New Toy for the Army...

[SwampFoxZ71]

Too bad it's Swedish:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/11...cmp=latestnews

"Regular units will soon be issued a Swedish-built "recoilless" rifle that can fire an 84-mm. projectile nearly a mile and has the power to take out a tank. The 15-pound guns, which soldiers hold just above the shoulder to fire, were previously only issued to Special Forces. But after soldiers in Afghanistan repeatedly complained that insurgents were wise to the limitations of their M-16 rifles, the Pentagon has decided to make the Swedish-made Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS)-- or the M3 Carl Gustaf for short-- standard issue."

[streaker69]

I wonder when they'll be in stock at Dicks?

[SwampFoxZ71]

At $20,000 per rifle, I was hoping GM would re-open SAAB dealerships so I could trade my car in on one.

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

I wonder when they'll be in stock at Dicks?

[Gunowner99]

Great coupon!

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Color me skeptical. We can't even get a modern rifle, a modern carbine (or any carbine) for troops that need one (air crews, tankers, stryker crews, most medics), pistols properly issued to the correct troops (line medics by doctrine are issued only a pistol). Mounted motor teams are issued rifles.


Not to mention that IMHO the M9 pistol is a complete piece of crap. Irregardless of the 9mm round effectiveness arguments, which we are all familiar with....the pistol is inherently unsafe and responsible for almost all accidental and negligent discharges in the military.

[Pilot321]

Not to mention that IMHO the M9 pistol is a complete piece of crap. Irregardless of the 9mm round effectiveness arguments, which we are all familiar with....the pistol is inherently unsafe and responsible for almost all accidental and negligent discharges in the military.

So, the article concerns the M9, now or are do you just have an axe to grind? Nothing wrong with the M9. If there were every DA/SA auto in existence would be "unsafe".

Please.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

So, the article concerns the M9, now or are do you just have an axe to grind? Nothing wrong with the M9. If there were every DA/SA auto in existence would be "unsafe".

Please.

There are many far safer pistols, it has nothing to do with it being SA/DA, although that does needlessly increasing the learning curve. The lack of a grip safety, lack of a finger safety (glockstyle), and easily bumped location of the manual safety are all factors.

The M9 has a much higher number of unplanned for discharges than any other weapon system the military uses. Both when you look at raw numbers (total number), percentage, and weighted percentage (total number of discharges vs total number of service-members issued the firearms). On the plus side, it does seem that the M9 fires reliably.

If the Marines had not been forced to cut back on their plans to scrap the M9 due to budget cuts - and increase the number of troops issued them (including every NCO), I think we could have gotten a more accurate comparison about properly safety location (with a 1911 style firearm,) and the added safety provided by a grip safety....but sadly, like the number of licks to a tootsie pop, the world may never know.



*****
The US military is extremely poor at replacing its small arms.
Their are lighter, more reliable, easier to maintain, more accurate replacements for the SAW. It came out 30 years ago. EVEN GLOCK is not selling the same weapon he sold in the 80s.

The M240 came out in the 70s. It is pretty darned heavy. Causes supply chain problems (getting spare parts has been a problem in Afghanistan), and of course complaints about weight. Generally it gets + marks, but this survey was the same one which said troops trusted the m4, which we know is crap.

The Army just now started phasing in a M2 with a safety, a improved flash suppressor, and the ability to operate without needing to adjust head-space and timing.
***

Pretending the M9 is not a problem is the same as pretending the AR should not be replaced.
Sure we have almost all switched over to M4s....which of course fail at a 3 times higher rate the the M16A4 but that is just according to the USMC, they don't know anything about firearms.

"…secretary of Army Guerin… assured me that we would have a new competition for a new rifle for our troops. That was 2007. Here we are, six years later, and the army is now telling us we’re going to have a new competition in 2014… Because the guys that are responsible for making the decision on purchasing the rifles are not the guys that are out there on the line. Because if they were, we would have already had this competition…

On July 13, 2008, in the battle of Winot [sic] in Afghanistan, 200 Taliban troops attacked the U.S. troops at a remote outpost in Eastern Afghanistan. The Taliban were able to break through our lines… Believe it or not, do you know what killed most of us? Our own rifles. Practically every one of our dead was found with his m-16 torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. That’s occurring now. Except it’s not getting any press.

…You know, a lot of people do a lot of things for our country, but nobody does for our country what the soldier on the frontline does – nobody. Mr. secretary of the Army. This is a moral question. Get the rifle competition going. Members of congress, members of the senate who are on the armed services committee don’t allow this to continue to happen." Senantor Tom Coburn [R-OK

[Brick]

Oh crud! Why in hell didn't they just attach a night sight to a shortened 3.5" rocket launcher? It would have been much cheaper!

Besides that why do we keep adopting AT weapons that have such a bad back-blast that if don't kill your squad members behind you they set the damn woods on fire?

[ForeverPA]

Bofors is a powerhouse. You wouldn't think of Sweden as a place to go for military arms.