Talk:List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces

Experimental Pistols

Why is it that there are some pistols that are designed in the 1800s and 1900s considered "experimental"? I don't think the US Military is considering adopting a US made P08 Luger any time soon. 75.181.53.227 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Springfield 1903

Is the Springfield 1903 still in service in the US military? Lefty 16:29, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Not that I know of. While I believe it did see some use in Korea it was no longer in the armories by the time Vietnam rolled around. Maclyn611 19:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I beleive it is still used in some cerimonial role, along with the M1 Garand (marines use that). Both should probably be re-added to 'in secondary/cerimonial roles' along with their bayonets. user:pzg ratzinger

im like 99% sue the m1 gand is only used for cemimonyl duties(Esskater11 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

M1917

The M1917 link doesn't say anything about a revolver...? --Kenyon 16:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Actually a google search turned up this. Added it to the disambiguation article. --Kenyon 17:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces

I think that this article should be switched back to its original name "List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces." The current name is too broad and will invite the addition of commercial firearms. I also disagree with the reordering of the weapons from the previous standard of Current, Obsolete, and Experimental. I suspect that the author in question was not intending to vandalize the page, but the end result displays an equal amount of damage.

As an aside, the XM307 and XM312 need to be moved to the "List of Crew Served Weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces." D.E. Watters 00:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

List name

Why is "U.S." and not "US"? or even "USA"? GraemeLeggett

I don't have a particular reason for it other than the list previously had this name. I guess that "US" could work just as well; that way it would match List of crew served weapons of the US Armed Forces. However, then you have List of weapons of the U.S. Marine Corps. --D.E. Watters 16:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Could spell it out, United States Marine Corps, or collapse it completely USMC, but anyhow aren't the Marine Corps part of the US Armed Forces? GraemeLeggett 16:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, but the USMC uses certain weapons that are specific only to that service. The USMC list also contains more than just individual and crew-served weapons. In any case, I don't have a dog in that fight. --D.E. Watters 17:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mk 4 issue

I guess its not there anymore, but didn't it used to say in your (D.E. Watters) that the Mk 4 Mod 0 at some point became the navy designation for the rifle configuration? Not to doubt new information, and I added the Mk 4 Mod 0 bit on the M16 page too, I'm just trying to clear this up. --Thatguy96 20:49, Oct 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ezell referenced the Mk 4 Mod 0 as the "Stoner rifle" in "Small Arms Today". At the time, I thought that he meant the Stoner 63. Dockery claims that all of the SEALs' Stoner 63 were eventually configured as LMGs. Since Dockery's research is so focused on the SEALs that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. --D.E. Watters 15:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

HK 416/417

Is the US military actually testing either of these systems? I have no heard that and I think it would be big news.

I have only heard some rumours, thats all.

the only units currently using them are certain JSOC elements and Federal Agencies

Does the Asymmetric Warfare Group fall under USSOCOM? Because they are the only US military organization known to be using them. -- Thatguy96 04:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive seen a source of it being used but ONLY as they were testing it i personaly want a source that theyre actualy using these continualy(ForeverDEAD 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

The Asymetric Warfare Group equips itself with anything they hear CAG is carrying. CAG is known to use them and their procurement predates the AWG's buy based on the open source information out there. Various other SOF units have purchased 416 uppers as well. -- HS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.227.174 (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SAW Candidates

Ve3, do you have any info on the XM223? The only entry I found on the internet makes it sound like the XM233, and I can't tell which is the typo, or if they're actually different weapons. --Thatguy96 15:57, Nov 10, 2005 (UTC)

Na, actually I was hoping you might know! Ve3 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. The only thing online I can find about the XM223 is that its a Maremont SAW candidate. Now, the XM233 is also something I've seen described as a Maremont SAW candidate. They're both in 6x45mm SAW or I would've assumed one was the updated variant when the swap was made to 5.56x45mm NATO.

"Small Arms of the World, 12th Ed." and "Janes Infantry Weapons 1976" both list the 6mm Maremont entry as the XM233. This makes a certain amount of sense when the other two 6mm SAW candidates were the XM234 and XM235. --D.E. Watters 21:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

s

Ve3, I'm guessing you did the grenades thing. Oddly enough I was thinking about creating a single entry, a survey of US hand grenades since WWII. Do you think specific pages for each grenade would be nesseacy? I don't see why they can't all be on the same page. --Thatguy96 16:03, Nov 10, 2005 (UTC)

That is a nice article you made there- I will just change it to a link to that. Ve3 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sensors?

Sensors are not weapons last I checked. Shouldn't a seperate list be created for other personal infantry equipment, even if its weapon related? Not all of those sensors are weapons related I think either --Thatguy96 18:10, Nov 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well the IR lasers are not exactly sensors, but yes, its better of elsewhere. It was baiscally (and the nades thing too) just to have something down, even if its not in the best spot for while. Ve3 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Cartridges

I removed the references to M193 and M885. The standard 5.56mm cartridge currently in use is the 62 grain M855, not M885. I did not feel that the inclusion of cartridges for specific weapons was helpful, since M193 can be fired without problem out of a 1:7 or a 1:12 twist barrel. The information is overly specific since it leaves out the M196 tracer, the M856 tracer, the M995 armor-piercing, and M956 armor-piercing tracer. Also, some weapons prefer to use the 77 grain Mk 262 Mod 0 or Mod 1 cartridge. Pettifogger 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Shotguns

I'm pretty sure that the military inventory includes the Mossberg 590. [1] [2] [3]. I think the Mossberg 590 was adopted by the USMC in 1987. Pettifogger 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both are in inventory. As a matter of fact, there were a couple of notices in FBO just today from the US Army for shotgun ammo. They specifically mentioned that the ammo needed to work in the Mossberg 500 and 590, Winchester 1200, and Remington 870. --D.E. Watters 23:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the Winchester 1200 still in service too then? Ve3

Yes. Pettifogger 22:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are there three listings for the M97 and two listings for the M12? Is there any need for the duplication considering the listings go to the same place? --Charles 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Winchester 1897 should get two entries, because the commercial M1897 was purchased for use in the Phillipines, and the "trench gun" versions were purchased for WWI. --Pettifogger 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

When the Army was gearing up for World War I, all the new equipment they bought were classified as M1917. This unfortunately, included all the shotguns. However, internal documents usually just called them Winchester M97, Winchester M12, or Remington 10 riot guns, whether or not they had the heatshield and bayonet attachment or not, to avoid confusion. "The new weapon was officially adopted in 1917 as the 'Trench Gun -- Model 1917' . . . . As we will see, in addition to the Model 1908, two other types of shotguns were eventually adopted during WWI and given the same 'Trench Gun - Model 1917' nomenclature." Canfield, Bruce (1992). A Collector's Guide to United States Combat Shotguns. Lincoln, RI: Andrew Mowbray. ISBN 0-917218-53-1. --Pettifogger 07:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

m249

All the m249 and m240's have been removed. They are crew served weapons according to army documentation. Moved them to the crewserved list. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding the m249's and m240's on the list. They are NOT individual weapons. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They need to be on both lists- even though they are classified as such cs, they are not always used that way. In addition, that section is for ar/saw's- which does not always relate to if it was crew served or not. Because of this the AR list would be innaccurate on either page, so some compromise must be made for it either way. Ve3 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add this problem exists in the anti-tank assault section as well- some of those were technically cs weapons as well. The same is true for sensors section- there are also some crew served sensors/lasers. Splitting these up would problematic, and they are some in error in either case so a compromise must be made. Ve3 00:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The m240B is NEVER used as an individual weapon: it ALWAYS has a second person assistant gunning, or is vehicle mounted. Either way it's a crew served weapon not individual. The m249 is usually only carried by one person, however according to the army doctrine, it's still a crew served weapon. I'm telling this from having been an m240 and m249 gunner in the us army. They do NOT count as individual weapons. An individual weapon is a weapon that is completely designed to be operated,carried, and maintained by 1 person....i.e. a rifle, pistol, etc. THAT's why the m249 and M240B do not count: they are designed to have ammunition carried by an assistant gunner. Your information is incorrect, and needs to be changed, or else you need to change the title of the page to not say Individual Weapons. Otherwise, your information does NOT meet wikipedia criteria. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First hand source: [4] from army.mil "The M240B is a ground-mounted, gas-operated, crew-served machine gun." ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

M249 is a crew served weapon source: FAS.org [5], scroll down to see the M249/Minimi, same page also shows the m240B, and m60's. You need to remove these weapons from the Individual list. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Further link from USMA.edu (us military academy). [6]

I have no doubt it is used as crew-served weapon, but the AR/SAW section cannot be split up that way. Also, even though it may 100 percent always be used as a crew-served weapon in the Army, this may not hold true for other branches, and special operations.

The page must make compromises to cover over 200 years worth weapons, the varying defitions of use, and for categories. Keeping a unified AR/SAW list is one of these, the anti-tank assault is another. Ve3 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not work at all. You're saying on a list of oranges you have to include apples. the m249, m240, and m60 are crew served weapons, not individual weapons. I've shown you the research showing that. They do not belong on this list. Why is this so hard to understand? These are not branch specific definitions....this is the way the Department of Defense classifies for procurement purposes. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another link to the m240, m249, and m60 being referenced as crew-served weapons: they're supplied with the crew served weapons technical manual: [7] [8], [9] ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a crew served and individual weapon? An individual weapon is designed to be carried, maintained, operated all by one person (with the exception of all grenade launchers are considered crew served weapons). Crew served weapons are designed to be carried, maintained, or operated by more than one person. These include sniper rifles, grenade launchers, and machine guns such as the m249, m60 and m240. All of these weapons either require a second person to operate or maintain, or were designed with that capability in mind. That is why an m4/m16 is an individual weapon....two people can't fire one. A sniper rifle, or SAW/AR are crew served: they're both designed to have a gunner( or sniper) and assistant gunner (or spotter). A weapon cannot be crew served AND individual at the same time. It does not work like that. That's like saying something can be an apple AND and orange at the same time. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I KNOW they are all normally crew-served and who uses that definition! That is why the pages are organized this way. However, they can ALSO be used as individual weapons and they are most certainly used as SAW/AR- which is why the section makes a note of CS classification. There is no good way to handle it- including them but making a note of their nature is a way of being accurate. Not allowing for this exception is also problematic.

Deleting them, and removing the note is of course a option, but the another note must be made that that sub-section is not entirely complete and makes it harder to understand that aspect of their use. This is not even unique to that section- the anti-tank assault section has the same issue. Ve3 01:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they CANNOT be used as an individual weapon. You're not understanding. Look at the definition above of what an individual weapon is. As these are CREW SERVED weapons, they CANNOT be USED as an individual weapon. Please just assume good faith and remove them. Their continued presence is incorrect, and actually against wikipedia's policy (I've cited my sources showing my point and met the grounds of verifiability|verifiability.) I'm removing them one last time. Do not revert this edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many of them can, and they have- However, this does not effect there overall classification as CS. This is why that section makes of note this. The anti-tank and sensor sections have the same problem of mixing CS and individual weapons- its a neccesary evil to keep those sections together.

You will never see an m240 being used in the US military as an individual weapon. I'm telling you that right now, as a prior M240 gunner. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a big difference between just listing them incorrectly as ind. when they are crew-served, and talking about a limited use, in a sub-section and making a note of there other use. Ve3 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not understanding though. This isn't a list of "Maybe possibly in an alternate dimension be used as individual weapons". This is a list of ACTUAL individual weapons. Therefore, ALL the crew served weapons need to go. The entire SAW/AR section needs to go (minus a few like the M16 HBAR), the entire sniper rifle section, most of the explosives, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The use of some of these as individual weapons exists. How to handle in-between cases is a hard one. Up till now, the route has been to have subsections, and make accurate sub-sections even when thre is a mix of use. If they are moved to CS its NOT going to be totally accurate either, and splitting the sub-sections will make a confusing mess. Then the subsections will need notes they are incomplete! Ve3 01:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Look it will be very easy. Watch: The sniper rifles, AR/SAW's, all go to the crew served list only. The sensors and anti tank weapons get moved individually based on whether they can be cited as crew served or not. Easy enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all sniper rifles, ar/saws are crew-served, and splitting up the anti-tank section is going to be confusing too. That said, I will only go along with this if the sub-sections are kept together, and notes(similar to the ones that exist currently, but noting ind. rather than CS use) are included. What must not happen is that a type of use or weapon, does not get covered on EITHER page.

If you are going to do this, you also might want to get the opinions of some other people update the page like Thatguy and DEwatters. Ve3 01:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Thatguy will agree with me, he knows me from elsewhere. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree you know more about policy than me, but I'll admit I have no idea how we can call all of the sniper/marksman rifles crew-served weapons. I don't understand how that works, and since this is a public encyclopedia you're going to have to explain it somewhere so everyone does. I'd really like a more of a concrete explanation myself. In the field is their an assitant to the guy carrying the SDM-R or SAM-R? Or does it have to do with the fact that his weapon might need to be maintained by more than just him. On a seperate note, Ve3, if you don't understand something and don't agree with it, don't just revert the edit, this is what discussions are for. Chances are someone has done it for a good reason. -- Thaguyt96 23:45, 10 February 2006

Sniper rifles and marksman rifles are considered crew-served because when used properly, there is both a sniper and a spotter. If you want to split hairs, dedicated marksman rifles such as the SAM-R or SPR would not be considered crew served weapons in common use due to current SOP has just one marksman with them, no spotter. However, on paper, in both TM's and procurement documents, they ARE designed to be used with a spotter, so they WOULD technically still be crew-serveds. Obviously this only applies to the US armed forces, as US military doctrine is that snipers work in pairs. Other armies may have their snipers go alone....for them it would not be considered crew-served. But, this list is only for the US Armed forces that doesn't matter. Make sense Thatguy?

So you have:

SAWs and MG's: designed to have a loader or assistant gunner/spotter Sniper rifles and marksman rifles: designed to spotter assistant.

Hence, crew served qualification. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue was not that they are normally crew served, its that the list contains ind. AND CS used weapons- some were used for both and some were around before this terminolgy was common. To make it accurate the list just needs to make a note of the dual nature- regardless if it is on this page or the other. You seem to think the issue was defining what CS and Ind. are, and moving things around- but it is just not this simple. In the future you could save yourself trouble by putting less work into trying to convince people of your side of the argument and more into understanding what the argument is about. Ve3 18:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

g36

wanna show us those links batman? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Batman, if you mean you found soldiers using the XM8 (which is not the same as the G36 despite obvious influences), we've already got that. -- Thaguyt96 15:37, 7 March 2006

MA-1/"Survival rifles"/AR-7

I linked the MA-1/AR-5 to a small article on same. Was the MA-1 here was originally to be covered by a general survival rifle article? If so, that's a bit beyond me right now, but I've done what I can.

Small point, I question the inclusion of the AR-7 here as an Air Force survival rifle. I don't believe it was ever issued as such, and the ArmaLite website makes no mention of any such sales. The ArmaLite website does verify the AR-5/MA-1 was sold to the Air Force. Tychocat 08:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I had originally set up the linking like that because I wasn't sure any of them warranted their own entry. If someone wants to do specific entries for them I see no reason not to. If someone goes out and writes something up specifically about the Ithaca M6 then I see no reason why eventually the idea of a general USAF survival rifle or survival rifle article can't be tossed. --Thatguy96 10:49, 24 May 2006

List of American Swords

To correct the gaps in this page's list of American weapons, I have contributed a starting list of standard and well-known American military and naval sword models, or patterns. Creating a separate page for each of these historical swords will be a monumental task, to which I invite all those with an interest in this subject to contribute. Your ideas concerning other additions or corrections are appreciated. Thanks for your ideas and consideration. Jack Bethune 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AUG

Hey I found this *Modern Firearms article on the AUG, it says the AUG is used by the United States Coast Guard, therefore it should be listed here. QZXA2 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The only major US government user has been the US Customs Service. D.E. Watters 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

something wrong

for the rifles section in obsolete it has wewpoans in thier then next to it in peretha-c's it says still in limited use. shouldnt it go in limited use section (Esskater11 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

what does it mean the 416 is out of service

last time I checked it was only removed from the asymmetric warfare group. whats all this stuff about an unauthorized purchase?

The HK416 for some reason has been removed from the asymetric warfare groups, but it is still in use by Delta force, it shouldn't be listed as "out of service" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.231.159 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Canceled experiments

Should canceled experiments go under the obsolete section or stay under experimental forever? I think it would make more sense to move them to obsolete and note that the model was "never issued".206.130.99.180 (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Carbines section

If muskets are going to be included in the rifles section, we should also include carbines in there as well, because there's little functional difference between rifles and carbines (compared to modern rifles and muskets) and most writers and manufacturers don't really distinguish between them, or they consider carbines simply to be a type of rifle. Should these two sections be merged? 206.130.99.180 (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)