I don't really like how the M9 works with a locking block instead of a tilting barrel. The M249 tends to jam too much because of the magazine system it shouldn't have. And the 240 isn't too bad, but a tad on the big and heavy side, and I think the M60E4 is a better gun. But that's just me.

I've just heard people say "The US military is great, everything they use is good and we shouldn't give American soldiers cheap weapons from other countries."
Kinda just shot themselves in the foot. X3

Yeah. Not to mention that those three guns are pretty expensive. But there is a clause that they do need to be manufactured in the U.S. to some extent, so now we have foreign companies moving into the U.S. in order to build guns. Not a bad idea at all.

Guess I haven't thought about it much?

I'm not a big fan of military arms being made overseas. For small arms I guess it doesn't matter AS much since we make them here as well. But we can't even build a missile without chinese components, which is a potentially disastrous supply chain situation.

Most people don't think about it. With all the renaming of the weapon systems to an alphanumeric code, it takes away their origin.

Out-sourcing our military goods causes a net drain on the economy, rather than a gain. WWII boosted our economy so much because most of what we used was made here in the US.

Yeah, but to outright reject good ideas because they come from another country (the idiots claiming Americans should use American designed and made guns) is stupid and backwards.

Perhaps, but we are fully capable of producing equally superb designs, we just can't do it as cheaply, thus we buy elsewhere.

The old adage stills holds true. "Remember; your equipment is made by the lowest bidder."

I recently bought a 92FS. LOVE LOVE LOVE IT. It's a nice gun, breaks down easily, and after almost 500 rounds though it works perfectly still, no jams. Excellent gun imo.

i dont like them...im more to the colt pistols and browning mg.....

Which browning MG? M1917? M1919? Ma Deuce?

We still use the latter two, as far as I'm aware (M2s quite a bit more), but the guns stated are not replacements for them, moreso for the M60... and Browning (the company) is owned by FN, who makes the Minimi (M249) and the FN MAG (M240) listed.

As for the DURR WE SHUD USE DA FOTYFIVE types, yes, it was a marvelous gun for it's time, but a single stack weapon, in a caliber the rest of NATO never adopted, with 4,000 different methods of carry... it's not a good service arm, not anymore at least.

It's a great IPSC gun, a great self-defense gun for a nightstand, and was a great military arm when the rest of the world was using single-stacks in anemic rounds like 7mm nambu, but it hasn't stood the test of time well. Frankly, the DoD could have gone with better choices than the Beretta, but the keys of being double stack, and chambered in 9x19, would have to remain.

I personally think the .45ACP is a great round. There could be modifications made on the basic 1911 design that would allow a higher capacity with minimal increase of grip dimensions. Perhaps even adopt a modern version of the Hi Power, the pistol John Browning favored over his older 1911 design.

No modern company could make the 1911, single or double stack, for the quantities ordered, without serious QC cuts, and it's not a gun you have much fudge room with. I've seen too many cracked Kimbers, and Taurus's with safeties for show only already.

For a lot less money, you can get a 45series Smith that will function as well, be easier to mass produce, and have higher capacity from even a single stack.

The 1911 is not a bad gun. The round it fires is not a bad round, but it's time on the battlefield has all but sunset.

Browning actually died before the Hi-Power was finalized, but it is a fine weapon. I believe most commonwealth nations and the UK still use it as an issued sidearm.

Also, the goofy types who usually want only MADE IN USA stuff buy things by brand only. Which is why you see a million fudds touting the superiority of the XD, while ignoring that it's a piece of Croatian crap.

All three are made here as per requirement with government contract.

M9 isn't bad, biggest issue thus far with them is basically just coping with the hot NATO ammo. I think the SIG it was competing with would have been a better choice, but both are fairly, design-oriented rather than rugged-oriented. The 59 series Smith and Wesson would have made a fine service sidearm.

I don't really think the international arms community can be segmented quite so easily when everyone steals design elements, or even whole designs without full patent from one another, or sells a design, then has to work around their own old patents.

I mean, the L85 is essentially an H&K tweaked AR-180, which was a gun itself that is a self-patent dodger. You have Italian guns cloned after Czech guns that borrow heavily from a Belgium gun invented in part by an American.

Hell, even Maxim sold his guns to Europe before the U.S.

Basically, unless it's a Warsaw Pact/NATO split, guns are guns, individual design principles matter more than country of origin. Now, place of manufacture matters for jobs and keeping tight reigns of quality control.

I just don't see how someone can justify restricting our armament to only firearms 100% designed and made by their country and then conveniently ignoring the guns designed outside the country.
Guns are guns and military armament should be determined by what works best in extremes (both in application and function) as well as the average environment, not just "ideal situations".

Meh, if we ever really went on the mentality of using only guns that always work when you pull the trigger, we'd be using Glocks and some form of AK, like a Valmet, or Galil.

We don't. But for any large scale contract to the US military we do require that the weapons be made here.

And we are not the only country that adds that requirement, which is why Cadanian militay uses the C7 (a Canadian mfg version of the m-16/m-4 family of weapons).

We don't restrict based on any criteria other than functionality (supposedly). But certain people forget that a few of our weapons weren't designed by an American designer and believe that all weapons should be both made and designed here.

Well thise are most likely the same folks who forget that John C. Garand was Canadian.

From everything I hear, the C7 is a fair bit more badass than what it's based off of.

M14 all the way.

Well I always did like the M60E3 and I've never had a problem with the S&W 59 series.

I never saw a problem with the 1911 series. =3
If we had to transition to a 9mm, I don't see a problem with adopting a more modern Hi Power.

Well, the 1911's we had were getting long in the tooth. There hadn't been any large purchaes since Korea.

I know the 1911's we had in my unit were completely trashed, and we couldn't complete a single course of fire without at least one 1911 being red lined.

I think that both the 1911 and the HP are excellent designs, but I am among the group that thinks it was time to update the standard issue pistol. Especially with all of the hand fitting that theses high end 1911's require to make the operate reliably.

Well, do you think the M9 would handle 40+ years of rough handling with minimal maintenance? I doubt it. If properly supplied and maintained, virtually any pistol will be great as a service sidearm.

Or they could send 'em to me to tune up. =3

I'm not questioning how long a properly maintained firearm will remain serviceable. What I am stating is based on my experience with 1911's when I was on active duty, the wholesale rebuilding of the 19911's that were in service would be extremely cost prohibative. So based on my experience I think that we were in a position that replacing was better then rebuilding, even if all we did was buy more 1911's.

*nods* Understandable. =3