useful against insurgents and guerillas- in an urban environment, there's no such thing as being in cover when you have a weapon that blows through walls like a .50-cal MG does.
hydrostatic shock is a biotch lol
I would think "tha fitty" is still useful against insurgents and guerillas- in an urban environment, there's no such thing as being in cover when you have a weapon that blows through walls like a .50-cal MG does.
Good point!
I would think "tha fitty" is still useful against insurgents and guerillas- in an urban environment, there's no such thing as being in cover when you have a weapon that blows through walls like a .50-cal MG does.
Yeah, that's kind of counterproductive when you want to minimize civilian casualties. "Sorry we turned your family into hamburger, we were aiming at an insurgent." I'm sure having US forces slaughter one's family won't motivate someone to try to kill us at all.
I would think "tha fitty" is still useful against insurgents and guerillas- in an urban environment, there's no such thing as being in cover when you have a weapon that blows through walls like a .50-cal MG does.
Yeah, that's kind of counterproductive when you want to minimize civilian casualties. "Sorry we turned your family into hamburger, we were aiming at an insurgent." I'm sure having US forces slaughter one's family won't motivate someone to try to kill us at all.
I had to stop myself from saying something that might have started a HUGE flame war just now....
I had to stop myself from saying something that might have started a HUGE flame war just now....
Good job!
How many rounds of 50 cal ammo can you get in a 150 lbs?
Go go hover drone!
How many rounds of 50 cal ammo can you get in a 150 lbs?
Unfortunately, I cannot link to the site as where I'm at won't allow me to fully view it, but from what I gather 100 rnds of .50BMG linked (on the belt) ball (standard) ammo weighs 35 lbs - including the can. So, about 300 rounds or so of that type of ammo.
Satellite death lasers.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Tungeston Rod
Lawn Darts EXTREME!
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Tungeston Rod
Lawn Darts EXTREME!
Little cyclone of death. It seems like a high altitude path shooting down and in at a steep angle would minimize recoil problems and avoid collateral damage while keeping the drone safe from enemy fire. Much cheaper than a cruise missle, and damn scarrier in my opinion.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Too much collateral not enough fear.
Being able to kill one person in a tight crowd. Ultimate in noncollateral and fear.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Too much collateral not enough fear.
Being able to kill one person in a tight crowd. Ultimate in noncollateral and fear.
I don't know...
I think being able to kill one person in a tight crowd and the crowd is pretty scary.
In the hands of a **** with morals? Yeah, he won't use it and everyone knows it. Not scary.
Only in the hands of a tyrant.
In the hands of a **** with morals? Yeah, he won't use it and everyone knows it. Not scary.
Point still stands... it's a scary thing...
No it's not. Its like a moron waving a gun around that cleary has no bullets. It's comical and pathetic.
I think we may be talking about 2 different things. I was referring to:
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
I'm not getting the relation to the gun with no bullets.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Hrm... probably unnecessary, actually. I mean, if you're already in space... think how much **** you could ****-up with an artificial meteor-strike. Sure, since you're relying mostly on gravity you won't have as much "on demand" strikes, but you'll have none of the radioactive fallout that makes it hard to occupy a location after a nuke strike.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Hrm... probably unnecessary, actually. I mean, if you're already in space... think how much **** you could ****-up with an artificial meteor-strike. Sure, since you're relying mostly on gravity you won't have as much "on demand" strikes, but you'll have none of the radioactive fallout that makes it hard to occupy a location after a nuke strike.
Also wouldn't the nuke dissintegrate waaaaaaay before it actually hit from friction? It wouldn't go off in the atmosphere 'cause I'm 99% sure nukes are heat activated.
I'm not getting the relation to the gun with no bullets.
Because a weapon everyone knows you won't use and a weapon everyone knows you can't use are functionally identical: irrelevant.
Better to attempt to scare someone by pointing a finger at them like a gun then by pointing a gun they can clearly see you are incapable of using. Atleast with the finger you look sarcastic, instead of just desperate and weak.
In a room full of explosive vapors, assuming you don't look completly and sucidially derranged, you are better off threatening someone with a sewing needle than a shot gun. And unless you seem derranged enough to actually use it, a weapon of mass destruction is not scary.
Say it with me:
Satellite death lasers.
Hell, if we are going that far, then lets put nukes in orbit.
Say it with me..."Fist of God"
Hrm... probably unnecessary, actually. I mean, if you're already in space... think how much **** you could ****-up with an artificial meteor-strike. Sure, since you're relying mostly on gravity you won't have as much "on demand" strikes, but you'll have none of the radioactive fallout that makes it hard to occupy a location after a nuke strike.
Also wouldn't the nuke dissintegrate waaaaaaay before it actually hit from friction? It wouldn't go off in the atmosphere 'cause I'm 99% sure nukes are heat activated.
I don't think so.
ICBMs travel through space and re-enter the atmosphere...
And nukes are set off by explosives...
Conventional explosives for the early primitive bombs, and...
A "hydrogen" bomb, the big city-busters, is actually "set-off" by an atomic explosion...
Yes.
A nuke is actually set-off by another nuke.
It is really quite facisnating....
Check it out on wiki...
Because a weapon everyone knows you won't use and a weapon everyone knows you can't use are functionally identical: irrelevant.
Better to attempt to scare someone by pointing a finger at them like a gun then by pointing a gun they can clearly see you are incapable of using. Atleast with the finger you look sarcastic, instead of just desperate and weak.
In a room full of explosive vapors, assuming you don't look completly and sucidially derranged, you are better off threatening someone with a sewing needle than a shot gun. And unless you seem derranged enough to actually use it, a weapon of mass destruction is not scary.
I see. You were referring to the will of the country/person possessing the weapon. I was referring to the ability of a weapon to cause fear. We were talking about 2 different things.
Of course if you don't have the will to use a weapon, that weapon is meaningless. Actually, without the will to use it, any weapon is meaningless.
I still prefer my satellite death rays.
Exactly. A death ray with the ability to percisely kill one person in a crowd is far more terrifying than a nuke capable of taking out the entire crowd because it can and will be used.
But, you know, a payed homeless guy with a broken bottle would probably be near as effective in most cases, and much more affordable.
I still prefer my satellite death rays.
Exactly. A death ray with the ability to percisely kill one person in a crowd is far more terrifying than a nuke capable of taking out the entire crowd because it can and will be used.
But, you know, a payed homeless guy with a broken bottle would probably be near as effective in most cases, and much more affordable.
A homeless guy is bribable, can fail, and not nearly as evil mastermindy quick.
Akira!!! But treaties exist against the militarization of space.
And there were treaties with Native Americans, treaties that disarmed Germany, etc. So yeah, treaty = so much wasted paper.
Akira!!! But treaties exist against the militarization of space.
That's part of what would be great about lobbing giant rocks at people. All it takes is some math and a booster engine and you've just turned an innocent mined-out rock into a death-rock of doom.
Akira!!! But treaties exist against the militarization of space.
That's part of what would be great about lobbing giant rocks at people. All it takes is some math and a booster engine and you've just turned an innocent mined-out rock into a death-rock of doom.
a rock with nails in it >:D