This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Lugers were tested in 9mm and .45ACP at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the early 20th century, so "experimental" refers to tested n their day but not adopted. Naaman Brown ( talk) 15:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the Springfield 1903 still in service in the US military? Lefty 16:29, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
im like 99% sue the m1 gand is only used for cemimonyl duties( Esskater11 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
The M1917 link doesn't say anything about a revolver...? -- Kenyon 16:56, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
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)
Why is "U.S." and not "US"? or even "USA"? GraemeLeggett
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)
Is the US military actually testing either of these systems? I have no heard that and I think it would be big news.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is the Winchester 1200 still in service too then? Ve3
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)
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)
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)
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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
wanna show us those links batman? ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
Why is it listed as "out of service"? AFAIK the A2 is still the standard alongside the A4. Did something change? -ANK 71.244.129.247 ( talk) 02:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC) You're right. Someone moved it to the "In Active Service (Some Brances or Limited Roles)" Section. I've even heard someone say "Some of us were still getting A2's" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Whoever keeps saying that the Mk 23 and the M1911 are both obsolete pistols needs to either prove that they are obsolete (give us a source) or stop what they are doing. As far as I know, the Mk 23 is still in uses by SOCOM and the M1911 is still in use by Delta Force. - 67.77.149.120 ( talk) 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I work for IMFDB.org and this is my first edit. I realized that this page is missing the Mark 12 Mod 0 rifle. Is this weapon not used by the armed forces? I would edit this page myself but I have not created an account before and don't want to. - 75.94.26.221 ( talk) 15:50, 07 February 2010 (UTC)
Airforce pilots are issued Glock 19s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.50.180 ( talk) 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Why are there 11 versions of the LAW in service? It would be hard to issue because... its just too many versions. The AT Section would have to have room for AT4's and SMAW's. 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 12:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)February 27, 2011
No...I figured it out. The Army uses their 6 variants in the 3 platoons' Weapons Squads. The USMC has an AT Section with 5 LAW's and 1 M136/Mk 153. 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 12:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)March 4, 2011
And why did you split up the AT Section? By the way the Javelin is on Both "Missile Launchers" and "Antitank/Assault"
Are the CAR-15's really out of service? They don't seem to be. But if that's wat it says, then I guess they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 04:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
When I saw the SPR, it looked more like a Sniper/DM rifle than just a standard rifle. Or do they used the unscoped variant of it? And are there still some regular M14s in service or are they all scoped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 23:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Where are the M1/9/20 Bazookas? I sware they were used in WWII-Vietnam. Also, should the Boys Antitank Rifle go on the crew-served list? I know they were used by US Rangers in WWII. 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 12:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)March 3, 2011
I see that most of the Cold War Carbines are put of service. Are they all replaced with the new M4 when it came out? And did they not have a standard carbine from when the M1 retired to 1997? 216.210.65.165 ( talk) 12:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)March 4, 2011
Can someone distinguish between the service pistols and expiremental/cancelled pistols? If I don't get a reply soon I'll just try my best at it. What confuses me, for example, is the B92SB. It says "JSSAP Winner", but says nothing about it being used. 174.106.144.134 ( talk) 13:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)March 5, 2011
In the crew-served page, the Mk 18 is a "Belt-fed automatic grenade launcher", but when I click on it, it goes to the CQBR. Maybe there isn't a page for the GL, and the CQBR is the Mk 18 that Wikipedia thinks it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.144.134 ( talk) 13:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Would a section on mines be put in here or under crew served? ( America789 ( talk) 21:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC))
Does anyone know about this unusual firearm?. It comes under US Patent 2,436,175.
Is it actually out of service? I'm aware that the pistols were generally unpopular and did not see too much combat use but as far as I know USSOCOM still has them in inventory. -- Chaingunfighter ( talk) 04:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm making a major cleanup effort on this article -- I've removed all the inappropriate entries (sniper rifles, ATGMs, etc.) that all belong on the crew-served page. Next, will be going through and cleaning up the sourcing, and removing inaccurate claims. Finally, will add a few missing items not covered here already. ⇒ SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)