About US small arms

[Homo ferricus]

actually, i don't know if your going to have to wait or not because i was checking through one of the galleries and i saw a modelled m16(with m203) next to an m4, so im guessing they'll be in the game, unless BFC is already working on the Marines module.

[Apocalypse 31]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice.

[Apocalypse 31]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice.

[Apocalypse 31]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice.

[SgtMuhammed]

I never had problems with either. The M4s they replaced our 16s were new. They felt better than the 16s which were nearly 20 years old. Neither one though had reliability problems as long as I kept it clean.

Mike is absolutly right about ranges. Here's a little test you can do. Just go out to any city or town and pace off 300 meters. Chances are you either will not be able to see your start point or will have to walk through something. Open terrain is different, of course, but the enemy has the annoying tendency not to stand up like a popup target even 1000 feet away.

[ April 01, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

[SgtMuhammed]

I never had problems with either. The M4s they replaced our 16s were new. They felt better than the 16s which were nearly 20 years old. Neither one though had reliability problems as long as I kept it clean.

Mike is absolutly right about ranges. Here's a little test you can do. Just go out to any city or town and pace off 300 meters. Chances are you either will not be able to see your start point or will have to walk through something. Open terrain is different, of course, but the enemy has the annoying tendency not to stand up like a popup target even 1000 feet away.

[ April 01, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

[SgtMuhammed]

I never had problems with either. The M4s they replaced our 16s were new. They felt better than the 16s which were nearly 20 years old. Neither one though had reliability problems as long as I kept it clean.

Mike is absolutly right about ranges. Here's a little test you can do. Just go out to any city or town and pace off 300 meters. Chances are you either will not be able to see your start point or will have to walk through something. Open terrain is different, of course, but the enemy has the annoying tendency not to stand up like a popup target even 1000 feet away.

[ April 01, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

[Battlefront.com]

And the debate continues Imperial Grunt (a Marine) has one perspective, LT Mike and sgtgoody (Army) have a different one. It's the same old, same old. Guys tend to like what they have, provided it isn't a complete piece of crap. I'd say that in most MOUT situations there is no performance difference or failure difference between the two. As LT Mike points out it is not likely that a US soldier is going into a fight with an excessively dirty weapon. However, there is a weight and "spacial relations" difference that is certainly in favor of the M4.

"Tests" are always interesting to us. Often the case is that the test was set up with bias that tends to favor whatever solution/situation the tester favors beforehand. In CMx1 people did literally hundreds of tests to prove why this or that function within the game was "broken" or otherwise suboptimal. Almost always the test conditions were largely faulty and with some reasonable tweaks to it a totally different result could be acheived that was more to our liking. Of course, we argue that our test conditions are fairer, but of course we are biased too (even if we don't conciously think we are).

It's been a while since I read the findings from the Marines test results, but IIRC I had the same feeling as LT Mike and sgtgoody. The test favored range and accuracy at extreme ranges. This is not to say those conditions are invalid to test for, but the fact is the average engagement range in Iraq is probably more like 50m the the enemy often kind enough to be poorly concealed. In such a situation I think a smaller, lighter weapon that is ballistically the same as a larger and heavier one would be a better choice all else being equal.

Next topic should be about the M1911 vs. the M9. That one is always fun to watch

Note also that the picture of the M16 w/203 on it will not be in the game. It's a very old shot that proves we have been working on CM:SF a long time. When we made that model the M4 was still not the standard weapon and most Squads that did receive them were still using the M16 w/203. Then RFI (Rapid Funding Initiative) kicked in heavily and whaddaya know... all the M16s were pretty much gone within a few months. Thankfully we haven't seen the m320 replacement for the m203 show up yet

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

And the debate continues Imperial Grunt (a Marine) has one perspective, LT Mike and sgtgoody (Army) have a different one. It's the same old, same old. Guys tend to like what they have, provided it isn't a complete piece of crap. I'd say that in most MOUT situations there is no performance difference or failure difference between the two. As LT Mike points out it is not likely that a US soldier is going into a fight with an excessively dirty weapon. However, there is a weight and "spacial relations" difference that is certainly in favor of the M4.

"Tests" are always interesting to us. Often the case is that the test was set up with bias that tends to favor whatever solution/situation the tester favors beforehand. In CMx1 people did literally hundreds of tests to prove why this or that function within the game was "broken" or otherwise suboptimal. Almost always the test conditions were largely faulty and with some reasonable tweaks to it a totally different result could be acheived that was more to our liking. Of course, we argue that our test conditions are fairer, but of course we are biased too (even if we don't conciously think we are).

It's been a while since I read the findings from the Marines test results, but IIRC I had the same feeling as LT Mike and sgtgoody. The test favored range and accuracy at extreme ranges. This is not to say those conditions are invalid to test for, but the fact is the average engagement range in Iraq is probably more like 50m the the enemy often kind enough to be poorly concealed. In such a situation I think a smaller, lighter weapon that is ballistically the same as a larger and heavier one would be a better choice all else being equal.

Next topic should be about the M1911 vs. the M9. That one is always fun to watch

Note also that the picture of the M16 w/203 on it will not be in the game. It's a very old shot that proves we have been working on CM:SF a long time. When we made that model the M4 was still not the standard weapon and most Squads that did receive them were still using the M16 w/203. Then RFI (Rapid Funding Initiative) kicked in heavily and whaddaya know... all the M16s were pretty much gone within a few months. Thankfully we haven't seen the m320 replacement for the m203 show up yet

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

And the debate continues Imperial Grunt (a Marine) has one perspective, LT Mike and sgtgoody (Army) have a different one. It's the same old, same old. Guys tend to like what they have, provided it isn't a complete piece of crap. I'd say that in most MOUT situations there is no performance difference or failure difference between the two. As LT Mike points out it is not likely that a US soldier is going into a fight with an excessively dirty weapon. However, there is a weight and "spacial relations" difference that is certainly in favor of the M4.

"Tests" are always interesting to us. Often the case is that the test was set up with bias that tends to favor whatever solution/situation the tester favors beforehand. In CMx1 people did literally hundreds of tests to prove why this or that function within the game was "broken" or otherwise suboptimal. Almost always the test conditions were largely faulty and with some reasonable tweaks to it a totally different result could be acheived that was more to our liking. Of course, we argue that our test conditions are fairer, but of course we are biased too (even if we don't conciously think we are).

It's been a while since I read the findings from the Marines test results, but IIRC I had the same feeling as LT Mike and sgtgoody. The test favored range and accuracy at extreme ranges. This is not to say those conditions are invalid to test for, but the fact is the average engagement range in Iraq is probably more like 50m the the enemy often kind enough to be poorly concealed. In such a situation I think a smaller, lighter weapon that is ballistically the same as a larger and heavier one would be a better choice all else being equal.

Next topic should be about the M1911 vs. the M9. That one is always fun to watch

Note also that the picture of the M16 w/203 on it will not be in the game. It's a very old shot that proves we have been working on CM:SF a long time. When we made that model the M4 was still not the standard weapon and most Squads that did receive them were still using the M16 w/203. Then RFI (Rapid Funding Initiative) kicked in heavily and whaddaya know... all the M16s were pretty much gone within a few months. Thankfully we haven't seen the m320 replacement for the m203 show up yet

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

For reference I prefered the M4 simply because I always wanted something shorter than the 16 when I was in Berlin. A compact weapon that could still reach out and touch someone was my dream and the M4 was pretty much what I wanted. When I started riding around in tracks I appreciated the M4 there as well. Still I wouldn't cry if they sent me out with my old 16. Just like that other weapon it isn't size it's how you use it.

For the record I am an M9 man. I better be considering I just bought one. If you use it correctly you can kill a man with a .22. Plus the M9 just fits my hand perfectly.

Anyway, I agree with Steve that the argument is fun to watch, almost as fun as the lively "discussions" I use to get into with the Brits in Berlin (we were starting to run out of bars).

All you guys still serving, you take care of yourselves.

[SgtMuhammed]

For reference I prefered the M4 simply because I always wanted something shorter than the 16 when I was in Berlin. A compact weapon that could still reach out and touch someone was my dream and the M4 was pretty much what I wanted. When I started riding around in tracks I appreciated the M4 there as well. Still I wouldn't cry if they sent me out with my old 16. Just like that other weapon it isn't size it's how you use it.

For the record I am an M9 man. I better be considering I just bought one. If you use it correctly you can kill a man with a .22. Plus the M9 just fits my hand perfectly.

Anyway, I agree with Steve that the argument is fun to watch, almost as fun as the lively "discussions" I use to get into with the Brits in Berlin (we were starting to run out of bars).

All you guys still serving, you take care of yourselves.

[SgtMuhammed]

For reference I prefered the M4 simply because I always wanted something shorter than the 16 when I was in Berlin. A compact weapon that could still reach out and touch someone was my dream and the M4 was pretty much what I wanted. When I started riding around in tracks I appreciated the M4 there as well. Still I wouldn't cry if they sent me out with my old 16. Just like that other weapon it isn't size it's how you use it.

For the record I am an M9 man. I better be considering I just bought one. If you use it correctly you can kill a man with a .22. Plus the M9 just fits my hand perfectly.

Anyway, I agree with Steve that the argument is fun to watch, almost as fun as the lively "discussions" I use to get into with the Brits in Berlin (we were starting to run out of bars).

All you guys still serving, you take care of yourselves.

[Apocalypse 31]

I'd rather take my M9 and throw it at someone then try to hit them with it.

The weight balance throws me off. Its way too light and unbalanced.

Now the .45....why did we get rid of it!? Nice heavy weapon that can actually sustain the firepower that its designed to give. I'm going to try my hardest to get my hands on a .45 or .40 when I get down range. If given an M9 I think ill just keep it in my foot locker.

[Apocalypse 31]

I'd rather take my M9 and throw it at someone then try to hit them with it.

The weight balance throws me off. Its way too light and unbalanced.

Now the .45....why did we get rid of it!? Nice heavy weapon that can actually sustain the firepower that its designed to give. I'm going to try my hardest to get my hands on a .45 or .40 when I get down range. If given an M9 I think ill just keep it in my foot locker.

[Apocalypse 31]

I'd rather take my M9 and throw it at someone then try to hit them with it.

The weight balance throws me off. Its way too light and unbalanced.

Now the .45....why did we get rid of it!? Nice heavy weapon that can actually sustain the firepower that its designed to give. I'm going to try my hardest to get my hands on a .45 or .40 when I get down range. If given an M9 I think ill just keep it in my foot locker.

[Splinty]

The Iraqis for some unknown reason are terrified and envious of the M9. The Iraqi Police I work with all want to trade their Glock 9mms for our Berettas. I personally think although the Beretta's not a bad pistol-it's easy to maintain and use- the 9mm round just isn't powerful enough. Give me a .45. When I have to shoot someone I want to know he's going to stay down.

[Splinty]

The Iraqis for some unknown reason are terrified and envious of the M9. The Iraqi Police I work with all want to trade their Glock 9mms for our Berettas. I personally think although the Beretta's not a bad pistol-it's easy to maintain and use- the 9mm round just isn't powerful enough. Give me a .45. When I have to shoot someone I want to know he's going to stay down.

[Splinty]

The Iraqis for some unknown reason are terrified and envious of the M9. The Iraqi Police I work with all want to trade their Glock 9mms for our Berettas. I personally think although the Beretta's not a bad pistol-it's easy to maintain and use- the 9mm round just isn't powerful enough. Give me a .45. When I have to shoot someone I want to know he's going to stay down.

[Apocalypse 31]

There is a reason....

It's not an M9 thing or a .45 thing. It's a pistol thing. They are very intimidated by pistols. Reason being that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen used to execute people with pistols, and Saddam would use the pistol as a object of power.

True story.

Forgot who told that to me , or where I read it, but it certainly seems like it holds water.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by LT Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice. </font>

[Apocalypse 31]

There is a reason....

It's not an M9 thing or a .45 thing. It's a pistol thing. They are very intimidated by pistols. Reason being that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen used to execute people with pistols, and Saddam would use the pistol as a object of power.

True story.

Forgot who told that to me , or where I read it, but it certainly seems like it holds water.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by LT Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice. </font>

[Apocalypse 31]

There is a reason....

It's not an M9 thing or a .45 thing. It's a pistol thing. They are very intimidated by pistols. Reason being that Saddam Hussein and his henchmen used to execute people with pistols, and Saddam would use the pistol as a object of power.

True story.

Forgot who told that to me , or where I read it, but it certainly seems like it holds water.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by LT Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

(thousands of rounds were fired)

Thousands of rounds. Thats not even a valid test. Who the hell fires thousands of rounds without performing weapons maintenance at some point?

Also, there's not a huge chance your everyday target is beyond 300m (which is ALOT further than you think).

I've carried both weapons, and I'll tell you that the M4 is definitely the better choice. </font>