Project Reality Forums

-deleted-

AOD_Morph wrote:The pistol would eliminate the lack of CQB ineffectiveness. Almost eliminating any real need for CQ protection from the squad. Giving people even less motivation to stick with and support the squad.

But regardless of your kit you will still die quickly on your own. A pistols hardly as good as a carbine or assault rifle anyway, it would just be better then using the rifle up close.

AnRK wrote: the M14, but that was a main service rifle for a while, uses 7.62 but I can't see why it should be that uncontrollable up close myself.

The M-14's controllability issues predate the rifle, when the US selected the 7.62 round as its main cartridge the Brits who had experimented with a full auto .303 warned that any rifle shooting such a large round would be uncontrollable in full auto (and they knew that they would be forced into using the same round as a member of NATO). Sure enough when the M-14 debuted they were right. Many M-14's had their selector switches disabled so they became in effect a box magazine M-1 Garand. It is my understanding that most of the current issue M-14/21's have active selector switches so it could be used in full auto should the need arise (would like a confirmation from someone in the field on this). Also, the new M-14 EBR package is a little muzzle heavy and that helps full auto quite a bit while bringing modern packaging to the M-14.

AOD_Morph wrote:the lack of CQB ineffectiveness

Damn, made me snarf my beer when I read that.

i think the dm should have a side arm. because i was with a fellow squad members he went around the corner and a chinise unloaded on him with full auto and then came after me i could have gotten him but no cqb weapon

Liquid_Cow wrote:So it does appear that DMR's are carrying. Hopefully Kenwayy will see this thread and comment, he's over there doing that right now.

Saw a few pics he took in A-Stan. In one of them he's got a 9mm holstered on his vest.

IMHO, if the SAW were realistically functional with regards to supported vs unsupported fire, it wouldn't be an issue for use in CQB. The thing should function as supported any time you are prone, and unsupported any time you are standing or crouched. You wouldn't take the time to collapse the bipod just because you stood and decided to engage standing.

IIRC the main reason automatic riflemen are issued a sidearm is in case they are unable to reload during a firefight for whatever reason. You have to remember how much their ammo weighs, and the fact a second soldier usually assists him in carrying it. If that guy is unable to get to you for whatever reason, your in trouble.

Wow lots of retarded info in here.

Whomever said that soldiers are allowed to carry their own personal pistol, roofles:

a. Purchase, possession. use or sale of privately owned firearm, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTCOM AOR.

Straight from general order numba 1. IF You get brigade commander or higher approval you can bring one, or if your unit just doesn't give a shit. My unit does, so we can't.

First, no, SAW gunners do not get 9mm's. There's no need. With the 'airborne' setup it is a fairly compact weapon and frankly they don't need any more weight.

DM's is another story. Its mostly hit or miss. Sometimes I have one, most of the time I don't. If its an OP on some mountain with just my spotter, yeah we are armed for bear, but on the average very day patrol? No I don't. The top of the pecking order for 9mm's is as follows.:

1. High ranking POG's
2. Low ranking but know a armorer POG's
3. PL/PSG's
4. Gunners
5 Everyone else.

Which means for my level the gunners get the 9mm's first if there are any left over. IRL if you are at the point that you need to use your 9mm (all DM's I know along with me still carry an M4 around, even if its just in the truck) you're fucked anyways.

AOD_Morph wrote:The pistol would eliminate the lack of CQB ineffectiveness. Almost eliminating any real need for CQ protection from the squad. Giving people even less motivation to stick with and support the squad.
I support the lack of pistol for gameplay reasons regardless of whether they get them IRL. PR makes realism sacrifices for gameplay all the time. I dont see why this is any different. If you are a marksman, stick with your squad and give them long range support while they handle the guys up close. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

This doesn't seem to be a problem for the Sniper Kit.

WNxKenwayy wrote:Wow lots of retarded info in here.

Whomever said that soldiers are allowed to carry their own personal pistol, roofles:

a. Purchase, possession. use or sale of privately owned firearm, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the USCENTCOM AOR.

Straight from general order numba 1. IF You get brigade commander or higher approval you can bring one, or if your unit just doesn't give a shit. My unit does, so we can't.

First, no, SAW gunners do not get 9mm's. There's no need. With the 'airborne' setup it is a fairly compact weapon and frankly they don't need any more weight.

DM's is another story. Its mostly hit or miss. Sometimes I have one, most of the time I don't. If its an OP on some mountain with just my spotter, yeah we are armed for bear, but on the average very day patrol? No I don't. The top of the pecking order for 9mm's is as follows.:

1. High ranking POG's
2. Low ranking but know a armorer POG's
3. PL/PSG's
4. Gunners
5 Everyone else.

Which means for my level the gunners get the 9mm's first if there are any left over. IRL if you are at the point that you need to use your 9mm (all DM's I know along with me still carry an M4 around, even if its just in the truck) you're fucked anyways.

/thread. from the horses mouth so to speak.

Yup, thread over.

Liquid_Cow wrote:The M-14's controllability issues predate the rifle, when the US selected the 7.62 round as its main cartridge the Brits who had experimented with a full auto .303 warned that any rifle shooting such a large round would be uncontrollable in full auto (and they knew that they would be forced into using the same round as a member of NATO). Sure enough when the M-14 debuted they were right. Many M-14's had their selector switches disabled so they became in effect a box magazine M-1 Garand. It is my understanding that most of the current issue M-14/21's have active selector switches so it could be used in full auto should the need arise (would like a confirmation from someone in the field on this). Also, the new M-14 EBR package is a little muzzle heavy and that helps full auto quite a bit while bringing modern packaging to the M-14.

Yeah I bet the M-14 isn't pretty on full auto, single shot at some of the distances I manage to have missed at compared to other riles seems a little much though.

WNxKenwayy wrote: Low ranking but know a armorer POG's

LMFAO K, brings back memories. My last 2 years in my best friend was the supply clerk...

IRL if you are at the point that you need to use your 9mm you're fucked anyways.

AMEN, worse POS gun the US ever purchased. Great for making a wounded pissed off enemy, not so good for making dead enemy. Bring back the 1911 for me!

1911? I thought .45 had even worse chances of going through any armor than 9mm has (though the wound is bigger with the .45 of course)

Kind of doubt whether they tend to run into a load of armored enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, yes, sorry. You're right of course. I was thinking in game terms and forgot to mention that I meant a situation like in game. Since i think the equipment should be chosen with "conventinal" enemies in mind.

Since I have actually carried the SAW (thankfully not in combat) I will say I was never issued a pistol nor ever saw one except on our officer and gunnery sgt. I didn't have the fancy collapsible stock but did fine by holding the bipod as a foregrip in CQB courses.

Up against a wall for support or anything else the SAW is 'almost' as accurate as it is laying prone or set up in a firing position with the bipod deployed. The SAW is heavy enough as it is and there is absolutely no need for a pistol, though I do think it should be more accurate from at least the crouching position.

Blakeman wrote:Up against a wall for support or anything else the SAW is 'almost' as accurate as it is laying prone or set up in a firing position with the bipod deployed.

Ditto for my experience. I used to wonder why there was not a selective fire switch on the SAW, it's a tad bit heavy for a 5.56 rifle, but its super accurate (great for lighting stacks of tires on fire at the range).

Spec_Operator wrote:1911? I thought .45 had even worse chances of going through any armor than 9mm has (though the wound is bigger with the .45 of course)

I don't have any facts to compair shooting NATO ball ammo vs. basic armor, but as pointed out the current threat does not wear much armor. I really don't think 9mm is any better than 45 against any (even light) armor, but then again you hit someone with 45 on soft armor you're gonna probably hurt them a lot more than 9 would. Also, the Colt made a good hand to hand weapon, had some decent mass to it even empty (we called it the 9th shot).

Then again, there is a story about a Marine back in the 80's who stopped an Israeli tank in Lebanon only using his 45cal "anti-tank" pistol...

When it comes to stopping a bad guy, well just look at what police officers in the States carry. Even given +P high expansion hollow points (not allowed in military pistols) almost no law enforcement agencies use the 9mm. Most use .40 or .45 over concerns about terminal balistics (or lack there of). I also believe that SF units primarily use H&K SOCOM pistols (45).

Liquid_Cow wrote:The M-14's controllability issues predate the rifle, when the US selected the 7.62 round as its main cartridge the Brits who had experimented with a full auto .303 warned that any rifle shooting such a large round would be uncontrollable in full auto (and they knew that they would be forced into using the same round as a member of NATO). Sure enough when the M-14 debuted they were right. Many M-14's had their selector switches disabled so they became in effect a box magazine M-1 Garand. It is my understanding that most of the current issue M-14/21's have active selector switches so it could be used in full auto should the need arise (would like a confirmation from someone in the field on this). Also, the new M-14 EBR package is a little muzzle heavy and that helps full auto quite a bit while bringing modern packaging to the M-14.

Hmm kinda funny that they use 7.62 but can't use it well on full auto, then start using 5.56 and then start forcing the use of semi auto.

Wow, my first "already suggested" mishap

>_<

Spec_Operator wrote:1911? I thought .45 had even worse chances of going through any armor than 9mm has (though the wound is bigger with the .45 of course)

If the guy has armour- Yeah .45 to the chest will most likely not kill him- buy it will knock him flat on his back.

Liquid_Cow wrote:



Then again, there is a story about a Marine back in the 80's who stopped an Israeli tank in Lebanon only using his 45cal "anti-tank" pistol...

hahahahah so the HAT guy should have one issued aswell =p