nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 14, 2008 12:45 AM

Peachsurprize - you are f...ing crazy

Posted by: Michelle at June 14, 2007 12:51 PM

Peaches:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbdiagram.pdf

Posted by: Demophilus at May 16, 2007 01:49 PM

Peaches:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/afdbdiagram.pdf

Posted by: Demophilus at May 16, 2007 01:48 PM

a US citizen, and a person who provided significant PRE 9-11 intelligence that pretty much named the plotters of it, has been implanted with an audio tooth transmitter which is satitellited. the persons who arranged this were unknown to her, and she has been subjected to severe -type equipt tracking equipt, but its in the hands of inexperienced, and criminals. They can see her on the road like on Television,and can hear nearby conversation. they are gangstalking her with horrible harrassment and underminding. Including stealing all her financial and personal data. they are murdering witnesses who know persons donated cars, casha nd property to her . She lives in PARK FOREST IL and has heard these blacks killing in the nite at various suburban locations including some fellow US military undercover.
She has asked over and over for help and has located four bases of this forgein military op which runs a fullscale alquaida operation . There is an all black secret war with over 2000 members now and a large significant White following as well, but their issues are crime related.
The matter is out of control and based around PARK FOREST UNIVERSITY PARK FLOSSMOOR, COUNTrY CLUB HILLS< ORLAND PARK , TINELY PARK AND BRIDGEVIEW/CRESTWOOD.They are using chemical assaults on her, and poisoning the water supply in park forest with melamine. and practice using yellow block uranium powder as well. Local officals have been trained NOT TO RESPOND.
She has significant info but no one seems to want to take the report.
see yahoo 360 blog under peacheswrites for some updates. They changed the password on her so she cant update her blog.

Posted by: Peachsurprize at May 15, 2007 09:44 PM

Though I study those matters from years, I'm very pragmatic and not too tecnical. I'm no snob or a cold calculator, though I study technical details professionally.
And, I like to use harsh expressions when we talk about those things.... even if I'm not american :)

SO, firearms are made to defeat the enemy before he does, and live, period.

The whole concept of adopting a pdw and ship it to Iraq is a pile of shit.

Probably useful in the real 20 percent of the work spec people do, so it's like the 2 percent of the stuff you're gonna do with a firearm as a whole in modern warfare.

You already got the perfect pdw for military use , and its the m16 system. It was first issued for that use, airfield defense, not for heavy duty. They decided to put it as ordnance as a strategic tool to provide 1- more ammo and easy shooting, easy learning 2- wounding potential very profitable in a modern warfare situation against AN ARMY. It was the best STRATEGICAL stuff to fight the russian organization on the globe , and if cold war got hot you could have had a great number of soldiers wounding the enemy easily and from adequately far, few hours of training. It was a matter of NUMBERS.

Now you find yourself in a position were you want to STOP threats, not to win wars (sorry to say that I'd like to know the opinion of people who GOT there). So, you find yourself with an underpowered "piercer" rifle for serious work ...... and troops (contractors too) in the backlines, getting more and more involved in firefights.

Importantly, soldiers feel they're shooting peas.

So....let's buy newer toys (see the USELESS xm8, which is a m16 in a trashy scifi suit, internals from the 50s..) ! let's waste money (sorry for the social security system anyways...)

I see two solutions

- work over the m4, or any other stoner system which is great for "light" firearms, and armorers who knows the basics will agree with me on this (MP7 IS A STONER SYSTEM), make something like a bullpup or anything like this , the keypoint is study recoil COMPENSATION (more on it later) that would lenghten the barrel and lessen the weight of the whole system (which is already very light). The enemy will find out 5.56 is a better pdw caliber than a 4.5 or whatever I'll assure you.And yes the 5.56 will stop bulletproof enemies , with MODERN recoil compensation will allow at least half of the ole m16 dispersion , and will perform GREATLY in short distances (real user on combat know that m16 is a killer on short distances normally more than a 7.62) .

Important: if you adopt a pdw expect a lot of them to go on heavy duty frontlines (see m1 carbine ). How are you gonna deal with a 4.5 mm caliber in that situation? We're griping about the 5.56 mm , imagine a 4 mm deal!!

- work over the 7.62
Yes indeed we have found the best caliber for military use (not paperwork bullshit) and it's the 7.62 period. It's big enough to be modernized in centuries.Volume size and caliber are the best for the job. It touches until where modern optics can make you see (widespread use of optics made people see m16 faults) .But's expensive and it kicks and shouts flames.
Changing materials to allow a less costy cartridge (less heavy too -new gunpowders, new metal procedures-?), and WORK OVER RECOIL SYSTEMS will provide the best small arm available at least until caseless stuff comes out.

Summarizing a modern rifle round:

7.62 caliber nato

-work over materials of the round
-work over recoil compensation and fast sighting.

Recoil systems (and fast sight acquistion) are THE FUTURE , who doesn't get that shouldn't work on new rifles, or at least will fail miserably.

Keep in mind both of the solution I proposed would use almost 50 years of materials and production lines already organized and expended, very effective way of improving the most important thing, such as infantry tools (at least in my opinon...... media docet ) without feeling guilty.

About recoil systems, I could talk about this topic forever, and people that's on the front will certainly agree, screw "round placement" reality IS different.Expecially with poorly trained youngsters.

It's very funny the american point of view is wasting time and money creating tons of new ammo possibilities (6mm) that bring nowhere. And europe, offering some handy toish tools that won't really be the best you get when the shit hits the fan.

Anyway, the thing tha bugs me, is that the site is full of people that talks about using guns under stress, and nobody comes out with the idea of KEEPING THE SAME PRESTATIONS that make you feel safe, WORKING OVER THE FEEDBACK OF EXISTING RIFLES AND CUT THE PRICE OF EXISTING AMMO so you get more rounds with an adequate punch.
I mean guys did you go in iraq or you just played videogames?

You waste tax dollars implementing system tha will grow thrash. Oh well, that's the secret of american warfare right now, badly enough NOT ONLY on firearms but on MUCH MORE COSTY tecnology, spending money and trashing, get rich and disappear.....that's a shame.We already have the technology.

So summarizing : MODERN RECOIL SYSTEM 7.62 rifle for frontline (more than 200 yards) ,
enhanched 5,56 system as pdw-close combat (200 yards) .... and smgs for specops.
That's all for longarms.

Finally: we have reaced the peak of gunpowder ammo systems (guns included) development just after ww2 .... no need to work again over "new system" on case ammo, just modernize them. Use the remaining money on more
important things like social care and development of nature-friendly resources ...

It's a matter of mentality.

If anybody wants to talk on the subject go ahead, I'd like to hear armorers opinions or somebody who really uses the stuff. thx for your time, hope I DID upset somebody just to make people think.

Posted by: Jimmi at May 7, 2007 08:52 PM

Does anyone realize that the average rifleman simply doesn't squeeze the trigger enough in training? He (or she) is certainly getting some OJT now. Nonetheless, the debate of a superior fighting rifle will rage on for all eternity. 5.56, 7.62, 6.8, etc. etc. All have positive attributes; all have set-backs. Get some Marine CWO Gunner's and some returning vets (trigger pullers) together and sort out the materials list and then send them to congress with their appraisals. No middleman, red-tape bullshit interference. Due diligence. Whatever the outcome we need to get it moving forward instead of allowing 1 or 2 program managers to piss around for a decade before making a decision. Urgent need statements (UNS) and rapid aquisition programs? Yeah, right. There's nothing urgent or rapid about it! Our antiquated and monopolized test evaluation and procurement system needs an enema and our troops need a damn suitable assortment of weapons that effectively kill their intended targets. Make it happen and make it happen now.

EOD GySgt(ret) JW WAGNER

Posted by: J. WAGNER at May 5, 2007 08:56 AM

The m-4 doesn't have the stopping power to really get the job done. I have seen bullets bounce off of windshields of cars. The Army needs to go with a bigger round and a better design of weapon. Thank God I was chosen as an SDM. I carry the good old M-14. Not the ideal weapon to clear houses with but it has the stopping power. If the Army decided on something in the middle it would be great.

Posted by: mike at May 3, 2007 05:27 PM

6.8 cal will work: It will stop someone and not weigh the solder down like the 7.62. You don't have to re-invent it, it is already field tested. The uppers already fit the lower receivers. We sell the ammo in the states.
Dam, you can even go hunting with it.
It is all-around kick ass. No wonder they won't use it.

Posted by: MKFrizelle at May 3, 2007 04:28 PM

AK-47. Who care's about the load you carry, there is always gonna be plenty just laying around because of dumbass on the other side who supposedly isn't trained as well as we....

Oh, and for those that say "Just keep it clean"... that's like telling someone to say "Oops, time-out while I clean my weapon" to the enemy.. Geez, how many of us at 18 and 19 years old really knew how to clean our barracks rooms much less our damn weapons.... You bleeding morons.. Make it simple stupid that even a hillybilly can use and you've got a good weapon system... kinda like the AK-47, doncha think? Damn bleedin moronic idiots... tell me to keep my weapon clean... why don't you just take a bus instead of driving your gas guzzling SUV and we won't have to get involved in countries where they chant death to the infidels over dinner...

Posted by: dave at May 2, 2007 01:23 AM

Bring back the M14 and AR15. Hell with 9mm crap!

Posted by: Chick at April 19, 2007 04:28 AM

simple...get the Kel-Tec PLR-16 to replace the 9mm and the SU-16D to replace the M16/M4 if they want to stay with 5.56.

Posted by: benno at April 15, 2007 08:13 PM

Since the world's population is moving more to urban sites, several basic points re current arms.

1. The M16/M4 both still have foward assists indicating a basic design flaw. (I'm aware of the powder issue)

2. The above weapons are too long for room to room clearing in Iraq.

3. The Bloody Baretta M9 is totally useless, just ask anyone back from Iraq.

Introduce either the 40 cal or reintroduce the 45 cal. in a striker pistol.

STOP training people to shoot to the center of mass i.e. the Trauma Plate, and teach them to shoot upper chest, head or below the vest and from the hip too. I think you'll find the 40/45 more than adequate for the job at close quarters. If you don't believe me go to quickshoot.com and play the three short videos.

Then bring back the 7.62 with a proper operating system.

Posted by: David B. Monier-Williams at April 15, 2007 05:27 PM

Even though I found the M4 to be a good weapon im going to have to agree that there are superior alternatives, paticularly because of the proliferation of ballistic armor and the 5.56's inability to penetrate brick/cinderblock walls. If the airforce was like the army we would be fielding the p38 or we wouldnt use the F117 argueing that there is better technology around the corner, or I wouldn't have a computer thinking there will be something better in 6 months. The biggest problem is that material command and the DOD have this idea that we need one new rifle, a p90, CAWS or G11 would have been great for close in fighing but at ranges of 700-1000+ meters against the talaban I would like a 7.62, mabey a FN FAL, or mabey just a gun which can be rechambered for different rounds depending upon the enviornment. We are never going to do this right if we do it on the cheep.

Posted by: ben at April 14, 2007 02:52 PM

this argument is about ready to cause my head to implode. The big question is why arn't we taking care of the guys in the field?! They should be the prime reason for developing anything. The powers to be have known about the problems with the M-16 and its' variants and still GI's have been the victim of the Army's ignorant procurement policies. I believe that their inaction is criminal. Our Army has a history of dumb procurement policies that date back to the civil war and has continued to this day. Putting a star on ones' shoulder doesn't make them a leader. A leader takes care of his soldiers!!!!

Posted by: ripcord at April 14, 2007 12:51 PM

I meant AR-15/M-16, of course.

It's late. I'm in Cairns, Oz and it has been a long red wine fuelled evening.Oh shucks. I can't cope.:)

Posted by: Bob Murphy at April 14, 2007 10:38 AM

I was issued an XM16E1 in V Corps LRRP Co (Abn) in late 1964. I never fired a magazine out of that sucker that it didn't jam.
As the Soviet Order of Battle instructor I had a folding stock AK issued to me by V Corps G-2 and NEVER had a single malfunction in 5000 or so rounds manufactured in Finland by Lapua.
The 7.62x39 round is a beauty for most purposes.
Emile Stoner lamented to me when I was selling guns in 1967/68 that he could hardly stand it when the Army took the AR-16 (M-16)years after he had developed the AR-18 which did not jam no matter what powder you put in its 5.56mm round.

But the bottom line is no matter how good your 5.56mm projectile launcher is we need 7.62mm mass and impact for the distances and operating conditions we have encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq and we will need 7.62mm anywhere we operate in the Middle East or arid Africa.

The silliest thing of all is that we should probably have beaugarded the MG-42 from old kamerade after WWII instead of developing the M-60 and we should probably be using Hechler and Kock G-3s and their 5.56mm variant of that same weapon in our armed forces today.

Our guys (and gals, bless them) deserve better than they are getting from Uncle Sam.

Posted by: Bob Murphy at April 14, 2007 10:34 AM

Why not let the procurement people personally field
test the new equipment in combat conditions so that
they might have more respect in their decisions?
Be a warrior for a while instead of a beaurocrat. Like walk a mile in my shoes before you make me walk/run a war through.

Posted by: clyde brown at April 14, 2007 10:14 AM

Heh. Was talking about the civilian compromise for the proposed rifle. The one that is still available for Law Enforcement/Military is the RAV system, on the same robarm.com website. My bad, was fixing to order one, and brain farted.

Posted by: P.A. at April 14, 2007 09:31 AM

Robinson Armament had a nice rifle that had seen some time in Afghanistan with certain units called the XCR. It was becoming readied for the folks in the field when the military pulled the plug on it.

The beauty of the system was its modular design- it was able to fire 5.56,7.62x39 (AK), and the powerful 6.8 round. They had it set so it would go burst, full auto, and single, and at one time a belt feed was considered, or at least rumored. It was also priced right in the range of a decked out M4, and is built in Utah. It deserved a chance, and still does. Anything that will fire ammo found in-theater, is a logistical dream. The M16 after forty years of service needs to go to the retirement home.

We can wait for a super-duper airburst round, but what if we're hit with an EMP device and the electronics are rendered useless? You just have an expensive, large round that will weigh down the soldier and put them at risk some more. Keep the weapon system simple, and you'll have happy people who can have faith in their equipment.

I own a Robinson M-96 (looks like a Stoner from the Vietnam days), and it won't jam,cleaning is a snap, and it tolerates dirt incredibly well. Check out both at www.robarm.com , and see what they robbed our troops of.

Posted by: P.A. at April 14, 2007 09:14 AM

I am actually quite dissappointed that everyone knows so much canceling and millions are being wasted, and yet it continues unabated. Who has the reins. Are there any investigations? In viet nam we always got the shit out in the field but the equiptment at Camp Eagle was real nice! Nothing changes but the opponent. What a shame!

Posted by: jim at April 13, 2007 10:26 PM

I welcom the switch from the m16 to the m4 smaller more manuverable exellent for riding in a humve and for general carry, only IT STILL JAMS!.You can clean your rifle like its your new born babies bottom but its still less reliable then a rainstorm in the desert.The 5.56 thing isnt working either , maybe thats why the motto is one shot one kill because everyones supposed to be a head shot thats the only way your gonna take any one out with a 5.56. My m4 has never jamed in combat i just remeber the m16 days so im a litle weary I dont feel comfortable with it kinda like runing with siczors one day your gonna trip.

Posted by: Ima Endafield at April 13, 2007 09:17 PM

Ideally, the military should return to a .30 caliber battle rifle. When you plant someone with a .30, they stay down. I would suggest something along the lines of Springfield Armory's SOCOM series.

Posted by: ripcord at April 13, 2007 08:27 PM

in 1991 i was part of one of 6 LRSD teams. i carried an m-16a2 w/ bi-pod and scope. i cleaned it every day, and before every mission, and during our hide time. it never jammed, but i believe its time for something more reliable and user friendly. with the conflicts in desert environs, in urban combat, ur weapon best not jam. there is a better weapon out there for the field, and cqb. its the h-k 416. the SCAR is as good. its all about money, and things won't change any time soon. Rhyno 2-0 out...

Posted by: RHYNO at April 13, 2007 10:07 AM

When it comes to the M-16 A-2 Or the M-16 M-A I think the the US Army had this weapon for to long , and it needs to be replaced.I have had more problems in the field with jams, and mafunctiond with the weapon. The SOP team is right, go back to a short stoke piston, and a more reliable system. I have fired more weapons that are so superior than ousr.The politicians alwas say give the best to the troops. Tell the clowns on the hill and the ones who don't face the armed opposition to fire the weapon in a dust storm or any inclement weather condidtion, let them put their ass on the line. Give the troops the best weapons the USA can buy. Or for knock down power let them use the AK-47 to even the score, or bring back anew version of the M-14 with the knock done power, or the new 6.8SPC round. Get rid of the the 5.56x45 round. this is my comment on rifles. As for pistols, go back to the .45APC round, and for close in house to house,go to a sub-machine gun .45ACP/ the hell with the 9mm. rd.GTB/SFC/RET.

Posted by: George Berger/SFC/RET at April 13, 2007 08:06 AM

I was a Tropo platoon leader in the first Gulf War. Talk about tight quarters... Have you seen the inside of a TRC-170? Not only tight but full of high voltage equipment. Troops routeanly left all equipment (except chemical protective masks) outside the vehicle. The entire unit was issued M16s which were usualy left hooked to the tail gate. In my after action report of Desert Storm I mentioned the need for smaller more compact weapons for Signal troops (I think I sugested the old grease gun or Beretta 9mm as the best options). My company comander deleated my coments from the unit's official AAR.

Posted by: Clark Myers at April 12, 2007 10:48 PM

I concur with several opinions regarding the value of the M16. It has superior firepower and great range. The only problem is you have to maintain it. With the 101AB in Vietnam in Ashau Valley, we made sure all the soldiers cleaned their weapon every chance they got. I can never remember a jam during any firefight except for the idiots that didn't keep their weapon clean. I also worked down south as a MAT advisor and even in the delta we never had jams as long as the weapon was cleaned. I don't think enough emphasis is made today on these details. I base this on the news videos of Iraq combat patrols. I see many times the troops all bunched up which is the kiss of death especially for IEDs, booby traps, and automatic weapons. With high fire power weapons there is no need to have everone grouped together. My son is currenty a finishing his Marine Officer training and one thing I will tell him is his weapon is his life and it only functions if it is clean.

Posted by: Major Mike Sickels at April 12, 2007 07:48 PM

I just prefer to swing my meat around and defeat the enemy with awe.

Learn to shoot.

Jeremiah "The Bullfrog".

de oppresso liber

Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer at April 12, 2007 07:12 PM

I was aroung when we used the M-14 with which to qualify. Then in Infantry school we were introduced to the M-16, (no A1, A2 etc). When first handed the weapon someone made the comment, "you can tell it's Matel, it's swell." That summed up our initial impression of the weapon. In January of 1967, I was a pointman for a Long Range Patrol Team, Recondo Platoon, HHC 2/502nd, 1st BDE, 101st ABN DIV. In Vietnam. I was presented with a nice new XM-15. 11.5" barrel, 3" flash suppressor, collapsable stock. It handled fast and did not get caught up in the brush as easily as it's full sized cousin. It did not jam as often as did the full sized 16 either. One day I did make a 75 to 80 meter head shot, (no wind), and sent an enemy pointman to a life beyond. The weapon saved my hide at least 18 times when it came down to who can bring their weapon into service faster, me or the NVA soldier I now face on the trail ahead. Personally, I like the M-16, in particular, the model they now call the M4. I used it, abused it and lived with it night an day for nearly 12 months I spent in the feild, I did cary an M-79 with canister rounds for a while and a few AK-47's, PPHS41's and a Thompson. The XM-15, (later called the CAR-15) made me a believer. I could also carry a basic load of 480 to 520 rounds, no problem. Try that with a NATO 7.62, (which I also love and worship!).

Bottom line, keep the weapon, spend some more money teaching these new troops how to maintain their weapon systems in order they might serve them well. As we found out, the jamming can be over come, if one employs the proper corrective action.

Airborne, All the way!

br

Posted by: Brien Richards at April 12, 2007 01:28 PM

When I fought in Vietnam, I was a crew chiwf on an H Model Huey. I had an M-60 machine gun(which we finally debugged) and an M-16 as secondary armaent. I relied on the M-60 BUT I did use the M-16 on a number off occasions. Now the M-16 is THE BEST rifle, for s firing range. HOWEVER, in combat, its useless, or worse it jams right when the enemy is belt buckle range! ! ! Now, I said then, and say now, if the Government would get off its lazy, money spending butt and really test a new combat rifle, OR go back to an older better design, then we would have the "bestestthere are" and noone could say, "that thing is worthless!" and mean it. My sson-in-law was in Iraq, and he carried an M-16 and a .45 auto pistol. That pistol(he gave up on the M-16 cause it kept jamming and genrally flocking up at the worst possible moment) saved his life on more than one occasion, including saving an Iraqui special forces man who was wounded, but that another story. So, get on the Ball, ARMY and get the best to our troops cause when you are in combat, a second is literally a life time, or the end of your life if your rifle JAMS. DANNY

Posted by: Spec 4 Danny J. Davison(ret.) at April 12, 2007 10:23 AM

I was fortunate enough to carry both an M9 and an M16A2 during my final tour in Afghanistan. The M16 was, of course, too long to wield from a vehicle, while the Beretta was too anemic to be effective on targets beyond 20-30 meters or behind anything thicker than sheet metal. Some in my unit also carried the MP5- IMHO, marginally better to the M9. The MP5 is fun to shoot but it lacks the KE to penetrate vehicles, windshields, steel doors, etc... Our MP5's also had the fixed stock which didn't help inside our vehicle.

Why do we waste so much time and $$$$$ looking at unreasonable prospects with untested ammunition, bizzare mechanical features, and those made outside of the USA? I feel that a shortened AR 18 (AR 180) in selective fire would be the most cost effective solution to this dilemma. The problems of the past have been addressed; it is more dependable in dusty environments than the M16/M4 platform; the barrel can be shortened and stock removed (or the weapon could be modified to accept an HK style collapsible or side folder)thereby creating a shorter profile; STANAG mags and current ammunition are interchangeable and widely available; and, finally, you could put rails all over it and "Ninja" the !@#$%^& out of it w/ grips, sights, lasers, lights, compasses, GPS', Tom Mix pocket knife, etc......

There is my 2 cents. God bless our troops and the USA!

Posted by: Army MSG (Retired) at April 12, 2007 09:20 AM

When I was in Nam I had a Thompson. It worked even when it was full of mud and crud. If a .45 cal isn't good enough these days then create a calibre that is good enough using the old Thompson action on a short frame. Then you've got a short, deadly weapon that never quits!

Posted by: Jim at April 12, 2007 03:15 AM

Why not let the procurement people personally field
test the new equipment in combat conditions so that
they might have more respect in their decisions?
Be a warrior for a while instead of a beaurocrat.

Posted by: AL G at April 11, 2007 10:15 PM

Why not let the procurement people personally field
test the new equipment in combat conditions so that
they might have more respect in their decisions?
Be a warrior for a while instead of a beaurocrat.

Posted by: AL G at April 11, 2007 10:13 PM

We need to move to that nasty little .28 cal round that punch through 2 armored vests at a hundred meters or more.

Posted by: edwSGT3rdClass at April 11, 2007 03:26 PM

They should just continue the PDW version of the XM8. I've fired one of those and I like it better then the MP-7. Not saying the 7 is a bad gun or anything, either would be fine with me.

Posted by: Scott at April 8, 2007 07:30 PM

Why choose a weapon that has a different cal than those already in use. The fewer calibers you have to deal with the easier to resupply and swap ammo. The 5.56 works so make a weapon (in the USA) that will use it.

Posted by: Richard at April 6, 2007 07:37 PM

One of the BEST-Rifles out there ( For a Re-placement Weapon ) would be The M96 Expeditionary® Rifle. It could be Had with "Full-Auto-Switch on it. Here is a Link if you want to take Look.
http://www.robarm.com/RA_m96_faqs_answers.htm

Posted by: Rod at April 6, 2007 04:37 PM

Lucky I am not in the army ´cause those bureaucrats would let me die of inferior body armor and dated weaponry. God bless Dragon Skin armor, bull-up rifles and APLP ammo.

PS.: I would be for TAR-21 with short barrel. Even using 5,56x45 ammo.

Posted by: Sunkez at March 16, 2007 01:46 PM

The MP-7 is great in everything demanded by a PDW except stopping power and impressiveness.
The stopping power of that gun is doubtful - even in gelatine photos released by the company (never with scale) there's little visible effect. The bullet enters, tumbles once by 180° without fragmentation or much primary cavity and exits.
The overall effect in soft tissue is probably less than a simple lead shot of 9x19 does (bone hits would complicate matters infinitely in either case).

And its performance behind armour is comparable to a stiletto thrust at best - there's only 115 J left after penetrating the titanium/kevlar vest at 100m. That's a fraction of what miniature pocket pistols have - and nobody accounts them with stopping power.

Last but not least - the very small shot signature (noise and flash) doesn't help the detterrance effect - louder guns with more muzzle fire help to protect their user by scaring people.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 15, 2007 09:52 PM

Good Afternoon quality/hardware,

Sure, the round is 4.6mm x 30mm, steel core-full copper jacket, 24.7 gr., mv 2,378 fps, me 338 lbs.,at 100 meters can pentrate 1.6mm Titanium. Arm. Plate and 20 layers of kevlar, effective range 200 meters.

The M-7 is hosterable, can be fired with one hand like a pistol, extend the sholderstock and it can be fored like a rifle, or pull down broom handle and it can be fire two handed like a SMG. The magazine holds 40 rounds, M-7 has both full (750 rps) and semi-auto modes of operation.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2007 04:51 PM

That MP7 is a pretty sweet rig. What is the bullet weight and FPS of the steel-core round?

Posted by: qualityhardware at March 15, 2007 03:49 PM

Good Morning Folks,

Bother the P-90 and the MP=7 have been tested in Iraq (both by pvt. contractors and the MP-7 by U.S. Spec. Ops.) and found to be worthy. The choice between appears to be the MP-7 and it's 4.6mm bullet with a hardened steel core. The 4.6mm round of the MP-7 can do something that the 5.56mm can't and that is disable a vehicles engine. The dainty 4.6mm has shown it can do this at a 100 meters.

An additional factor with either the P-90 or the MP-7 is that they are both less expensive then either the M-4, M-19 or the M-9 handgun.

Like the M-3 "grease gun" off WW II, there are several good reasons that a PDW should be adpoted by the U.S. Military and one bad reason why it shouldn't, Colt. Colt owns all the copyrights and patens on the AR operating system and has made itself indepenseable to the brass.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2007 01:17 PM

Or something like the Isreali Magal or the Trevor? Maybe just buy the plans, edit a bit and build it in the USA? Same thing with the HK416: undeniably better then the M4.

Posted by: Macaca at March 15, 2007 02:33 AM

I think this weapon already exists -- isn't it called the Uzi? ;)

Seriously though, sounds like more pork in the budget, just like how we won't replace the M-16 with a better weapon (one that would save lives) like the 416 because of all the "business-as-usual" and "keep jobs here" shenanigans Congress is always up to. God forbid we use a time-tested weapon with the reliability of an AK-47, yet compact.

Posted by: glenn at March 14, 2007 07:26 PM

Sawed of shot gun, you don't even have to be a good shot. Just point and shoot!

Posted by: davids at March 14, 2007 06:24 PM

"Krinkov" is only a marketing name for some modified weapons.
They are merely modified AK's of different calibres.

The troops need other sstuff than that. They need guns with upper rails for sights, they need 5.56mm calibre for ammo resupply and a an interface that uses their muscle-memory.

And the biggest problem is that probably no subcarbine is compact enough to justify a procurement.

MP7 and P90 were tested intensely and P90 was obviosuly judged to be less bad. But its stopping power is lesser than that of a M4 - as a user, you'd need to exploit the full-auto controllability for many chest hits in order to drop the enemy with guarantee.

Despite the ammo trouble, the FN P90 is probably the best off-the shelf solution.

But I'd try a special cartridge for 10" barrels and combine it with a HK416 that's prepared to switch internal ballistics between NATO rounds and PDW rounds with a simple laver controlling the gas pressure on the piston. This way the weapon could use standard ammmo in emergency but have dedicated short barrel ammo for good effect.

Dedicated ammo for subcarbines is long overdue. Normal propellants of 5.56NATO burn too slow and produce excessive muzzle blast, bang and fire.
Normal bullets of 5.56NATO do perform poorly in soft tissue at 700m/sec and less because they don't tumble then anymore.

Both needs to be corrected with a special cartridge using a propellant similar to that of the P90's SS190 ammo and a dedicated bullet.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 14, 2007 03:04 PM

If anyone half half a brain, we'd buy a boatload of Krinkovs in 5.56mm using SS109, XM193 or Q3131 ammo from the Russkies.

It's cheap. It's proven. Stick a rail on the front handguard and an EOTech or Aimpoint and you're rocking.

Posted by: qualityhardware at March 14, 2007 01:20 PM

Hopefully, even if it doesn't ultimately lead toa purchase this will have the beneficial side effect of spurring FN, H&K, etc. to develop a common round. Just drives me nuts that every PDW maker also cooks up a brand-new round just for their gun.

Posted by: Moose at March 14, 2007 12:46 PM

We've been in this current war for 4+ years now, and they're only starting to acknoledge this now??? It almost makes you think the Powers That Be are intentionally trying to get good people killed. Either that or people truly do get stupider as they gain rank. I'm not sure which it is.

As has been said --pick one weapon and go with it. As long as it's reliable, and off the shelf, go with it and get it in the field rapidly. As in yesterday. Before more people are killed because they are carrying inferior weapons designed for a different war.

Posted by: Bill B at March 14, 2007 11:07 AM

True.

Their history in rifle projects is extremely poor - only when they finally accepted the Garand in the (wrong) calibre did they ONCE do a good job.
That was 70 years ago.

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 14, 2007 10:10 AM

Unfortunately I have to totally agree with Murdoc. The military has a pathetic history when it comes to upgrading personal weapons. There are many weapons out there that are already developed and in production that can outperform and outlast the M4 Carbine, but we won't see them for a looooooong time. And in this type of situation, being packed into a Humvee for hours at a time with M4 barrels poking each other in the ribs, you'd think this would get approval quickly. Just find something that's reliable (P90 please) and contract it.

Posted by: DS at March 14, 2007 10:02 AM

on PDW's for beginners:

www.personaldefenceweapons.com

Posted by: Sven Ortmann at March 14, 2007 08:31 AM