Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dittybopper_05H t1_j18hu2s wrote

Reply to comment by ArkyBeagle in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3

I'm still aghast at that decision. Fully loaded with the suppressor, that's an 11.24 lb rifle. That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

And the cartridge is another matter. The practice rounds are still zippy enough to be used in combat, and I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat. Which is still nothing to sneeze at: It's essentially a 7mm-08.

I mean, I'm one of those weirdos who likes the concept of a battle rifle, but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

2

ArkyBeagle t1_j1953zj wrote

> That's actually the heaviest infantry rifle ever adopted by the US military.

True.

> I'm willing to bet that cost considerations are going to ensure that the reduced version gets used in combat.

Huh. What I've read says the gain of function looked for was piercing body armor. So maybe you're right.

> but they shouldn't be significantly heavier than an M-1 Garand or an M-14.

Most likely. I imagine the M16 will still be in use.

1

dittybopper_05H t1_j198kku wrote

From what I hear the M-4 is going to still be issued to non-infantry troops, while the actual trigger pullers are going to get the XM5.

2