Talk:List of weapons used by U.S. Armed Forces

Thank you to whoever created this page, I've thought a lot about trying to do a page like this myself, since a lot of people on this site like to point out "That isn't what a solder/officer in such and such military of law enforcement agency would use in real life." Maybe if this page proves to be popular we could do other pages about other agencies. --AndCA 22:06, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Your very welcome :) everything on that page took about a month to make due to my schedule (and I'm only 15). I am planning on doing a page about the British and the Russian armed forces but I want to have this done first. Mr.Ice 22:17, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

I didn't know the Marines have started using the SCAR H Excalibur01 22:23, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

I may have gotten some incorrect info during my research, I'll look into it. Mr.Ice 22:31, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Thank You for doing this, the fact that you are fifteen only makes me have more respect for you.--Dillinger 23:29, 18 July 2012 (CDT)

Mate, big respect for you for doing this! Well done! If you need any info on what the British Armed Forces do, please let me know, I can help with that!! Again, proper nice job mate!! Fixer

As far as I know the only use by the USMC of the SCAR platform was a variant of the 'L' model during trials for the M27. The H&K 416 was chosen. --Crazycrankle 01:26, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Doesn't the Navy also use the M16A3 variant? Insertjjs 6:37, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Yes they do, my Seabee buddy's issued weapon is an M16A3 with a 203.-Ranger01 11:56, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Are we doing out of service rifles and shotguns as well? Wicked wikipedia gives a complete list if that helps he page.-Balin21 12:30, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Of course. Mr.Ice 12:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

YES!!!

THIS IS AN AWESOME IDEA!!! One that I have been wanting to do for a while. Gets my 100% stamp of approval! --Zackmann08 08:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Glad you like it I just hope this gets done soon so I can work on my next idea. Mr.Ice 08:55, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

When this one is done, how about one for the British Armed Forces, SAS and suchlike? --Taurus96 10:25, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

I have been thinking about one for the British I may do one like that next. Mr.Ice 11:32, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

If you do, don't forget they recently adopted the LMT 7.62 as their new Sniper rifle/DMR Excalibur01 11:47, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

That they do, but I don't think we have a page for it since it's not shown up in media yet. The Wierd It 12:59, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

No, it hasn't appeared in anything to my knowledge, and we need to emphasize that this page, like all other pages on IMFDb, is for weapons used in films, TV, or video games, not an end-all list of every weapon ever used by an armed force. Spartan198 03:13, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

I read here http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/glock.php and here http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2011/09/12/delta-force-and-the-glock/ that delta force is now using the Glock 22 as their standard sidearm. Had an old coworker who was an Army MP who confirmed it to. Want to say they started using it in the early years of the war in Iraq.

SDM-R picture

I'm looking for a good shot of the Army's Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, but I can't find one. Can anyone help me out? --Dirty Harold 10:27, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

I'm reasonably sure it's not that different from the M16A4, aside from subtle differences in the rails (DD M4Rail rather than KAC M5) and differences to the barrel which are hidden by the rails. The Wierd It 10:27, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Never mind, then; I'll simply remove it on the grounds that's it's not dissimilar from M16A4 model. --Dirty Harold 11:33, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

The SDM-R was a very limited trial program and it was only fielded to one unit before it was canceled and/or withdrawn from service. The SAM-R met a similar end when the Marines opted for the Mark 12 Mod 1 instead. Spartan198 16:34, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

P226R

Don't the SEALs use the 226 with a rail now? Excalibur01 11:01, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

According to SIG the SEALs currently use a P226 with a Picatinny rail that is not the standard rail found on P226s. In the past they have used folded steel slides without any rail or other outward identifying marks. When they went to the stainless steel slides an anchor was added to be able to easily tell which were the new slides and which were the older model. At some point a rail was added during the use of the stainless slides, which lead to a complaint that not all light attachments worked on it (can't complain about an out of spec rail on a gun without a rail), so the current model was outfitted with a true 1913 picatinny rail. Dover500 11:02, 20 July 2012 (CDT)

Page name

Should the "firearms" be changed to "weapons", as there are several things on here that I would not call firearms, such as the grenades, mines and launchers. --commando552 12:15, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

I say go for it if accuracy is the case Mr.Ice 12:22, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

USMC SOCOM

Should the listing of USMC SOCOM be changed to USMC MARSOC since MARSOC is the branch of the USMC that is a part of SOCOM. I think USMC SOCOM just sounds odd because it describes the USMC branch of SOCOM. This is just my opinion, what do you guys think? --SmithandWesson36 13:22, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Done.The Wierd It 13:59, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Thanks. --SmithandWesson36 14:00, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Magazine capacities

Great idea Mr.Ice. Anyway, is it OK if I add the various magazine capacities for the firearms with the caliber in parentheses beside it?

It is already there... Under "Capacity"... And sign your post. --Zackmann08 17:04, 19 July 2012 (CDT)

Colt Rail Gun

I think it's been adopted very recently to replace the Kimber ICQB, should it go on the page?--Recon42 06:35, 20 July 2012 (CDT)

it is already on there as the Colt XSE, it is the same gun as the one pictured except with a desert tan finish and grips. --commando552 06:49, 20 July 2012 (CDT)

The XSE along with the Kimber are also used by Army Special Forces and 1st SFOD-D. Puppet.of.fate 21:58, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Last time I checked the Special Forces still used M9s. The Wierd It 08:56, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

They may use it or have used it but their regular sidearm is a M1911 variant or a Glock. The M9 and M9A1 are standard issue so it isn't uncommon for Special Forces to pick it up and use it once in a while. Puppet.of.fate 14:10, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

I'm very interested to see your source on that. Last time I checked the only bit of the US Army to still use 1911s was Delta. The Wierd It 15:49, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

In a number of 'Small Arms of the World' books I own along with a book co-written by General Carl Stiner, a former Commander in Cheif of USSOCOM. I would love to see the source of your info. Puppet.of.fate 17:36, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

Let's jump straight to the photography then.

• Special Forces medic in Afghanistan, 2007. Note the Beretta holstered on his belt.
• US Army Special Forces at the Fuerzas Comando 2012 event. Note the obvious M9 being reloaded in the first photo.
• Special Forces NCO Instructor at the 2011 USASFC Soldier and NCO of the Year Competition. Note the M9 in his holster.
• Army Special Forces soldiers conduct range training, 2010. Every single one of them has an M9.
• Special Forces training at Fort Carson, Colorado. 2010. Holstered M9s.

In short, for a weapon not regularly used by US Army Special Forces, there's a lot of images of US Army Special Forces with M9s. Note though that I am only calling you out on your assertion about the 1911; there's plenty of evidence for Glocks in the last year or so. The Wierd It 02:46, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Well I can't tell you you're wrong and I will correct what I said and admit they apparently do use it more often then I thought but you can't honestly tell me I'm wrong either when my source material clearly states they do use M1911 variants. We are talking about Special Forces here so what they use is honestly their choice.Puppet.of.fate 13:29, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

And yet nowhere in the 1200+ images I checked through did I see a single 1911 pattern pistol aside from two presentation pieces. The Wierd It 13:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Just because they're not there, doesn't mean they don't exist. You can't find everything on the internet. Puppet.of.fate 13:55, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Well, if the 1911 was the standard sidearm of the US Army Special Forces, don't you think there would be a lot of pictures of them with the 1911? When were these books of your's written? --SmithandWesson36 14:10, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

For the record, the General who co-wrote one of the books he cited retired in '93.The Wierd It 14:11, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

His retirement date has no relavence. He's former Special Forces and Commander in Chief of USSOCOM, I'm pretty sure his information would be pretty up to date when he wrote the book. The book he co-wrote was published in 2002 and the most recent one I have of the other's is from 2007. And no, I don't think they'd have pictures all over the internet of them, they're Special Forces, and I honestly don't believe he searched through 1200+ photo's of them to gather his info. Puppet.of.fate 15:37, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Okay, there might not be a lot of pictures of the SF, but there is at least 1200+ talked about here, and out of 1200+ not one of them shows the SF soldiers with their supposed "standard sidearm," the 1911. --SmithandWesson36 16:08, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

And as I stated before, just because it isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For the record I never stated it was their 'standard issue.' I said it was their regular sidearm. They're Special Forces, they have no 'standard issue.' Lets make this simple, no matter what I say you're not going to believe me, which is fine I know what I know and you know what you know. He can't find a picture of it and I have books that state it, its a discussion that won't end. It's an agree to disagree situation. Puppet.of.fate 17:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Well, regular sidearm means that it would be used in large quantities by them and yet we have no photographic evidence of them using the 1911. If we go by the fact that they can use whatever they want, why don't we just list every handgun and say, "There is a chance someone in the military is using one." There is a way to end this discussion, what are the name of these books that you got your info from? --SmithandWesson36 18:54, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Professionalsoldiers.com ask them yourselves, they should know what they carry. (Most on there prefer Glocks btw.)-Ranger01 22:39, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

I don't really trust PS, because anyone can go on it and post whatever they want. --SmithandWesson36 02:20, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

Not necessarily true, you have to be vetted to have certain user names and the "Quiet Professional" tag, they will actually go look through their class lists and etc to find out if a person is who they say they are, and if someone posts BS or w/e they get the boot-Ranger01 02:42, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

It says in their bulletin board rules page that not every user is a "Quiet Professional," so they could be anybody. --SmithandWesson36 02:44, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

I believe the implication here is that the ones with the "Quiet Professional" tag won't be talking out of their arse like regular users. The Wierd It 02:51, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

Oh, okay, I misunderstood that. Okay, it seems like a much more reliable source to me now. --SmithandWesson36 05:01, 27 July 2012 (CDT)

M11 Pistol

I wasn't aware that NCIS uses the P228 anymore. I thought they used the P229 DAK. I'm posting this to let you know why I changed it on the main page. Just thought I'd let you know. (By the way, if anyone has any comments, feel free to respond to me.) --Mormonpowerranger521 15:30 (CDT)

According to (the ever-accurate, lol) Wikipedia, they no longer use the P228. However, it says that they also use the P239 DAK as well as the P229 DAK. --Dirty Harold 19:22, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Gun order

Right now the guns, particularly the out of service ones, seem to be in a pretty random order. What do people think would be the best way to categorise them by, alphabetically, chronologically, user or notoriety? --commando552 18:28, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Chronologically sounds good, probably from earliest to latest. --Dirty Harold 19:30, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

I agree, it will better in that order. --RaNgeR 20:03, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Done. At least for the out of service ones anyway. Jimmoy (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2012 (EDT)

M4A1

It needs to be notated that the M4A1 is only standard issue to special operations/ and Rangers. The M4 carbine (Semi and burst fire) is the standard rifle for front-line combat arms units in the US Army. --AdAstra2009 21:28, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Done. Spartan198 23:26, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

NCIS

So this page lists the weapons of the US Armed Forces, like the Army, Navy, Marines, etc. NCIS is a federal agency, not part of the Armed Forces. Should it be removed? --Mormonpowerranger521 19:35 (CDT)

NCIS is part of the Department of the Navy. --Dirty Harold 08:35, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

OK, so I'll go ahead and add CID as well, as it's part of the Army. But should other federal agencies be added, as they are part of the Department of Justice or Homeland Security, and they are also technically part of the US Armed Forces as well? --Mormonpowerranger521 16:48 (CDT)

The CID doesn't need to be there anyway, as the weapons they use are already listed with the US Army. The only reason the NCIS is listed (if it deserves to be here anyway, my opinion is that it shouldn't as is a federal law enforcement agency and not part of "Armed Forces") is that they use weapons that are not used by the regular Navy. --commando552 17:56, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Don't forget OSI (Office of Special Investigations), the Air Force equivelant. On an unrelated not, why would EOD use the Mk18? It's not like they need super-short weapons for CQB, they dispose of bombs.--Mandolin 17:52, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

EOD in most forces tend to use shorter weapons than regular infantry as they only carry weapons for personal defence, and the lighter weight of smaller weapons is a plus when you have to carry additional specialist equipment. --commando552 17:56, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

So the question is, I guess, do we keep NCIS, and by that reasoning, add a whole bunch more federal agencies (DHS, FBI, ATF, etc.), or do we remove it as it technically isn't part of the "Armed Forces?" I vote remove. --Mormonpowerranger521 19:02 (CDT)

NCIS is a law enforcement agency of the Department of the Navy. Most of its special agents are civilian GS-1811 criminal investigators, however some of them are reservists or active duty military. The investigating agents of Army CID are either active duty enlisted special agents or active duty Warrant Officer special agents. Air Force OSI agents can be civilians, enlisted airmen, or Air Force commissioned officers. The Coast Guard Investigative service employs active duty enlisted personnel, along with reservist Chief Warrant Officers and civilians as special agents. --L.J. Gibbs (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

SIG P239

I have read somewhere that the P239 was issued by DEVGRU to plain clothes operators, does anyone know if this is true? --SmithandWesson36 14:43, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

I'm looking at a page right now that says the same thing, but there's no way to confirm it since it doesn't give a source. The Wierd It 14:48, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

That's actually the page I read it on, but I didn't trust it without a source. --SmithandWesson36 14:51, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Certainly, SIG aren't pimping it the same way that they do with the P226.The Wierd It 14:53, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Colt XSE Image

Is it worth replacing the Colt XSE image with this one? Since that's the actual weapon being adopted, not the XSE. The Wierd It 11:57, 29 July 2012 (CDT)

I think we should replace the current image with this one, it's more accurate. --SmithandWesson36 12:08, 29 July 2012 (CDT)

What about this image? --Mormonpowerranger521 13:51, 30 July 2012 (CTD)

Colt Rail Gun - .45ACP

That is no closer match than the stainless one, as the M45 will have a tan finish. I was the one who made the entry with the XSE image, the reason being that it was the only image on here and I didn't want to add an image of a gun that hadn't appeared in anything yet. But as someone has now uploaded the tan one, might as well use it. Also, the reason I originally had it listed as an XSE is because that it what we currently list the railed frame XSE (which is what this gun is) as. Colt currently markets it as the "Colt Rail Gun" but it was originally called the "Colt XSE Rail Gun". As it seems that Colt have now split them, I suppose it might be an idea to split them on the 1911 page into "XSE" and "Rail Gun" sections. --commando552 15:18, 30 July 2012 (CDT)

Confederate States of America

Insert "south shall rise again joke". Don't want to be technically but This page is for the US Armed forces, not the CSA armed forces Excalibur01 23:45, 31 August 2012 (CDT)

Late 19th Century Special Operations Firearms?

This has nothing to do with this page per se, but of all the pages here this one is most fitting. I have been wondering what American "Special Forces" or what you would like to call them, would have used in the 1870/1880's?

If some soldiers/agents/assassains would been sent on a specific important mission, what firearms would they have used? Winchester 1873's? Sharps Carbines? Springfield Trapdoor Rifles? Spencer Repeating Rifles?

Would they use Shotguns? And what Handguns?

Thanks in Advance!--Z008MJ (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Short answer what people would consider American "Special Forces" didn't exist in the 1870/1880's. The closest thing to that would have been the Calvary, or maybe Buffalo Solders, both of which would have used the carbine version of whatever rifle was standard issue (I think the Trapdoor Springfield, but in the early 1870's it could have been something else). The prevailing strategy of that time period was still to have troops gather en mass when fighting each other. The modern idea of special forces comes from the First South African/Second Boer War (1899-1902). In this conflict the British saw the the effectiveness of the Boer Commandos in reeking havoc on there numerically superior forces. Later the British implemented the strategy within there own forces, to the point where they even borrowed the name of those specialized solders from there adversary ie commando (Boer=white South African of Dutch decent). Dover500 (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

How about a hypotethical situation then? If ever there was a national threat coming from a single concentrated group of people, who obviously had no army, and soldiers were sent to eliminate them and everyone else at whatever place they resided, would there just be ordinary soldiers with Trapdoor Rifles sent there then?

Also, while not related to the army, what would the Pinkertons have used around that time?--Z008MJ (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

In that hypothetical situation Calvary would be the first group sent in, most likely with light artillery for increased firepower. The main firearms would be Trapdoor carbines and colt SAA or Smith and Wesson model 3 revolvers. For the tactics that would be used, look at the conflicts in the midwest involving Native Americans, as that is rather close to the situation which you are describing. Pinkertons were known to use mainly shotguns and revolvers, as they tended to get in conflicts at close range, but as to specifics of which type of each I do not know. Dover500 (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

If you take the 7th Cavalry at the battle of Little Bighorn in 1876 as an example, they were generally armed with 1873 Trapdoor carbines and carried a pair of Colt SAA revolvers (sabred were not carried to cut down on weight and noise). The officers would have also potentially have carried personally purchased weapons which they would also use for hunting, such as Remington Rolling Blocks and Sharp's rifles along with shotguns and possibly Winchester 1873s. Custer himself was though to have personally carried a pair of custom Webley RICs and a sporterised .50 Remington Rolling Block rifle. Scouts would have carried a variety of weaponry, often having both a single shot "buffalo" rifle like a Sharp's for long range shooting along with a repeating rifle such as a Henry, Spencer or Winchester, plus whatever sidearms they had. --commando552 (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Thanks, that is very informative. Were Henry's and Spencers still used at that time? I thought Winchester was all the rage then.

If no one has anything else too add then i have gotten enough answers, very helpful of both of you.--Z008MJ (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

Experimental AA-12?

AA-12 shotgun should have been undergoing assessments in USMC since 2004... Are they being put into service? Should I add the AA-12s in the page?? --S9771773G (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

Oh no its alright， I have yet to see the Experimental section at the bottom of the page... Im just wondering if AA-12 has already enter service? --S9771773G (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

I doubt it. A full-auto shotgun is really a niche item. Just one shot with a 12 gauge will hit a human target like a sledgehammer at CQB ranges, full auto in the package seems like overkill. Spartan198 (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Should the AA-12 be placed in the "cancelled" section of the Experimental category? Outside of one picture of a Marine firing one back when they "tested" (IE, had fun at the range for a hour) some back in 2004, I can't find anything to support the idea that the AA-12 is being tested--Mandolin (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Apparently the Marine Warfighting Lab messed around with it for a while, but given the designer went on record in 2010 moaning that the military wasn't interested in it, they probably weren't interested in it. Also got to love how he compares the practical rate of fire of the M16 and M249 with the cyclic rate of fire of the AA-12 (counting pellets as bullets), and doesn't know the difference between a projectile and a round. Evil Tim (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (EDT)

Sounds exactly like the kind of guy that would design the AA-12 and think it's a completely practical service firearm.--BeloglaviSup (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2017 (EDT)

HK45C Designation

I've seen on a few sites that the HK45C is designated the Mk 24 Mod 0 by the SEALs, I thought this was the designation of the P226. Are these sites wrong or is this the real designation and the SIG is actually the Mk 25 Mod 0? --SmithandWesson36 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

I wasn't aware it had a designation to start with. Although people do seem to be running under the assumption that because SIG called their new SEAL P226 replica pistol the Mk25, that must therefore also be the Real Steel designation. The Wierd It (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

I was going off of this page. --SmithandWesson36 (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Personally I think the designations make more sense the other way around, since then it goes in adoption order (Mk.23 (SOCOM), Mk.24 (SIG), Mk.25 (HK45CT)). The Wierd It (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Wasn't the SIG adopted in the 80's and the Mk 23 Mod 0 adopted in the mid-90's? --SmithandWesson36 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Whoops. >.< The Wierd It (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

The services' designation systems aren't as organized as some like to think. Psychological warfare! LOL Spartan198 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

I sent a message to my source in NSW regarding designations of both the P226 and HK45 and what he told me was that the old-spec P226s were previously designated MK24 Mod 0, but are no longer type classified anymore (being referred to as simply "P226"). The current P226s with the mil-std rail are indeed designated as MK25 Mod 0, while the MK24 designation now refers to the HK45. He added that the MK24 Mod 0 designation has been interchangeable for a while. Spartan198 (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (EDT)

MSR

Seems the Remington MSR is the winner of the Precision Sniper Rifle contract. The Wierd It (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

Adding it to the page. Edit: Hope that's good enough. Spartan198 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Mk 12

The US Marines should be among the users of the Mk 12. They use the Mod 1 version [1]. Scroll down, you can see a whole gob of pics of them in action. And these are rank and file, not MARSOC. Spartan198 (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

US Army use of M16A4s

This is a response to an edit removing the US Army from the user list for the M16A4. Here are two images of Soldiers with them in theater [2][3]. Spartan198 (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2014 (EDT)

SCAR-L Still Used by 75th Ranger Regiment

SCAR-L While most of them are using M4A1's with SOPMOD Block II, a few are still using the SCAR-L. This photo was taken in 2014.~James Woods

That's actually a SCAR-H with a 5.56 conversion kit. Look at the length of the ejection port and design of the lower. See that recessed area behind the magwell? SCAR-L lowers don't have that. As such, I've added 5.56 as one of the calibers under the SCAR-H entry. Spartan198 (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2017 (EST)

Here's some pics to back me up.[4] Spartan198 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2017 (EST)

M320 Edits

I moved the M320 to "in service", since it's no longer experimental. The XM320 version remains in the experimental section since it's different from the final model. Spartan198 (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Browning Hi-Power?

So Browning HP has been used by U.S covert operations and special forces. Does that count? Supposedly, they were utilized by U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) taskforces during WWII (most likely the Canadian Inglis variety) and during Vietnam war they were used on an unofficial basis by US Reconnaissance and Special Forces units. TrickShotFinn (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2014 (EST)

No M14

Is there any particular reason why actual M14s aren't listed anywhere on the page? There are the various modernized variants ala the M39 EMR listed but actual M14s used from the 50s even to today aren't present on the page at all. Is there any reason for this? --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Hmm, interesting, it does indeed seem that the M14/M14E1 isn't listed in the Out-Of-Service rifles section at all.. Why I don't know, but I think that might be some kind of oversight perhaps. Either way, should rectify that. As for the above comment about the Hi-Power, well, it might qualify for inclusion if one could find any close time it was used perhaps. I'd just add these entries but I'm gonna leave it to the folks who generally handle these pages. StanTheMan (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2014 (EST)

The M14 isn't actually out of service... the U.S. Navy still uses some semi-automatic M14s as the "M14 SMUD" (Standoff Munitions Disruptor.) It's also used ceremonially - as are the M1 Garand and M1903 Springfield, which might be worth listing on the page as well. --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2014 (EST)

I think the US Navy also still uses the M14 for line launching, due to the fact that the 7.62x51mm blank creates is higher pressure than the 5.56x45mm so it can thrown the line farther. --commando552 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2014 (EST)

Updating the page

Should I/we update the page to include the presently used M14, M14E2 (used from 1963-1966), M21, M14 DMR (replaced by M39/MK11), HK33/'T223' (used by SEALs in Vietnam), & Colt Model 607 (used briefly in 1966 but still noteworthy.)

I also believe adding the M1 Garand, M1903 Springfield, M1917 Enfield, and M14 to the "In Service" list under JROTC might be worthwhile because they ARE still seen in these military units despite only being (for the most part) ceremonial weapons. --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2014 (EST)

M24

Why is the M24A2 and A3 not listed, are they not actually in service? Mr. Wolf (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Page is incomplete - it's missing even more significant guns like the M14 as well --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (EST)

Out of idle curiousity, is the "30" for an Uzi because of historical military reluctance to fully load 32-round magazines, or just a straightforward error? I know some units prefer to load MP5s with 30 so they can put in a new mag without locking the bolt open, and back in WW2 issued mags for things like the Sten and MP40 would have 30 or even 28 rounds in them to spare the springs, IIRC they also did that with 28 or 26 in the Bren. Evil Tim (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2015 (EST)

I assume that the Uzi thing is just an error, I have never heard of a particular problem with the Uzi mags that requires downloading. I know that this was the case with the Sten, MP40 and Bren though. I believe that the reason with the first two is mainly due to the single feed causing magazine jams at full spring pressure, whilst the Bren suffered due to the rimmed .303 cartridge tending to bite into the feed lips with full spring pressure and not go fully into battery. This was an officially recognised issue with the Bren, even to the point that when Britain played around with the idea of pre-packaged disposable chargers for the Bren they were only for 14 rounds, so 2 would only fill a magazine up to 28. Lastly, I wouldn't really say that the MP5 uses a 31 round magazine which is downloaded to 30, more like it is a 30 round mag that you can technically fit a 31st round into but the gun stops fully functioning. As far as I know H&K have always given the spec of the magazine as 30 (well they do now anyway), and the manuals list it as a 30 round capacity as well. Hell, I could fit 31 rounds in a STANAG SA80 magazine and load it by just hammering the bolt into battery, but I wouldn't call that a 30 round magazine. --commando552 (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Ruger Service Six

Added the Ruger Service Six. It was issued by all the branches from approximately 1977 - 1993 when the Beretta M9 and the Sig Sauer M11 replaced all revolvers still in use. It was mainly issued to the various branches military police and civilian gate guards and was in use at the same time the Smith & Wesson Model 15 was being used. I can recall seeing some Air Force pilots carrying the Service Six as well in the Eighties when I was a very young private in the Army National Guard. The Defense Department stopped purchasing the M15 in the early seventies (approximately) so by the later part of the decade the M15's were getting pretty worn out. The Service Six served as a supplement. It was actually cheaper than the S&W and a bit more rugged (and that hurts to say because I'm a die hard Smith & Wesson fan). that's important when talking about firearms used by military personnel. I remember treating the various M16's pretty rough so you can only imagine how hard they would treat revolvers. --Jcordell (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Interesting, and good to know. I thought I heard of Rugers being used but I assumed it was more concurrent with S&Ws rather than a semi-replacement/supplement. Yeah it's tough to hear they were cheaper and just as good if not better (tougher) but it is what it is. I gotta say the Ruger Security/Service/Speed Six line looks like a nice set of wheelguns to me as well, and I too share your feeling about S&W. Anyway, good to have more detailed info on this. StanTheMan (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2015 (EST)

A few months ago when I purchased my Smith & Wesson Model 19 snubnose there was also a stainless steel Ruger Security Six 4" for sale. It was sitting right next to the Model 19 and was about $50.00 cheaper. I had been looking for a M19 snubbie for several years, but I had to make a decision as it was. That Security Six was a pretty nice revolver, but I wanted the M19 snubbie more. --Jcordell (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (EST)

Bah! How can you decide in that instance!? That said, more I've pondered it, the more I'd love to get a S&W 19/66 Snub myself.. It just seems like a nice size for a slightly-larger CCW wheelgun, more a waist or shoulder carry piece. But that's another discussion. Anyway, I understand your whim taking over, being a S&W man, but I think you couldn't have made a bad choice there. Anyway, again, good of you to provide that info. StanTheMan (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (EST)

National Guard weapons

Should we include weapons used by the National Guard, such as the UMP40? Hi, My Name Is GameZone (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (EST)

Do you have proof that they use it? I looked around, but didn't find anything. Spartan198 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2015 (EST)

I'm pretty sure that the National Guard just use the same weapons as the regular forces don't they? Traditionally slightly older weapons but I do not believe that this is really the case any more. Are you perhaps mixing up National Guard and the Border Patrol? --commando552 (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2015 (EST)

M9 Replacement

It's going to be a Sig P320 variant: http://soldiersystems.net/2017/01/19/stop-the-presses-sig-wins-modular-handgun-system/ Thoughts? --John Ryder (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2017 (EST)

Well, it doesn't look like they'll follow through on the "we need to upgrade from 9mm for our soldier's future handguns" spiel they made earlier. Having said that, the P320 should have a larger frame size available to accomodate its .45 ACP chambering, so the option should be there if they ever need to change away from 9mm caliber for these handguns. SIG-Sauer already offers a version of its P220 handgun in 10mm using that handgun's .45 ACP frame size. --Mazryonh (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2017 (EST)

SIG offers the P320 in 9mm, .40, and .45, among other calibers, so it could still happen. The articles I've read all stated that the Army hasn't announced the official caliber(s) yet. Honestly, though, the fact that SOF almost universally prefer 9mm shows that it does the job. It's simply a matter of FMJ ball ammo being shit. Spartan198 (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2017 (EST)

I can't imagine they'll standardize the gun in another caliber. The .45 ACP variant has a rather low capacity, is (generally) a less effective penetrator than the 9mm, and is also more expensive (let alone the fact that they'd have to entirely rebuy all of their ammo.) .40 S&W again has expense concerns, and is also less effective with a suppressor than either .45 ACP (the king of suppressed pistol rounds) or 9x19mm, which is apparently a big concern for the Army with how much they insisted it use one. .357 SIG definitely wouldn't happen, obviously. They might equip themselves to retool some of the existing guns for specialized purposes, but on a large scale it doesn't make sense. And keep in mind that a lot of the SFs and units that really need specialized pistols have probably already had one (or two, or ten) designs of their own and rarely (if ever) used the M9 to begin with. --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2017 (EST)

Hate to throw a wrench in a rather good discussion, but is the M17(The P320's supposed designation) actually replacing the M9 or more? We have it listed as replacing the P228, but there are both full length and compact models. Do we know any more on what it is really replacing or no? --PaperCake 00:44, 22 January 2017 (EST)

Both. The full size is replacing the M9 and the compact is replacing the M11. Spartan198 (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Moving old experimental guns

In my personal opinion, old experimental guns that were never adopted (like the XM29 or .45 Luger) or only used on a small scale (like the early M16 special variants) should just be moved to the 'Out of Service' sections of their particular weapon type. I feel like the "Experimental" section makes more sense for guns that are actually currently being tested, because as it is it looks very clogged up. With that you could also reasonably fit things like the XM25 and P320 which are due for adoption but haven't technically been procured in any actual units while still having the page look clean. But that's just how I feel. Thoughts? --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2017 (EST)

I don't think so. If you move them to the other section above, then it would be misleading and could imply that they were used as actual service weapons, which is not the case. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2017 (EST)

M40A6

The M40A6 isn't a true MSR, they're just replacing the stocks. The USMC is retaining the same Remington short-action in 7.62 NATO, probably much to the chagrin of Scout Snipers. Spartan198 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2017 (EST)

How designation work?

Well, I find it strange. Sometimes they are logical like the M4, which is the carbine adopted after the M3. Other like M9 or M136, or M1014 instead didnt. How does the designation sistem work? And what mean the -A in the improved version?--Dannyguns (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2017 (EDT)

It runs the gambit. Sometimes it's the year in which the item was adopted (M1903 Springfield, M1917 Enfield, M1911 pistol, M2010 ESR, etc.), while sometimes it's consecutive (M1/M2/M3/M4 carbines). Sometimes it's both. For example, I really expected the MHS winner would be designated M12, but I'm guessing M17 is taken from its year of adoption, 2017, while M18 designation for the P320 Carry appears to be consecutive. Other times, it just really makes no sense at all (XM8, XM29). Overall, it's really confusing. And the -A suffix means "Alteration". Spartan198 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (EST)

That said, the M4 carbine is consecutive to the M3 Grease Gun, not the M3 carbine. Evil Tim (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2018 (EST)

The M27 and M38 (DMR version of M27) are so named, apparently, because the 2/7th and 3/8th Marine battalion/company/whatever that first tested and used them. Because the Marines have to be special.--Mandolin (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Speaking of the M38, where should we classify it on this page? It's just an M27 (S/1/A FCG intact) with the ACOG replaced by a Leupold scope. Spartan198 (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2018 (EDT)

MHS procurement

From what I've gathered through various articles on TFB, SSD, and Kit Up!, it seems the only branch getting the full-size M17 is the Army, with the rest of the services expressing preference for the compact M18. Spartan198 (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2018 (EDT)

Why was my MHS edit reverted? Only the Army is getting the M17, the rest prefer the M18.

https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marine-leaders-explain-corps-decision-buy-armys-new-pistol.html https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/03/27/navy-orders-60000-compact-versions-armys-new-sidearm.html https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/03/30/air-force-follows-navy-adopting-new-army-sidearm.html

Spartan198 (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2018 (EDT)

Here's another one.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/04/sig-sauer-unveils-civilian-version-armys-m18-modular-handgun-system.html

Fourth paragraph. Only the Army is getting the M17, the other services have decided on the M18. Spartan198 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2020 (EST)

M39 cannon?

What in the military uses the M39 anymore? Some aggressor squadron? Do they even still have the cannon in them? Not like we'd have any ammo for them.--Mandolin (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

Training squadrons that use the F-5E and F-5F Tiger II. And it fires 20x102mm, I'd assume any still in service have been modified to shoot M61 Vulcan ammo if there's any difference between the two to begin with. Evil Tim (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (EDT)

As Tim said, it uses the same ammo as the M61. But even if aggressors squadrons still fly F-5s, I don't know why they'd go through the trouble of flying with working M39 cannons. It'd make more sense just to replace them with ballast. --Funkychinaman (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Navy F-5's appear to have had their M39s removed, as seen in this picture. The barrels should be protruding as seen here. --Funkychinaman (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Some have them, some don't, there are pictures both ways like this one. I think it depends on what model the planes originally were and where they came from. Some of them also have one cannon installed for some reason, and some pictures show what looks like a cap fitted over the end of the barrel and riveted to the skin of the aircraft to block off the muzzle (presumably from water and debris ingress) such as here and here (or is this some kind of training device to simulate cannon fire?). My guess is that some planes still have the gun because it is cheaper and easier to just leave it in there if it already had it. --commando552 (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Two-seaters were only fitted with one gun to save weight. --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

I think I am wrong about the two seaters retaining their single cannon, this image made me think they did, but I found this one showing that it isn't a cannon on the starboard side (it is actually an intake for the avionics), suggesting that the empty bay on the port side that it looks like the pilot is putting his personal gear in is where the single cannon was. --commando552 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

Looking at the photo accompanying this Northrop Grumman press release, it looks like all the ex-Swiss F-5Ns had their guns removed. --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2018 (EDT)

RIP XM25

It's officially canceled as of 24 July of this year.[5] Spartan198 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

Press F to pay respects. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2018 (EDT)

F. Took them long enough to finally drop the damn thing. Now they'll have to invent some new weapon program to throw money at. --PaperCake 11:10, 14 August 2018 (EST)

M231 FPW

Are any of these things likely even still in actual use or are we counting the possibility that there might be a few laying around in an arms room somewhere as "in service"? A poster on Forgotten Weapons claimed most were sent back to Colt and rebuilt into the first run of M4s. Granted it's hearsay, but in all honestly, much of this whole page is based more or less on hearsay. Spartan198 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

Seeing as there are photos of them in combat use (example) that post date the widescale adoption of the M4 I would say that this is not a reason to assume they are out of use. If you look on Youtube there are also a few videos of solider shooting them (mostly for fun with the insane rate of fire) relatively recently so it appears the they could still be around. --commando552 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2018 (EDT)

They probably did throw out a fair few of them when they reduced the number of firing ports on the Bradley from 6 to 2 (modern ones only have a pair covering the ramp because the flank armour kits block the side ones) but I'm fairly sure a Brad still carries two for those remaining ports. Evil Tim (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2018 (EDT)

Mk 12 SPR and Mk 14 EBR

Has anyone seen any recent evidence of these still in use? All the images of the SPR I find are ancient (as in the users are still wearing DCUs ancient) while the latest image of a Mk 14 in use I can find comes from 2013. I'm inclined to say both have since been phased out. Spartan198 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2020 (EDT)

HK21 possibly still in use?

Found this picture of a Delta Force team in Afghanistan in 2001 and the gut on the far left, curiously enough, has an HK21.[6] Spartan198 (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2020 (EDT)

Update of sorts on XM109 from unlikely source

Black Rifle Coffee did one of their Veterans React videos featuring a pair of Barrett employees reacting to various .50 caliber scenes from movies and while commenting on the M82A2, aka "Iron Horn 20mm," in Jurassic Park III, one of them had this to say: "We did a 25[mm] with the XM109, but no one ever ended up buying it. The US government bought all our prototypes off of us." Spartan198 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (EDT)

1858 Remington?

The Remington 1858 New Army had 115,563 units purchased by the US, making 31% of the US's revolver purchases. Is there a reason it's not on this page? --VladVladson (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (EDT)

Probably got overlooked, just add it yourself. --AgentGumby (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

It's done. --Jcordell (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

Acronym fail

"NAVSOC" actually refers to the Naval Satellite Operations Center, a component of the Naval Network Warfare Command. Naval Special Warfare Command, which I'm assuming its use here is referencing, is acronymed as NAVSPECWARCOM, commonly shortened to NSWC or WARCOM. Since the full acronym is a mouthful, which shortened form should we use? Spartan198 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

I'd probably go with "NSWC", since it's more specific/descriptive; "WARCOM" seems like it could get confused with other things. Just my 1 1/2 cents, though. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2021 (EDT)

U.S. Army Usage Winchester Model 1200 (early eighties)

Caption with the photo reads: “Private First Class Art Burgess, a candidate in the Ranger Indoctrination Program (RIP), 2nd Battalion, 75th Infantry (Ranger), fires a Winchester - built Model 1200 combat shotgun during special weapons training at Range 31, 13 January 1982.” The gun has been modified with a heat shield, bayonet lug/sling swivel, folding buttstock, and pistol grip. The Kevlar helmet was still several months out from being issued explaining the M1 steel pot helmet.

The soldier wearing a mix of the older green uniform ("pickle suit"), M1 steel helmet and the camouflaged PASGT (Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops) Kevlar vest give the date credibility. I attended U.S. Army Basic Combat Training in the summer of 1986 at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri. Since we were recruits in a training unit, we were issued the M1 helmet and M16A1 along with more current LBE gear and the (then) very new lightweight "rip-stop" hot weather BDUs.It was a crazy mix of cutting edge and Vietnam era gear. Through much of the Eighties the Army was a mix of new gear and older gear being used side by side. --Jcordell (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I shudder at what the Marines were issued at the time... LOL Spartan198 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Charleville?

Charleville Musket almost certainly belongs here. Any idea on end date for US use? -VladVladson (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)