User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/23/2002 8:51:24 AM EDT
[#1]
BlackandGreen:
"What was the primary reason that the garand rifle...(originaly designed in 27 caliber) was refitted to 30 cal.?........ " Pure $$$$ from what I understand, plus the usual dinosaur resistance Re anything new. There still was tons of .30-06 around from WW1. Changing the service rifle cartridge isn't cheap or easy. Look at all the headaches the Italians & Japanese had in WW2. Plus the '06 works, the same reason why the Russians still field 7.62x54R (a cartridge that is over 110 rears old) for their mg & sniper rifles. The US would have been better off leaving .30-06 as the mg/sniper round & adopting a lighter rnd for 'assault' rifles. .308 is neither fish nor fowl, it's not that much lighter/less powerful than .30-06 so it's worthless as an assault rifle & isn't as good for mg use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2002 9:24:45 AM EDT
[#2]
With the 747 it still has the bugaboo Wright Flyer stigma about it "not being reliable". or You might as well say you would rather travel by train to avoid the "planes fall out of the sky bugaboo." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2002 9:52:42 AM EDT
[#3]
Ummmm...yes, it was. No lives were lost because of the CALIBER in Vietnam. They were lost because of bad ammo made with the wrong powder causing jams in weapons that were not properly maintained. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2002 1:41:19 PM EDT
[#4]
In 1997 they started to replace the G3 with the G36 here in Germany and since than we have exactly the same discussion like you have with M14/M16.
When I was in the Army we had the G3 and we were only issued 6 mags. Now I'm in the Reserve and I often train with the G36. It is lightweight and easy to shoot. I'm twice as fast on the target as with the heavier G3 and I can shoot faster because of less recoil. Of course the Reflex sight helps but it is easier to lift up a light rifle than a heavy. If I had to go to Afghanistan and if I had the choice I would probably take the G3 (but not if I would have to hump around ammo for one week!). Afghanistan is not the usual environment and for most other terrains I would take the G36. My personal choice would be the M4 for most applications and a G3K for longer ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2002 9:00:24 PM EDT
[#5]
ED_P,The Marines invented the modern bolt action sniper rifle M40,M40A1 and the newest version the A2.Before the M40's they had Winchester Model 70's in .30-06 they also had 03 Springfields with heavier barrels.But they standardized the Remington Mod 700 into the M40 rifles.
The ARMY basically copied the Marines M40A1.Albeit it has diffrent features. The DMR M14 is going to the line companies as their sniper rifle kinda like how the russians and the comblock use the Draganuv. STA,scout/snipers will still use the M40's as the basic issue sniper rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 4:00:03 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 4:03:18 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 4:06:19 AM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 6:04:49 AM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 8:14:24 AM EDT
[#10]
The M16, once the initial problems were ironed out, and the 5.56mm round, have done a pretty good job for the last 25 or so years. Are they perfect? No. Is the 7.62 perfect? No. Expecting any single rifle or caliber to be all things to all people is not realistic. The M16/5.56mm is a better combination than most.
As James4 pointed out in the tactics forum a while back, once shots are fired everyone goes to ground/cover/concealment and you are left with partial targets for fractions of seconds. What is really needed is some sort of man-portable weapon that is capable of blasting the enemy out from behind their cover. The Russians use the Shmel and it is said by some veterans to be very effective. If the damn thing works, maybe we should just buy a bunch of them from the Russkies! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 8:45:49 AM EDT
[#11]
A good friend just got back from Afghanistan, he's SF, 5th group, he said that his team decided after their first encounter that double taps weren't going to cut it. They standardized on 5 shot minimums per target. He said its not the gun, its not the caliber, its the damn green tip crap ammo and the fact that the Afghans smoked enough hash to kill the average person.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 9:55:35 AM EDT
[#12]
This may be blasphemy, but I'd like to see an AR-15 re-chambered to 7.62 (I know they have them) BUT able to accept AK mags. The mags are dirt cheap and readily available. This to me would be the perfect carbine. Kind of like a reverse Daewoo. Colt on top, AK on the bottom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 11:44:00 AM EDT
[#13]
I have shot my share of .308 and .223 into various targets and while I can see that hi-vel fragmenting round fired at full auto into a body at close range can be devestating, at long ranges ( 100+ yards ) it just plain does not work.
The .308 is much better at those distances, a round at center of mass creates a .30 hole straight through the body, a round in the thigh will shatter the bone, a round in the pelvis will shatter the pelvis. A .223 will not do this at distance. Yep, a m14 is not a good full auto gun, but so what? The average soldier doesn't get to carry full auto anymore so that argument is bunk. Yep, the m14 is heavy, the rounds are heavy, but if it is carry more weight or have a gun that is not worth a shit at the distances you are fighting at, I guess I would carry the weight. Plain and simple, at kinds of distances being fought at in afghanistan, the 7.62 is the best round and the m14 is what we have in the arsenal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 2:22:57 PM EDT
[#14]
I've got a closet full of toys, but if we were hit hard here in the states(SHTF) and I could only grab what my wife and I could carry, it would be my SF M1A and my Colt M4gery.
When the rubber hits the road, it's all about the right tool for the job. I wouldn't want to clear a house with my M1A, but I wouldn't want to attempt a 400 meter "KILL" shot with my M4gery either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 2:40:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Someone asked earlier in the thread what the standard ammo load was for the M-1. Well I asked my father in law, an infantryman with the 119th regiment, 30th Division in WW2. He fought in the Bulge until the end of the war.
Well anyway, the standard load was 192 rounds. That's what he carried anyway... Rick |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 2:46:14 PM EDT
[#16]
its amazing how F'ing REMFs know everything. i would like to choke the living shit out of everyone who sends me that stupid email.
the Corps actually financed and initiated the M4 development using "blue dollars" which is why the program is managed by NSWC Crane. the M4 has its place but the 20inch is still the mainstay in the Corps. why the Army wants it as a standard issue weapon ill never understand. the M14 is not gone, there are 6 or more in every armory ive been in. hell, last year i was helping out in my reserve units armory and we had 6 M3 greaseguns new in box with the 9mm conversion barrels. and dont say my unit is slow-to-adapt reserve unit either, we have a dozen of the new Bennelli shotguns so that cant be it. if you ask me the M4 issues could be cheaply and easily remedied by issuing M193 when appropriate. but no one asks me  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Ya, Dragons are coming back too, I saw it on TV :)
Im not a fan of Garand actions,had M1s and carbines, you can keepem. I have had colt ARs since I was 8, I used Vietnam issue M16s in boot, 80s issue at first unit and A2s when I got out. No problems and most that I have seen have been operator error. I use a Beretta 92 SB M frame and its the best gun I have carried and used. The only problems I have seen with them was 12 years ago when they where issued to our MPs. Berretta fixed and reissued and I have not heard any serious probs since them. 45s ,well we could talk bushings ect, but na. If thats what you want go ahead. M4s not being able to reach at range. Well Im just gonna bet they can reach as far, if not further with greater accuracy than the Afgan with the AK47 shooting back. Isnt that what counts. For all you who are Vets you should know beter. For all you vets with desert experience common, gentlemen. If their out of range, reach out and touch someone, FIRE MISSION, FIRE MISSION, FIRE MISSION! Its wonderfull how cordinated Arty and air support can bring people together :) Im getting all misty. M14s for snipers, sure. But the M16 is this counrty's MBR buddy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 6:11:36 PM EDT
[#18]
The M4 system has no place other than in CQB applications, other than that it's short length and velocity loss is a serious impediment to effectiveness. While a heavier caliber may be theoretically desireable, the difference is not going to win or lose a war or most battles. If the men in Task Force Ranger had been armed with 7.62mm rifles they still would have faced the same problems, the same VASTLY superior numbers, the same confined, hostile environment, and probably had fewer rounds to actually fight with. So while the rounds might actually have been more effective hit for hit, the supply of them would have been more limited. TFR still would have suffered the same casualties, etc. The M16A2 is a fine rifle for normal infantry engagement ranges. It's flat trajectory helps to ensure hits out to reasonable engagement ranges and low recoil and strong ergonomic layout makes it easier to learn and shoot well. A heavier caliber might be nice for open ground warfare...maybe, but frankly, since the vast majority of battlefield combat casualties are inflicted by artillery, rockets, CAS etc. the rifle is basically a defensive weapon used to keep the enemy pinned down while you call in the really big guns. And while you may feel more confident in theory with a .30 caliber rifle, rifles don't win wars. What wins wars is good command and control of combined arms along with a super robust logistical train. A strong logistical train ensures that you have the munitions and supplies you need, whatever you need, when you need them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 7:07:57 PM EDT
[#19]
What is it with some of you guys and your hard-on for the M14? They stopped making the M14 40 years ago. You know why? Because it wasn't all that great. You can post all the phony e-mails and give links to bogus urban legends, but if you believe that crap, that only makes you a gullible retard. How many ground combat encounters have we had with the Taliban? A few. When and where are these encounters taking place? How many US soldiers have been killed? Very very few (most have been killed by FRIENDLY FIRE). If we are so outgunned why aren't more US soldiers being slaughtered with their worthless powerless little varmint guns? Why do the Israelis prefer the M16/M4? www.isayeret.com Some of you (M14 and FAL fans) are complete idiots! How come the Taliban with their mighty Commie guns haven't slaughtered our virtually unarmed (weak little M4s) heroes? How come 2 million Vietnamese died (bombs and arty, mostly) and only 58,000 US troops died in Vietnam if we were so outgunned and undergunned? FACT: The number one and two cause of death in war are: BOMBS AND ARTILLERY, NOT small arms fire. The Taliban was driven out by bombing not M14's. The USA will win wars not because of rifles, but because of air superiority. The M16 is more than adequate to handle the rare engagements with the enemy. The Israelis dumped the FAL/AK47/Galil because they sucked. They have chosen the M16/M4. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 7:40:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Lets face it.....the m4 is an effective weapon out to 200 maybe 300 yards......no arguement......BUT......open range is a different situation.....would I be afraid to carry a m4.....hell no......but if it were targets at distance...7-62 is no doubt more effective.....the way war is staged today....the m16 varient is not going to be replaced any time soon.....but it is important that the 762 be readily available.....how it`s delivered...???......in my opinion....uncle could best be served by learning a thing or two from the isrealis......is he????.....they definitly have a few years of war experience..............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 7:54:26 PM EDT
[#21]
But frankly speaking, infantry rarely engages effectively at ranges beyond 150 yards or so. IN battle all that nice range marksmanship goes out the window. Triggers get jerked, hands shake, tired muscles refuse to cooperate, your chest heaves from running around and being terrified, etc. All sorts of wonderful physiological and psychological things get in the way of actually putting steel on target. In WWII US infantry had the best rifle of the war and rarely engaged at ranges beyond 150 yards. Nothing has changed that since. If you really need to hit someone out beyond the effective range of your rifle you do it with air or arty, or mortars or the M203's, or the new 20mm grenades for the OICWS. A 7.62mm NATO rifle, while clearly superior in range and damage is really too much rifle for what is needed on 95% of battlefields. It is also more difficult to teach, to learn and to shoot in combat. It is also more difficult to supply and support thanks to the sheer mass of weapon, parts and ammunition. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 7:59:06 PM EDT
[#22]
No arguement......it`s known as "the changing face of warfare"......well at least thats what they called it during-after nam.........
.........still.....I feel the guys today are somewhat under equipped
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 8:01:58 PM EDT
[#23]
From my experience there is only one major factor that will determine who wins-loses an engagement with small arms and that is fire superiority (Sheer volume and accuracy) It makes no difference to any sane individual with the will to survive if he is being pinned with 5.56 or 7.62. No team leader would conduct an ambush at 300m+ with small arms, this is where indirect fire and air support comes into play to suck the enemy into the KZ or to GTFO of a bad situation. Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 8:12:35 PM EDT
[#24]
There was a Garand SHORTAGE at the begining of WWII. M-1903's were converted to M-1903A3's (IIRC) to issue to USMC units in the Pacific. This was due to the Europe first policy, so that US Army units headed to Europe got Garands. USMC units were Garandized as rifles became available. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 8:29:23 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 9:43:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Funny how the M14 has gotten everybody's hackles up. Some folks just can't deal with the suggestion that our favorite little black rifle ain't "the shit" in every situation known to man.
Some people keep mentioning the M203 as a sub. for a real rifle. It ain't. As a pretty decent 203 user, even being the platoon's go to guy on the weapon, it is a limited use piece. Max range is only 400 meters. And it's a 7 or 8 second ride to get there. First round hits at 300 or 400 yards are the exception rather than the rule. But it does still give me a hard on, limitations and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/24/2002 10:58:28 PM EDT
[#27]
You will have to do a search cause i cant get the site to come up.
Search Jeff Coopers commentaries. Its Volume 10 no#7,june 2002. www.dvc.org.uk should come up on your 1st search that the one with the M14 article in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 1:02:24 AM EDT
[#28]
So less sum it up. The max effective range (not talking about what people can do on a rifle range) for both the M14 and the M16 really aren't that much different. A change in rifle change the fact that targets hide in micro terrain and it is heard to pick up targets beyond the max effective range of either weapon system. And so far no one has cited a credible source for the change and a few of the AD personnel have pointed to the fact that it is more than likely an urban legend.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:18:47 AM EDT
[#29]
Disinformation has a way of doing that...for honest people at least. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 5:40:17 AM EDT
[#30]
I think you are right about the Garand...but "completely replacing" covers a lot of ground. Also, I don't think it was so much a case of institutional reluctance or bias that kept the Garand out of the field early in the war; rather I think it was simply production limitations. Virtually all of the front line combat units in the Army and Marine Corps were outfitted with Garands by late 1942 - early 1943. In fact, Garands were issued to infantry units in the Philippines before the war started. MacArthur saw to that. The Marines landed at Guadalcanal with '03s but the Army units that arrived later had Garands. Rumor has it that shortly after the Army units began arriving on the 'Canal, Garands began showing up in Marine rifle companies. The Marines had some good scroungers. The biggest problem with the lack of Garands early in the war was simply production. The United States was woefully unprepared for war and it took time to re-tool a weak economic engine to make the machines of war and get up to full production. That it was accomplished as quickly as it was and the incredible numbers of weapons that were produced is a testament to American inginuity, technical expertise and strong work ethic. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 6:20:32 AM EDT
[#31]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read on this site's Ammo FAQ that the reason we went to the little black rifle was based on the fact that one soldier could carry almost 3 times as much ammo, as compared to WWII battle rifles. The "overwhelm your enemy" theory that a few have already touched on here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 7:07:52 AM EDT
[#32]
I am going to be unpopular for this, but 50% of what "Jeff Cooper" (a God to some) says is nothing but TOTAL, NARROW-MINDED BULLSHIT. The other 50% is good stuff....
Eric/Tyler |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 7:18:52 AM EDT
[#33]
What's kind of funny, is that in units that actually knew what they were doing out there, the black rifle was devastating in Viet Nam. SOG recon teams were frequently compromised by South Vietnamese liason officers and ended up hitting their patrol areas under fire or came under fire immediately afterwards. These disciplined teams or 10-12 men, exercising good tactics and marksmanship skills, seemed to regularly manage to hold off and mangle vastly superior numbers of NVA and Viet Cong soldiers until extraction. Yes they suffered over a 100% casualty rate themselves, but somehow, armed only with their CAR-15 type rifle/carbines, they managed to do an awful lot of damage. The difference is operator skill. The professional warrior knows his weapon and maintains it obsessively so that it will not break down on him when he needs it. They also maintain a higher level of skill than do the typical line grunts. Probably 90% of the time someone claims to have hit an enemy soldier and been amazed that the guy kept coming, they actually missed due to jerking the trigger, bad sight picture or any of a thousand other variables that occur on the battlefield. Again, I'm not saying the M4 or even M16 is the perfect combat rifle for every situation, just that it's shortcomings are often overstated and many can actually be traced back to operator error. The lure of the walnut and steel full-power rifle is a matter of tradition I think, and the confidence that such mass inspires. Practical considerations are more important than that however. The same can be said for the wood-steel rifle guys obsession with boiled linseed oil. It's a matter of tradition. The certain knowledge that exterior grade polyurethane outperforms BLO (no matter how it is applied) by several orders of magnitude doesn't even make a dent in these guys thinking. It's not what they were taught, it's not what their DI's were taught, so it ain't proper. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:38:09 AM EDT
[#34]
The IDF didn't think the FAL was all that reliable in the desert . . . The '16 is the best thing going. The FAL and '14 are inferior. They were good in their day, but that day is gone. The AR-10 needs a lot of work before it gits it's bugs out. And it is too big & heavy. Sure, some sort of 6 mm round is probably ideal for rifle/SAW use. The platform will require development . . . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:46:12 AM EDT
[#35]
The '03 was retained for some time as a granade launcher platform, since it took a while to figure out how to launch granades from the Garand. And the '03 was never fully replaced by the Garand as a sniper rifle. The M1C and M1D never really matched the long range accuracy of the 1903. The Marines didn't adopt the Garand until 1941 I believe. The army adopted it as the standard rifle in '36. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 11:16:38 AM EDT
[#36]
All I seem to recall is if a bad guy has a hole through his belly it tends not to matter what size the hole is it get the bad guy off the battle field 9 times out of 10.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:13:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Ok, let me get this straight. We actually have people who think an M4 is not a "100" meter weapon? WTF, over.
I would imagine if anything was the problem at 100 meters, it was the stupid M9. It should go without saying that an M4, even with a 14.5 barrel, is still rifle capable out to several hundred meters, albeit not the advertised 800 of an M16A2. Yes, the 20" barrel will always give superior accuracy and velocity, but the Army was not ignorant to this when they adopted the M4. They just felt the velocity loss was acceptable when weighed with the advantages of the compactness of the 14.5" barrel. Remember, the Army WANTED a carbine in the M4. It is issued to paratroops, vehicle crews, etc. and in the SOPMOD mode for special ops, the 14.5 barrel helps when they attach the 8" suppressor. So, in closing, I will now order me an M1A in case I ever have to shoot 100 meters. Whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 12:13:40 PM EDT
[#38]
I've been reading this thread for the last few days and one thing has gone unsaid, I think. Iceman95 got close.
Recoil!!! The M14 kicks more than the AR15, period. Before you heros start telling me about how well you handle a minor .308, remember its about quick follow-up shots. Ya, I like a .308, hell I like my .338winmag, but I can't believe that anyone can get as quick of follow up shots with the .308 as they can with the .223. I've never shot a .308 or .223 in anger so I'm no expert, and just a monday morning quarterback, but shot placement has to be a little iffy when three guys are comeing at you rapidly and need dispatched. I have to believe that it is easier with the .223 to control that sight picture. I know I sure can't do as well with an M1A, as I can with my AR, in semi-auto rapid fire. I can't imagine what a full auto would be like. I'm sure some of you can enlighten us. Hell, even Rouge Spear makes acount for the M14 being harder to manage under rapid fire, and it's just a video game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 4:12:29 PM EDT
[#39]
From what I understand, most armies that switched from 7.62 NATO to 5.56 NATO have experienced more hits at "long distance" on the target range, not less. This is probably mostly due to less recoil, but more hits are more hits. Of course, the other issue is the effect of the hits. At range, neither 7.62 nor 5.56 bullets are traveling fast enough for devastating effect. Both will make relatively small holes in the target, with 7.62 making a slightly larger hole. However, the aforementioned accuracy advantage of 5.56, along with its higher volume, should more than make up for this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 6:24:18 PM EDT
[#40]
The Marine Corps defended Wake Island( although unsuccessfully) and invaded Gaudalcanal(Aug. 42) with M1903's |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 7:19:53 PM EDT
[#41]
I think the remarks about less recoil in .223 as opposed to 7.62 for follow up shots is pretty convincing. There is no way I could place 7.62 at 100 meters with the accuracy as .223. Great point. I wonder how a P90 would do with it's dinky round. I hear it can shred Kevlar and is accurate pretty far out. Plus, a 50 round mag to boot!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 9:06:25 PM EDT
[#42]
I think I finally have an analogy for all of this. After skimming through all these posts, this seems like the caliber issue will never be resolved. There is no such thing as a perfect weapons platform.
I guess the best analogy for this, would be airplanes. When you have an Air Force or Navy, you need a group of different aircraft. You need a pure bred fighter (F-15 or F-14) for air superiority missions. You need large numbers of ground attack aircraft to serve as the work horse of the air armada (F-16s, F/A-18s). You need slow flying aircraft that can get down and dirty (A-10, AH-64A/D). Then you need big ass aircraft that can bomb cities or refuel other birds (KC-135, B-52), etc. So down on the 10-12 man platoon/squad level, you need maybe 6-8 guys carrying your run of the mill M-16, one or two guys with a sniper rifle (M40 or M1A), maybe two guys with light machineguns (M249s) and then maybe the other two or so gentlemen with a 40 mm GMG. Flexibility and versatility is all important in order to engage the enemy. One gun type will never do the job....not even my 6.5 x 39 mm proposal My two cents, themao 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:03:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Actually, Israel "dumped" the Galil because they get a price break when they use their US Aid money to buy M16s.... Scott |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:05:21 PM EDT
[#44]
During the war a movie was made about the Marine defense of Wake. One interesting thing is that at the time, we had no idea how much trouble the Marines gave the Japanese. The Marines in fact drove off one Japanese invasion force. The Japanese were very disappointed with the light casulties they inflicted, and the heavy ones they suffered. This battle serves as an interesting counterpoint to the argument that the heavy Japanese casulties in later battles were due primarly to American material superiority. By the way, the '03 wasn't the only weapon used by the Marine defenders. One Japanese statement was the "every Marine had a Thompson". |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2002 10:10:29 PM EDT
[#45]
So cheap M16s are better than "free" Galils? Galils that are already manufactured are essentially free. The IDF has lots of "free" AKs, Galils, and FN FALs. There are three reasons the IDF uses the M16: It is lighter. It is more accurate. It more easily accepts attachments (most importantly, the optical sights the IDF appears to prefer). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 3:53:33 AM EDT
[#46]
posted by icemanat95 "In WWII US infantry had the best rifle of the war and rarely engaged at ranges beyond 150 yards. Nothing has changed that since." And most occured at less than 100 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 6:05:30 AM EDT
[#47]
Sorry, wrong, thanks for playing. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:10:58 AM EDT
[#48]
I noticed that, when I was in Israel past september, all the Israeli soldiers where carring:
a) M16A1 with 20" barrel b) M16 Govt. Carbine with 16" barrel c) M16A2 or A3 with 20" barrel. Only commanders or police where issued M16 with 10" barrel. I guess that battelfield proved that is not worting shooting a 5.56 from any barrell shorter than 16"... If I remember, there was an article on the old ar15.com describing the best survival/recon carbine, and the result was a M16 carbine with a 16" barrel. I made a choice: Oly K4B (M16A2) with standard 20" barrel... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 7:30:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Israelis don't "dump" anything. They cannot afford it. The policy is "recover, transform and reuse it". Galil is still issued. Glilon (short Galil for tanks crew) is still issued. I was in low Galilee, nearby a training center of the Golani Brigade, and almost all the recruits on leave waiting for bus were carrying Glilons or Galils. M16A1 with A1 and A2 fittings are seen in big numbers. Rarely real M16A2 or even less (never with my eyes but in pics) M4... I have even a picture of a paratroop captain that is escorting Brg. Gen. Rafael Eitan with (LISTEN) a Webley-Scott revolver!!! In the Kibutz armories you can even find Mausers ready to fire! Urban legends, folks... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2002 8:11:47 AM EDT
[#50]
The infantry squad has no need for an organic sniper team. There may be a need for two designated marksmen, but that's a different thing. The DM is an expert rifleman with a bit of additional training in identifying and killing longer ranged targets. The DM doesn't necessarily need a heavy caliber for the role either, a 20 inch M16 with a floating barrel, match trigger, decent optics (a la Leupold Mark 4 CQT scope) and loaded with the heaviest match grade loads that can be stuffed into the magazine would probably prove sufficient. The disadvantage of sticking with a common platform is giving up poltential range and long-range lethality. The advantage is that everyone's shooting the same basic small arms ammunition in a pinch. That logistical advantage is significant in a firefight. Having 5k 5.56mm NATO ammunition with the squad doesn't do you a heck of a lot of good when your rifle shoots 7.62. With the current infantry squad load out, every man shoots the same caliber, the riflemen shoot M16A2s and M4s, the grenadiers have M16A2's with 203s, the machinegunners use the M249 SAW. All shoot 5.56mm so in a pinch ammo can be readily redistributed (one of the roles of the squad leader in a firefight is to keep ammo and water properly distributed and make sure the wounded are treated, while at the same time directing the squad's tactics within the platoon plan.) Commonality of ammo is a significant issue in real combat, probably more important than the optimal effectiveness of an individual weapon in its role just so long as the weapon is good enough. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
