Originally Posted by Morten

sorry but that comment was trash... that comment reminds me of a discovery program called "The 10 Best Weapons" or something :P and the first place was "Martial Arts"... useless :P lol

Actually, that comment was not trash at all.The Special Forces are known for only accepting the most intelligent soldiers available, as they are trained to do things that many soldiers would not have the foggiest idea how to do. In treaining as well as on operations, all soldiers must use their brains, but for the SF soldier, it is absolutely mandatory. That "trash comment" was also my first idea. Also, consider the SAS. The are known for many things, but most of all, for their high level of training. These men have the training, the intelligence and the incredible motivation to do the job, no matter what the circumstances. All of these attributes come from the brain, and keep in mind, the operator in question has not even received his weapon.

Dean.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

Well, that "Martial Arts" crap is just that crap. Any proper SF soldier can fight with any weapon that he has in his position. I'm sticking by my commit for two reasons.

1) No matter what weapon you have. If you're dumber than a box of rocks. You're gonna die.

2) This topic will lead into another never ending arguement as every other weapon topic.

Good Grief ... I actually find that I do agree with you on that

Originally Posted by Koz

That PAPOP gun is the goofiest looking thing ever. Looks like the BFG out of Doom.

It is Koz, it IS!

You guys would be right if the thread starter was asking "What is the most effective SF weapon?"

However, the question was "What is the most TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED SF FIREARM." That precludes organisms and anything except guns really.

I think that the FN 2000, NF P90 and that other thing are TOOOOO BIG.

Does it really matter if they keep the weight down?

Originally Posted by major liability

Does it really matter if they keep the weight down?

Yes. I wouldn't want some giant thing to lug around. What the problem is, is that everyone wants all these systems "built in", but you can built that all in without have a giant system in the end.

One of the reasons I like the an M16 Series all tricked out vs. a giant FN 2000.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

I think that the FN 2000, NF P90 and that other thing are TOOOOO BIG.

.........................Weight (kg)..........Length (mm)
M16A2+M203........5.3.....................1006
FN F2000.............4.6......................694

Originally Posted by Doug97

.........................Weight (kg)..........Length (mm)
M16A2+M203........5.3.....................1006
FN F2000.............4.6......................694

M4

Weight: 4.0kg w/ M203

Length: 757 mm

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

M4

Weight: 4.0kg w/ M203

Length: 757 mm

So the M4 is longer, but lighter. Does that weight include non-iron sights?

I guess they could cut the weight on the F2000 if they shortened the barrel to the same length as the M4, and took off the optical sight.