Template talk:Modern US Infantry Weapons

FN P90

Can someone find a more recent source to confirm or deny the use of the FN P90? The only source on the P90's page is from 1999 and I can't verify it anywhere else. And if we're going to keep it add the caliber "5.7x28" to the bottom" Товарищ (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Mod 0/1/2

I have removed the "Mod 0/1/2/3" from the various articles wikilinks, because it not only clutters the the navbox, but it doesn't denote a different weapon, for example a weapon with 3 revisions (Mod 0/1/2) is still the same weapon and the article will discuss the various revisions/variants. All weapons classified with the Mk X Mod Y system also always starts with a Mod 0, the Mod part can be left out. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Grenade launchers

I have split grenade launchers from machine guns, because they two aren't remotely related and if you have split rifles into assault/carbine/sniper/submachine-gun, then surely we can split machine guns from grenade launchers ;-) Both categories also have quite a few entries. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

EX 16 and EX 17?

Why is the FN SCAR called the Mk 16 and the Mk 17 in the article? Hayden120 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I decided to just change it to Mk 16 and Mk 17. I also added (FN SCAR) to the link, it is often referred to by this name. Hayden120 01:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet heard of it being standardized, which is why I listed it with its experimental designation. If they were to be standardized then it would be Mk 16 Mod 0 and Mk 17 Mod 0. I could easily be wrong on this as well as I have not been paying close attention to the progress of the SCAR models. -- Thatguy96 03:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Expirimental Weapons be Here

I mean they wernt adopted, how are they modern weapons of the US army if there not adopted. The only exemption is the FN SCAR ForeverDEAD 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know this is answering a question with a question and is bad etiquette, but why can't they be on the list? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well for obviouse reasons that the list would be clutterd. I dont feel it helps to show someone a weapon that doesnt have anything to do with the military anymore. Also how is it a infantry weapon if it was never given to them in the first place? Esskater11 07:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of some other weapons

Would there be a problem with adding weapons like the (M2)60mm and (M252)82mm Mortar systems, (M47)Dragon and (FGM-148)Javelin missile systems? I have used all of these systems while in the Infantry between 1998 and 2002. Is the template really for direct fire weapons and non anti-armor missiles? Tigey (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think all of those that you mentioned are infantry weapons. No reason why it should be limited to direct fire weapons. Generally, the reason is that direct-fire weapons are given much more air time in all respects. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

lol

accidentely pressed enter before I was done with my edit summary. Somebody should add hand grenades and mines. --Phil1988 (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

SCAR rifle and Mark 23 pistol

SCAR should probably be added - it went to Afghanistan with the Rangers this winter.

Is there a reason the Mark 23 pistol was not on the list? Is there a general vs limited issue preference in play here? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on SCAR - see it's there in the list. D'oh.

Still curious about Mark 23. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

SF

A lot of these are weapons used by special forces (i.e. NOT standard weapons of the US military).