View Full Version : Navy SEAL on Top 5 Worst Weapons Programs
MadAngler1
05-23-22, 23:36
https://youtu.be/A4WvLwCcx1I
Very interesting points. Not shocked about the Mk23. Sort of surprised about the M14 + Sage chassis, but nothing else was available at the time (it’s not like we had a stockpile of FALs or G3’s).
He keeps emphasizing the importance of reduced bulk and weight. I am interested in hearing what SOCOM guys would have to say about the new Sig MCX Spear.
I think the Sig MCX Spear is a heavy pig that infantry lads will hate. I also think it is a stupid solution to a single problem that came out of the GWOT, namely long range shots in A-stan
I think the Spear makes sense as a DMR and MG not as a general issue rifle. I would not count the M4 as dead yet. And the stupidity never ends, I saw somewhere they are looking for a kit to convert M240's to 6.8.
I think the Sig MCX Spear is a heavy pig that infantry lads will hate. I also think it is a stupid solution to a single problem that came out of the GWOT, namely long range shots in A-stan
Yoni, do you think the armor defeat issue is a real thing or overblown? I thought the other pile on for the 6.8 is it will defeat Russian and Chinese body armor much better than M855A1.
This going to be another "XM5 sucks, how dare they question the M4/5.56" thread? We've already got two of those.
In regards to the video, maybe this guy has perfectly reasonable and rational responses. Titling the thread "Navy SEAL Top 5" immediately makes it looks like typical clickbait worthy of being ignored on Reddit. Especially if he comes out it from a SEAL's very narrow perspective.
The video is not bad, a lot of what he doesn't like are weapons that start out as a simple concept ie 1911 replacement that morph into the MK 23 which is big and heavy as a carbine. Or the EBR, designed by a bench rest shooter, he didn't like the Sage stock but at the time frame was OK with the M14 in a synthetic stock with maybe some rails added. Also basically he is a fan of keeping his primary light and handy and if a grenade launcher or breaching shotgun is needed have it as a separate weapon. I figured he was likely to bash the SCAR until I saw he had one in the background.
MadAngler1
05-24-22, 16:25
The video is not bad, a lot of what he doesn't like are weapons that start out as a simple concept ie 1911 replacement that morph into the MK 23 which is big and heavy as a carbine. Or the EBR, designed by a bench rest shooter, he didn't like the Sage stock but at the time frame was OK with the M14 in a synthetic stock with maybe some rails added. Also basically he is a fan of keeping his primary light and handy and if a grenade launcher or breaching shotgun is needed have it as a separate weapon. I figured he was likely to bash the SCAR until I saw he had one in the background.
I agree. His review/points are very well thought out and valid. The Mk23, now that we know more about it now than we did 20 years ago, is a perfect example of where “higher ups” or “bureaucrats” had a greater say over the weapons system than the end user. Had the SEALs been handed a USP with a threaded barrel, I’m sure they would still be in use today in addition to the HK 45C.
I thought he was going to mention the Mk17 SCAR as well. Maybe he likes the platform. I like mine, but I haven’t been in combat with it.
I agree. His review/points are very well thought out and valid. The Mk23, now that we know more about it now than we did 20 years ago, is a perfect example of where “higher ups” or “bureaucrats” had a greater say over the weapons system than the end user. Had the SEALs been handed a USP with a threaded barrel, I’m sure they would still be in use today in addition to the HK 45C.
I thought he was going to mention the Mk17 SCAR as well. Maybe he likes the platform. I like mine, but I haven’t been in combat with it.
What you seem to be missing is the USP didn't exist, it was an evolution of the Mk23. Kind of like how the Luger was refined from the Borschardt.
Also the Mk23 had LAM requirements, accessory rail and a silent decock designed specifically for SOCOM, and it was introduced in 1991. The USP was the result of making changes to the Mk23 and abandoning the silent decock in favor of a single safety/decock lever and that was introduced in 1993 but they still wouldn't have a USP in .45 until 1995.
So it wasn't as simple as we had a Mk23 and a USP45 w/ threaded barrel and we decided to give you the big clunky, gun instead. And at the time, the Mk23 was a dramatic improvement over any suppressed 1911 system in existence. The Mk23 changed firearms by combining Browning and Walther features into one firearm which led to the USP. Both systems were revolutionary for their accessory rail, HK invented that, not Glock.
Yoni, do you think the armor defeat issue is a real thing or overblown? I thought the other pile on for the 6.8 is it will defeat Russian and Chinese body armor much better than M855A1.
From what we are seeing in the war Russia body armor is stuffed with wool and cotton sheets, so I don't think it is real. A;so a friend of mine made a ton of money helping Chinese Generals in charge of weapon manufacturing and a host of other things move billions and billions out of china. So where did the money come from? If the USSR can serve as a model they lied on specs of things and pocketed the money.
If you want a better weapon in the hands of the war fighters, my vote would be convert the M4 rifles to 6.5 Grendel, or one of the other 6mm rounds that would give longer range.
MadAngler1
05-25-22, 09:40
What you seem to be missing is the USP didn't exist, it was an evolution of the Mk23. Kind of like how the Luger was refined from the Borschardt.
Also the Mk23 had LAM requirements, accessory rail and a silent decock designed specifically for SOCOM, and it was introduced in 1991. The USP was the result of making changes to the Mk23 and abandoning the silent decock in favor of a single safety/decock lever and that was introduced in 1993 but they still wouldn't have a USP in .45 until 1995.
So it wasn't as simple as we had a Mk23 and a USP45 w/ threaded barrel and we decided to give you the big clunky, gun instead. And at the time, the Mk23 was a dramatic improvement over any suppressed 1911 system in existence. The Mk23 changed firearms by combining Browning and Walther features into one firearm which led to the USP. Both systems were revolutionary for their accessory rail, HK invented that, not Glock.
I always thought development ran parallel to the USP. My point was they specced accuracy so much with the longer 5.5” barrel that they forgot about overall size.
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pistols/heckler-koch-semiautomatic-pistol/
I’ve shot the Mark 23 many times, and I can get behind a 1911 far easier. The Mark 23 was revolutionary indeed and did what no other pistol could do at the time.
I always thought development ran parallel to the USP. My point was they specced accuracy so much with the longer 5.5” barrel that they forgot about overall size.
https://www.all4shooters.com/en/shooting/pistols/heckler-koch-semiautomatic-pistol/
I’ve shot the Mark 23 many times, and I can get behind a 1911 far easier. The Mark 23 was revolutionary indeed and did what no other pistol could do at the time.
The USP was derived from the Mk23 and it took another 4 years to get a .45 down to USP size. There is a reason the Mk23 was a brick, you couldn't make a 1911 do all that. They wanted a .45 suppressed handgun that wouldn't destroy itself (so that eliminated the 1911) with an accessory rail for a LAM (no 1911 did that back then), with a higher magazine capacity than the 1911 and with a combination of Browning and Walther features (slide release, decocker and safety). The result was a giant brick that did what no handgun had previously done.
It wasn't a case of "non operators" making stupid spec demands, it is the reality that the SOCOM requested package resulted in a brick. And it was a kind of nice brick, it was even better when that brick led to the development of something more practical. At the time the two handguns available in .45 for potential military use were the 1911 and the SIG P220 and neither of them were capable of doing anything the Mk23 had to do. And if you re engineered them to be capable, you'd have made another giant brick.
Jesus ,,,,,, you guys forget that wars today are about making $oney ,,,,, nothing else.
That's why we don't win them, there ain't no money in winning wars, the money is in fighting them.
The people who fight wars don't make money, the people who make the money don't fight,
you should of figured this out long ago.
I notice a theme here. “Gun is huge. Gun weighs too much.”
I notice a theme here. “Gun is huge. Gun weighs too much.”
It was, but if you ask for something to take you to the moon, it's gonna be a big Saturn 3 rocket.
Hell I'm not even sure the HK USP45 T would have satisfied ALL of the mandated requirements the Mk23 had to do. And on top of being a brick, they added 5 pounds of accessories to it so a fully dressed Mk23 was pretty close to just rolling a MP5, but they didn't make that in .45 so they made the Mk23 instead.
It was, but if you ask for something to take you to the moon, it's gonna be a big Saturn 3 rocket.
I’m just thinking that its a bit of foreshadowing or whatever for the current rifle project.
Nerds: “we need the weapon to do a bunch of crazy shit that ain’t nevah been done befo”
Grunts: “WTF, this thing is heavy as hell…. Did it really need to do all that shit?”
I’m just thinking that its a bit of foreshadowing or whatever for the current rifle project.
Nerds: “we need the weapon to do a bunch of crazy shit that ain’t nevah been done befo”
Grunts: “WTF, this thing is heavy as hell…. Did it really need to do all that shit?”
It's tradition. They ask for it, somebody builds it, they go "damn did it have to be so BIG?"
Back in 1979 a M-16 suppressor was almost as long as the M-16, in 1985 a red dot laser was the size of a 4 cell maglite. NV was still the size of a small telescope. Even the M1 Garand was something of a really BIG stick.
Technology, especially when it's the first or a very early gen, usually comes with a package size penalty.
And yet almost no one ever actually used the Mk23 because it was, well, too big and too heavy.
And yet almost no one ever actually used the Mk23 because it was, well, too big and too heavy.
Can't say I'm surprised. I wanted one until I had one in my hands. 1994 was when I bought my USP but I was seriously thinking about the Mk23 because it was on the cover of all the gun rags. I wanted the threaded barrel, I was excited about the .45 chambering and I thought the silent decock was seriously tactical. I expected it to be something like a long slide 1911, it wasn't.
Was about a full pound heavier than the USP, the silent decock was hardly silent and the price difference was dramatic. Ended up with a USP 9 and never looked back. And honestly, it was a bitch finding a holster for the USP back in the 90s, aside from the issue flap holster for the Mk23, there was NOTHING.
Around the same time somebody made a double stack 1911 that was beefed up for SOCOM, including a retarded skull crusher spike behind the magazine well, that was the only .45 I saw that was even more impractical than the Mk23.
Can't say I'm surprised. I wanted one until I had one in my hands. 1994 was when I bought my USP but I was seriously thinking about the Mk23 because it was on the cover of all the gun rags. I wanted the threaded barrel, I was excited about the .45 chambering and I thought the silent decock was seriously tactical. I expected it to be something like a long slide 1911, it wasn't.
Was about a full pound heavier than the USP, the silent decock was hardly silent and the price difference was dramatic. Ended up with a USP 9 and never looked back. And honestly, it was a bitch finding a holster for the USP back in the 90s, aside from the issue flap holster for the Mk23, there was NOTHING.
Around the same time somebody made a double stack 1911 that was beefed up for SOCOM, including a retarded skull crusher spike behind the magazine well, that was the only .45 I saw that was even more impractical than the Mk23.
The closest I have gotten to one is the commercially available Mk23 (not mine, a friend's), which I love to shoot.
Not being in SOCOM we never had access. Curiosity killed this cat, so I frequently asked SOCOM units, and I got two answers: yeah, they knew about them and knew they were available, but were impractical and never used; and yeah, they knew about them, but were never in the armory because no one used them.
I would not spend that kind of $ to own one, but if someone gave me one I would not say "no".
The closest I have gotten to one is the commercially available Mk23 (not mine, a friend's), which I love to shoot.
Not being in SOCOM we never had access. Curiosity killed this cat, so I frequently asked SOCOM units, and I got two answers: yeah, they knew about them and knew they were available, but were impractical and never used; and yeah, they knew about them, but were never in the armory because no one used them.
I would not spend that kind of $ to own one, but if someone gave me one I would not say "no".
Hell if they were even the same price as a USP I'd jump all over one. Not for carry but I'd love to own one. My biggest reservation is that the Mk23 and the USP 45 don't even use the same magazine I and I don't even think the barrel thread pitch is the same. So one day I'll probably have a USP 45T, but I doubt I'll ever have a Mk23.
Also when FN came out with the FNP 45 Tactical, that became my "special operater dude" 45 platform. Add a Opsrey 45 suppressor and a SureFire 300 and you are there. Lightweight with a shockingly mild recoil.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.