|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
06-26-2010, 01:21 AM | #1 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
I know there are some gun heads and active and retired military personnel on here, thought you guys might find this news interesting:
http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/so...#ixzz0rtef9uMB The initial reports of the contract's demise are on a Military.com site, though, so take the news with a healthy does of skepticism until further confirmation comes in. |
06-26-2010, 02:16 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,698
|
I'm going to shed some light on the subject. If it seems "too political", I'm not trying to be. But please, hear me out... Right now, troops in Afghanistan in Iraq are getting screwed. Not Obama, not anything else. Just listen-it's more "business" than politics, but people should be aware of this.
The average soldier in combat is wearing 60-70 pounds of gear, not counting his weapon. As you can imagine, trying to charge up and down mountains and across a blazing rocky desert with all of that on SUCKS. Every extra pound is "one more too much". The SCAR weighs more than the M-4. This is the simple answer. Afghanistan is a different fight. We need more range. In a lot of units, the troops are getting M-14's (I hear that you couldn't have made Marines happier if you'd put a strip club on the FOB). The enemy isn't going to hole up in buildings- they are going to charge and strike from high places in the mountains. Don't get confused- the Taliban are some of the hardest men on the planet- anyone who can sprint up a mountain in sandals with maybe a few slices of bread in his stomach has by respect... you know, until I have to shoot him. Anyway... here where it gets "close to political", but isn't. If the mods/admins see fit to delete this, let this point be the tearline. (PM Me if you do). The solution to the problem would be "get rid of ridiculously heavy body armor and use plate carriers/ Dragon Skin (the latter is more effective than the current armor and is much lighter, also close to the same price). It would make sense... but... You are subject to punishment under the UCMJ if you use anything other than the current (less effective) issued gear. If you are killed wearing another body armor, you lose your life insurance. If you are wearing another type of body armor and you choke on a grape, you lose your life insurance. It is that serious. It wasn't a few years ago. What happened? Supposedly some big wig colonel was overseeing the testing of not only this, but also the US Army's "camoflage"(the one that doesn't blend into anything but TV static, the very same one that said it would save soldiers money by getting rid of buttons and replacing them with velcro and zippers- which cost 8-10 times as much to replace as a single button). Both of these items were pitted against others, and Dragon Skin outperformed the current body armor and Multicam outperformed the ACU army pattern. He chose the stuff we have now, and pushed for the rules to punish soldiers who used anything else. Then he retired from the military and now works for those companies. This happens quite a bit. |
Baron Samedi |
View Public Profile |
Find More Posts by Baron Samedi |
06-26-2010, 05:02 AM | #3 |
Alley Viper
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cicero IL
Posts: 957
|
Quote:
I'm going to shed some light on the subject. If it seems "too political", I'm not trying to be. But please, hear me out... Right now, troops in Afghanistan in Iraq are getting screwed. Not Obama, not anything else. Just listen-it's more "business" than politics, but people should be aware of this.
The average soldier in combat is wearing 60-70 pounds of gear, not counting his weapon. As you can imagine, trying to charge up and down mountains and across a blazing rocky desert with all of that on SUCKS. Every extra pound is "one more too much". The SCAR weighs more than the M-4. This is the simple answer. Afghanistan is a different fight. We need more range. In a lot of units, the troops are getting M-14's (I hear that you couldn't have made Marines happier if you'd put a strip club on the FOB). The enemy isn't going to hole up in buildings- they are going to charge and strike from high places in the mountains. Don't get confused- the Taliban are some of the hardest men on the planet- anyone who can sprint up a mountain in sandals with maybe a few slices of bread in his stomach has by respect... you know, until I have to shoot him. Anyway... here where it gets "close to political", but isn't. If the mods/admins see fit to delete this, let this point be the tearline. (PM Me if you do). The solution to the problem would be "get rid of ridiculously heavy body armor and use plate carriers/ Dragon Skin (the latter is more effective than the current armor and is much lighter, also close to the same price). It would make sense... but... You are subject to punishment under the UCMJ if you use anything other than the current (less effective) issued gear. If you are killed wearing another body armor, you lose your life insurance. If you are wearing another type of body armor and you choke on a grape, you lose your life insurance. It is that serious. It wasn't a few years ago. What happened? Supposedly some big wig colonel was overseeing the testing of not only this, but also the US Army's "camoflage"(the one that doesn't blend into anything but TV static, the very same one that said it would save soldiers money by getting rid of buttons and replacing them with velcro and zippers- which cost 8-10 times as much to replace as a single button). Both of these items were pitted against others, and Dragon Skin outperformed the current body armor and Multicam outperformed the ACU army pattern. He chose the stuff we have now, and pushed for the rules to punish soldiers who used anything else. Then he retired from the military and now works for those companies. This happens quite a bit. But seriously Correct me if I'm wrong I'm not sure. Also isn't the Army currently switching over to MC?
__________________
Solomon Grundy,Born on a Monday ... |
06-26-2010, 06:21 AM | #4 |
Czech Sniper
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: So. FL
Posts: 4,075
|
Who has the current production contract for M16s/M4s? Is it still FN as it was a few years ago?
WHO has the SCAR contract? Hmmm........... I wonder if this could also be a $$ issue and if who ever is producing the M16s/M4s under bid the SCAR contract like Beretta did w/ Sig also the years ago? :( Could be, maybe not. I would not doubt it also though. :( The M16/M4 needs to be replaced regardless, it's time has passed, and it has proven to not be the answer one way or another over it's entire service life. Nothing more than the current conditions and situation our poor troops are faced w/ could prove it more. :( As with a lot of other things (body armor, better armored vehicles than the HUMVEE) they deserve better. Of course, you always have to remember that the equipment you are supplied was supplied by the lowest bidder. Glad I was never a paratrooper...................................
__________________
Eric - "Oh dear" said Pooh, as he punched the magazine release... Feedback - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...5-esg2145.html Customs - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/member...45-albums.html |
06-26-2010, 06:27 AM | #5 |
Czech Sniper
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: So. FL
Posts: 4,075
|
.
Hard to believe we had to go back 51 years to find an answer that works. :( Half the reason I no longer own my AR and now this and two AKs. :( .
__________________
Eric - "Oh dear" said Pooh, as he punched the magazine release... Feedback - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...5-esg2145.html Customs - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/member...45-albums.html |
06-26-2010, 06:46 AM | #6 |
Czech Sniper
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: So. FL
Posts: 4,075
|
Ahhhh, now that I went and read it ( ) this makes a LOT more sense -
The SCAR contract is canceled, for the 5.56 VERSION of the SCAR. They are using 2011 $$ to buy more Mk17s, the 7.62 VERSION of the SCAR (same larger round that the M14 use vs the smaller 5.56 round the M16/M4 uses). They ARE giving the troops what the really need, and NOT another useless weapon in a smaller caliber that is proven to be not as effective. Good, only took since the late 60s to this through to the government. :( Plus, this only effects SOCOM, this was not a replacement for the entire service contract for the M16/M4 (but it still needs to be replaced regardless). Too bad it's taken so many years of so many troops screaming "this POS doesn't work!!" for them to do something about it.
__________________
Eric - "Oh dear" said Pooh, as he punched the magazine release... Feedback - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-se...5-esg2145.html Customs - http://www.hisstank.com/forum/member...45-albums.html |
06-26-2010, 07:17 AM | #7 |
We get insurance, right?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: At the Cobra, Cobracabana
Posts: 6,612
|
Ahhhh, I don't miss the Army and all the red tape. Officers never cease to amaze, and infuriate me. Personally, I think many of the upper echelon brass needs to be take out of the loop when it comes to what our soldiers use. These cushy jobs and kickbacks have been going on for far too long.
It's nice to see they are bringing the M14 back where it's needed, though it should have been done awhile ago. I agree that lighter armor would seem like a no brainer to compensate for the M14's heavier ammo. There are alot of other factors too numerous to bother to get into when discussing ammo, and the way soldiers use it. For a nation with the strongest military in the world we really need to stop worrying about pinching pennies at the cost of soldiers lives. The government wastes billions of dollars on nonsense, and they're worried about giving our troops what they need to get thejob done? Complete BS.
__________________
-13 Check out the Radio Springfield Playlist on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4A...f628ec646946a4 |
06-26-2010, 12:45 PM | #8 |
Founder, Joe Declassified
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
The SCAR contract is canceled, for the 5.56 VERSION of the SCAR. They are using 2011 $$ to buy more Mk17s, the 7.62 VERSION of the SCAR (same larger round that the M14 use vs the smaller 5.56 round the M16/M4 uses). They ARE giving the troops what the really need, and NOT another useless weapon in a smaller caliber that is proven to be not as effective.
|
06-26-2010, 01:15 PM | #9 |
Epically lazy bastard!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: My Recliner
Posts: 24,009
|
all this nonsense just shows how little it seems the lives of our brave men and women matter over linning the pockets of the jackholes in office. i say take away all the politicians perks and excess and put that into funding better gear for the brave men and women who protect those cushy fat cats ability to screw us over.
I may not always agree with what our soldiers are ordered to do or the wars they fight but i will ALWAYS stand behind them to finish their duty and come home safe. WHOOAHH!!
__________________
First porn, then cupcakes.. My Feedback: https://www.hisstank.com/forum/buy-s...-feedback.html Griffs Garage Customs thread: https://www.hisstank.com/forum/g-i-j...e-customs.html |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Scarface vs. Scar-Face | GI Flow | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 9 | 12-03-2008 11:52 AM |
25th Scar Face Trooper/ Hawk Custom | evopete | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 1 | 04-26-2008 08:57 PM |
scar on xamot???? | swangs | G.I. Joe Toys Modern & General Discussion | 6 | 04-10-2008 07:03 PM |
Did Scar Face surive? | Brandon Brigance | G.I. Joe General Discussion | 21 | 02-16-2008 01:00 AM |
25 Anny Scar Face Oringed | xhairs | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 4 | 08-18-2007 07:44 PM |
|
|