Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/25/2002 9:16:22 PM EST
You "big bore nuts" either have short memories or choose to ignore history...the big-bore so-called "Battle Rifle" was found to be obsolete as soon as it was introduced in WW2! The frontline troops (especially in the Pacific Theater)were clamoring for a lightweight rifle capable of automatic fire at the short ranges encountered in real combat...in other words the M-16! Shoot at a target 800 yards away? Sure, the M-1/M-14 can do it, but that kind of shooting is IRRELEVANT for the average trooper...what do you think, the Enemy is just going to stand there while you manly men adjust your precious little windage knobs on your hairy-chested big bore monstrosities? Or are they going to be bobbing and weaving, like they want to stay alive, rather than fulfilling your macho fantasies by standing still at known ranges like your big white paper targets? The troops who shoot at those ranges are specialists called SNIPERS who are issued special pieces...Combat in reality is random chaos, and it has been proven that the vast majority of casualties have been caused by random projectiles...AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN!
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:22:29 PM EST
Hmmm, someone seems to be suffering from Rifle Envy :D

Any weapon will have a purpose that it is better for. The M16 is great for Forests, Mountains, and other scenarios that call for shorter range fireplay. Personally, if I can take a longer shot I will, be it at deer or enemy, and I find the larger bores do that better than the smallbores, at least with stopping power.

But when I go to the range I take big bore, small bore, and whatever I can find in between :D

We all have different tastes, so why don't we just all accept that, and shoot as much as humanly possible :Þ

Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:29:31 PM EST
Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons...I stay away from big bore sites as I have nothing good to say about them, so I take offence when the loons come here to launch the same tired attacks, all of which are based on roumor or deliberatly distorted facts...the real knowlege is out there if they would care to learn, instead of just shooting thier mouths off...
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:32:22 PM EST
are you mad that you cant get a m1a in CA?
just to make your Rifle Envy a little worse
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:40:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 9:41:47 PM EST by talbalos]

Originally Posted By tattoo:
are you mad that you cant get a m1a in CA?
just to make your Rifle Envy a little worse



What do you mean? Just saw them advertised in the local paper for $1099 at Sportsmen Supply in San Jose.

As long as it doesn't have a pistol grip it's allowed. Pf course you can't get those purdy 20 round mags anymore
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:41:12 PM EST
StormSurge sounds like GunKid.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:43:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By talbalos:

Originally Posted By tattoo:
are you mad that you cant get a m1a in CA?
just to make your Rifle Envy a little worse



What do you mean? Just saw them advertised in the local paper for $1099 at Sportsmen Supply in San Jose.

As long as it doesn't have a pistol grip it's allowed. Pf course you can't get those purdy 20 round mags anymore


when i got mine it had a tag on it saying not legal for sale in CA after dec 31st.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:48:29 PM EST
Maybe he is, no idea, all I know is I keep buying rifles, and I have a mess of .30 cals, and have recently been buying AR parts, going to build myself an AR soon. (Kinda made the mistake when I was 18 of selling my all Colt SP1 for $800)

I see the merits of both, but when people go and just say one is "Obsolete" well, that is the kind of thinking that is closed minded. I could never imagine only ever shooting .30 cals, but neither could I ever imagine only shooting .22 cals. Practice with everything, because you never know when you are going to have to pick something up in the heat of battle, and wouldn't it just suck if it was something you were not familiar with? "What the hell was that guy doing fighting with a .577 snider anyways?" :D
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 9:51:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/25/2002 10:00:02 PM EST by talbalos]

Originally Posted By tattoo:
hen i got mine it had a tag on it saying not legal for sale in CA after dec 31st.



Oops, my bad. Most of the M1A's sold now also have a compensator instead of the GI flash suppressor. Otherwise they're M1A's. I think Springfield was just covering it's behind.

May as well add that I own three AR-15 style firearms as well as a couple of .308 Win rifles in semi & bolt action. I had to get the .308's because the other shooters at the range would get pissed because I was practicing my 'modern infantry' firing technique and spraying bullets down range randomly. The other shooters insist on something called marksmanship. Go figure.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 10:04:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
You "big bore nuts" either have short memories or choose to ignore history...the big-bore so-called "Battle Rifle" was found to be obsolete as soon as it was introduced in WW2!



Thats why the Germans almost took over all of Europe with K98 mauser's.



The frontline troops (especially in the Pacific Theater)were clamoring for a lightweight rifle capable of automatic fire at the short ranges encountered in real combat...in other words the M-16!



No, they had submachineguns for the short ranges in combat, what they where really looking for was something to be intermediate between a rifle the submachinegun. Something with more power then a subgun but something without the recoil of a full length cartridge.



Shoot at a target 800 yards away? Sure, the M-1/M-14 can do it, but that kind of shooting is IRRELEVANT for the average trooper...



And magically the M14 cannot kill anyone who is within 800 yards. Reality check, the M14 will kill someone at all the same ranges as a M16, and then some.



what do you think, the Enemy is just going to stand there while you manly men adjust your precious little windage knobs on your hairy-chested big bore monstrosities?



Your far away, the enemy probably can't see you until you start shooting. Thats the magical part. Unlike the M16, you don't have to be in the thick of it to hit your targets and you have more time to adjust.

I guess sniper rifles shouldn't exist either right?



Or are they going to be bobbing and weaving, like they want to stay alive, rather than fulfilling your macho fantasies by standing still at known ranges like your big white paper targets?



And magically the targets that people shoot with M16's jump, bob and weave, but the second someone has to use a M14, its only for stable targets like tanks and houses



The troops who shoot at those ranges are specialists called SNIPERS who are issued special pieces...



Snipers? Whats the use of snipers? Targets jump and weave and shit like that remember? If long range scoped M14's can't do it then how can sniper rifles do it? Oh whait, scoped M14 rifles are sniper rifles... what where you talking about again?



Combat in reality is random chaos, and it has been proven that the vast majority of casualties have been caused by random projectiles...



Most of the casualties in war don't even come from small arms fire, only something like 15%. SAW's and MG's make up about 80% of the casualties that result in combat due to small arms anyways, so in reality, your precious M16 isn't doing much fuck all compared to MG's, grenades, rockets, bombs, and missiles.



AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN!



The old spray and pray technique eh? That worked great in Vietnam.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 11:27:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN!



I guess the Marine Corps has been going about their training the wrong way for the last 200 years. Damn, that's good to know, thanks buddy.



I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think Scarecrow is correct, this dipstick sounds an offal (look it up) lot like Gunkid.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 11:38:13 PM EST

"What the hell was that guy doing fighting with a .577 snider anyways?" :D
.577 is the Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 11:38:38 PM EST
[





Most of the casualties in war don't even come from small arms fire, only something like 15%. SAW's and MG's make up about 80% of the casualties that result in combat due to small arms anyways, so in reality, your precious M16 isn't doing much fuck all compared to MG's, grenades, rockets, bombs, and missiles.




not to mention diseases... they probably kill as many people as people getting bombed and stuff... especially in poor conditions.
Link Posted: 7/25/2002 11:54:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:

"What the hell was that guy doing fighting with a .577 snider anyways?"
.577 is the Tyrannosaurus Rex.



Actually, I used to own one of these, cannot remember what the rifle was called, it was sort of like a trapdoor, but was a modified black powder weapon, damn was it fun to kill gophers with [+]:)]-
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 12:00:22 AM EST
"AIMED FIRE IS IRRELAVENT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN" i was with you right up untill you spewed that crap. have you ever been an infantryman? i have and so have many others on this board and let me tell you. aimed fire is EVERYTHING! the only time i have seen 3rd burst put to use is in MOUT and ambush drills (breaking contact)
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 12:12:01 AM EST
The M1A is my next firearms purchase.

Any time a complete idiot starts spouting off moronic nonsense concerning a firearm I have a desire to purchase one. Go back to playing the computer games and make sure mom knows you're up.

--------------

Tattoo.... Sweet rifle. Stainless loaded?
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 1:53:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:38:17 AM EST
I can understand his point about the .30 caliber disciples that hang around here and harangue the 5.56 every chance they get. Same with the AK drones stirring up the AR vs AK debate every chance they get. Makes no sense. If the AR15 ain't for you, I'm sure that somewhere there's a discussion board that caters to your whims.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:53:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 2:56:02 AM EST by talbalos]

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I can understand his point about the .30 caliber disciples that hang around here and harangue the 5.56 every chance they get. Same with the AK drones stirring up the AR vs AK debate every chance they get. Makes no sense. If the AR15 ain't for you, I'm sure that somewhere there's a discussion board that caters to your whims.



.30 is about as relevent on this board as .50 cal, zombie ammo, borg ammo, favorite planes, feeding pork to Muslims and computer games, yet no one complains about those OT threads. Besides, if this forum strictly adhered to AR-15's it would be one long FAQ without reader input.

Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:54:40 AM EST
Common sense dictates a larger weapon than the 223/5.56 be carried by an Army of one.

Why would you want to limit you capabilities?

I believe in maximizing my chances not minimizing them, god it's so simple.


Link Posted: 7/26/2002 2:54:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
You "big bore nuts" either have short memories or choose to ignore history...the big-bore so-called "Battle Rifle" was found to be obsolete as soon as it was introduced in WW2!



Gee, silly General Patton.

And to think he believed the M1 was the greatest battle implement ever devised.

What a maroon. SS, I mean.


Link Posted: 7/26/2002 3:22:57 AM EST
explain to me why the 7.62 is making a comeback, especially in afgan. and don't forget the Corp's DMR.

www.marinescoutsniper.com/dmr.html


AR's and M14 types all have their place on the battlefield.

The M1A/M14 is a great rifle and WE (fans)WILL NOT GO AWAY!
(FWIW, I have just as many AR's as MBR's, so )

also, "Aimed Fire"? you're asking for trouble here, as already mentioned.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:02:03 AM EST
I always wanted a M1A but just can't afford it. When I by a gun, I think of it as a weapons systems as I will need to buy ammo, a lot of mags, spare parts, books on it, etc. So, it is very costly to own many different types of guns.

For me, I just own ARs and FALs (more than one of each) and try to train as much with them as possible. If I didn't have the FAL, then I would have gone for the M1A.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:05:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By tattoo:

Originally Posted By talbalos:

Originally Posted By tattoo:
are you mad that you cant get a m1a in CA?
just to make your Rifle Envy a little worse



What do you mean? Just saw them advertised in the local paper for $1099 at Sportsmen Supply in San Jose.

As long as it doesn't have a pistol grip it's allowed. Pf course you can't get those purdy 20 round mags anymore


when i got mine it had a tag on it saying not legal for sale in CA after dec 31st.



I just bought one. The Cali ones can't have flash supressors so the sell them here with muzzle brakes. You can still get them here just not in the configuration you have.

I was wise in buying my 20 rounders before the ban
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:09:33 AM EST
What is "aimed fire"? I don't believe I've ever heard of that.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:15:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By Scarecrow:



The frontline troops (especially in the Pacific Theater)were clamoring for a lightweight rifle capable of automatic fire at the short ranges encountered in real combat...in other words the M-16!



No, they had submachineguns for the short ranges in combat, what they where really looking for was something to be intermediate between a rifle the submachinegun. Something with more power then a subgun but something without the recoil of a full length cartridge.




Witness the M1/M2 carbine
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:25:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By DSA_Brat:
Common sense dictates a larger weapon than the 223/5.56 be carried by an Army of one.

Why would you want to limit you capabilities?

I believe in maximizing my chances not minimizing them, god it's so simple.





I think that Marine grunts should still be issued the M14. They could put it to good use.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 5:59:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By 7IDL:
explain to me why the 7.62 is making a comeback, especially in afgan. and don't forget the Corp's DMR.

www.marinescoutsniper.com/dmr.html


AR's and M14 types all have their place on the battlefield.

The M1A/M14 is a great rifle and WE (fans)WILL NOT GO AWAY!
(FWIW, I have just as many AR's as MBR's, so )

also, "Aimed Fire"? you're asking for trouble here, as already mentioned.

You just made his point. I went to your link and it's about SNIPERS. It's not making a comeback in Afghanistan. That's just a pipedream by some of the people he is talking about, an unfounded story. The 7.62 is not making a comeback because it never went away, as snipers have been using the caliber all along that is what your link is referring to.

As for long distance, I will stick with my Garands. You can have the M1A/M14.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:00:43 AM EST
IMHO the AR15 is nice for target shooting/varmint rig. I would not want to hunt a deer with it. I would hunt deer sized game with a .30 cal anyday.

Why the military carries around a varmint rifle? Politics I guess... flame on...
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:01:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Valkyre:

I think that Marine grunts should still be issued the M14. They could put it to good use.

Exactly the folks he is talking about. Some people can't get over the fact that their precious M14 is no longer standard issue, usually those who never had to lug a rifle around in a combat zone.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:02:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Valkyre:

I think that Marine grunts should still be issued the M14. They could put it to good use.



I would like to see both the M-16/AR-15 and an AR-10 type of rifle as standard issue.

Being that they are alike this would make the transition between the two very easy. It would also give U.S. forces a larger caliber when it is needed.

Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:03:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By pv74:
Why the military carries around a varmint rifle? Politics I guess... flame on...

Why do people with this train of thought even own an AR or visit this board?
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:16:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By 7IDL:
explain to me why the 7.62 is making a comeback, especially in afgan. and don't forget the Corp's DMR.

www.marinescoutsniper.com/dmr.html


AR's and M14 types all have their place on the battlefield.

The M1A/M14 is a great rifle and WE (fans)WILL NOT GO AWAY!
(FWIW, I have just as many AR's as MBR's, so )

also, "Aimed Fire"? you're asking for trouble here, as already mentioned.



I actually get a bit of a kick out of the DMR being held up as an example of how the M14 is making a comeback on the battlefield.


The DMR is a highly specialized weapon system fielded in extremely limited numbers to an extremely elite Marine Corps specialty. There were probably no more than a dozen DMR's in country in Afghanistan when the Marine Corps rolled out that story...since that time I have also seen the same file photos captioned as depicting SEALs with their XM25 sniper rifle...but that's neither her nor there.

The fact of the matter is that the M14 is not making a battlefield come-back outside of this single, highly specialized area. It won't make a comeback any further thanks to the M14's high maintenance requirements, weight and the fact that the Clinton Government gave them away in droves when it wasn't actively destroying them. So even if the Army wanted to field them, there aren't enough to meet the needs of active fielded units plus training rifles and spares.

But I generally agree with you that there is a place for both intermediate range cartridge rifles like the M16A2 and heavier caliber systems with longer range. The DMR concept (a designated marksman in each squad) is a good one, I just don't think the Marine Corps DMR is the right system military wide. The Marines chose the M14 primarily because it was cheap, not because it was their first choice. I'd bet that their first choice was an AR10 variant, but the procurement costs exceeded their budget.

Aimed fire is ALWAYS relevant in combat.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:22:34 AM EST
I thought this was the "General Firearm Discussion" forum. To me that infers you can talk about ANYTHING gun related. If you don't want other weapons discussed then go to the "General AR15 ONLY, no others will be tolerated!" forum...or have this one deleted and we will go someplace else.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:30:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Some people can't get over the fact that their precious M14 is no longer standard issue, usually those who never had to lug a rifle around in a combat zone.



Since when is weight a factor in carrying a rifle? In the marine rifle squad, everyone is carrying a SAW, or an M203, or an M60, or four or five drums of SAW ammo. The only person with just a rifle and his own ammo is the squad leader and the platoon sergeant. I humped several weapons systems and I never realized that anyone was considering how much weight I had to carry... you just hump whats given you an shut up. If you fall out you're a poosie!
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:33:47 AM EST
After 35 years since first touching the M14, I'm not going away. Even though heavier, nothing reassures more at the moment of truth than a well sighted Garand or M14. Results you can see and feel. O.K., so my future is in the past, I'm set in my ways...I feel for good reason.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 6:42:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Scary:
I thought this was the "General Firearm Discussion" forum. To me that infers you can talk about ANYTHING gun related. If you don't want other weapons discussed then go to the "General AR15 ONLY, no others will be tolerated!" forum...or have this one deleted and we will go someplace else.





Ditto...!
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:05:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By StormSurge:
Shoot at a target 800 yards away? Sure, the M-1/M-14 can do it, but that kind of shooting is IRRELEVANT for the average trooper...

...Combat in reality is random chaos, and it has been proven that the vast majority of casualties have been caused by random projectiles

...AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN!



Yeah, you sound like a real expert.

This just in ladies and gentlemen... according to StormSurge

AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE RIFLEMAN

On second thought, that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:07:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
I can understand his point about the .30 caliber disciples that hang around here and harangue the 5.56 every chance they get. Same with the AK drones stirring up the AR vs AK debate every chance they get. Makes no sense. If the AR15 ain't for you, I'm sure that somewhere there's a discussion board that caters to your whims.



HAHA 5.56 sucks! Feel better?
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:38:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 8:28:36 AM EST by eastsideDC1]
I think the decision for our forces to change over from .30 to .22 was a result of the change in American society. Up till Korea the vast majority of our soldiers that fought in previous wars were from rual areas. Most soldiers had been raised hunting and shooting. The early Boomers that went to Korea needed a little more trainning in shooting than in the past. By the time Viet Nam came around it was painfully clear that new recruits must learn to walk before they can run. Our military looked to relace the battle rifle with the assault rifle. The M-14 has not left our military armorys. Guns are tools and you must pick the right tool for the job. Check out the armory at NSWC Coranado no shortage of M-14's there.

This topic is pointless it is general firearms discussion. To suggest that we should go elswhere is crap.
We should be more concerned about keeping our guns rather than having the 9mm vs .45 acp debate rehashed.

I have M-1's and AR-15's if I have to go in harms way the AR wont be with me. I already know how to shoot and more importantly I know how I shoot when the bullets are comming my way.

Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:43:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 7:47:27 AM EST by warlord]
The M14 good enough for Randy Shughart, that is good enough for me.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 7:52:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 7:54:28 AM EST by Bretshooter]

Originally Posted By eastsideDC1:
The early Boomers that went to Korea needed a little more trainning...




Early "Boomers" were 5 to 8 years old during the Korean War. I guess they did need more training!

Link Posted: 7/26/2002 8:16:41 AM EST
Bigger bullets make bigger holes.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 8:38:15 AM EST
Bretshooter you are correct sorry bad choice of words on my behalf. I was refering to the men who were too young to go to WWII but served in Korea. The actual "baby boom" did not happen till after the war. But there were men who were returning home durring the war and starting familys.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 8:45:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 8:46:48 AM EST by AKADave]

Originally Posted By Halfcocked:
Bigger bullets make bigger holes.



Cant argue with physics!

I felt that the M16 was the best battle rifle in the world until I read an Army armorers rant on another board. Basically he said that the M16 was proving inadequate in Afghanistan because it took 3 or more solid hits on Taliban to end their fighting career. They also had problems with the 9mm and he said that there were a lot of guys getting ahold of old 1911 .45's and that they were getting the job done a lot better.

I still like the .223 round for plinking, varmminting and paper punching but I wouldnt stake my life on one.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 8:59:21 AM EST

Actually the German army ,at the beggining of WW2,used revolutionary infantry tactics based on a revolutionary weapon.The MG34.First successfull and widley used lightweight, beltfed machine gun capable of sustained fire.The German army was lavishvly equipped with these(like no other)and based their infantrty tactics around them.The other troops were fine with the 98K cause they were there to support the MG34 and the superior firepower it provided.

Damn near every ltwt machine gun since is designed off these things,and some countries still use weapons that look like damn near knockoffs of the originals(Check the Pakistanies manning the Kasmir boarder areas.)
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 9:31:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By 7IDL:
explain to me why the 7.62 is making a comeback, especially in afgan. and don't forget the Corp's DMR.

www.marinescoutsniper.com/dmr.html


AR's and M14 types all have their place on the battlefield.

The M1A/M14 is a great rifle and WE (fans)WILL NOT GO AWAY!
(FWIW, I have just as many AR's as MBR's, so )

also, "Aimed Fire"? you're asking for trouble here, as already mentioned.



Just what 7.62 is making a comeback in Afghaninstan?

The only 7.62's in the Army are M24's and the M240.

The Marines DMR M14's left Afghan when the Marines did and never saw combat. The whole concept is a joke, they have enough trouble trying to keep the M40 fleet running and they go and try to indulge a few officers fondness for antiques and give the armorers even more work. The M14's in Afgan were also prototypes and it remains to be seen weather they will be accepted for fleet wide deployment. Even amongst the Marines they are controversial.

If they wanted a DMR it should have been a flattop M16 HBAR like the SOCOMS M16 Special Purpose Rifle. When the DM's supply of special issue match grade heavy bullet ammo runs out, he can be resupplied with standard ammo and mags and no one has to hunt down loose 7.62-or sit around breaking up MG belts-and digging up spare M14 mags to load them in. Most parts other than the trigger and the carefully matched bolt interchange with any M16A2, and with all the rails it accepts all the usual accessories.

Even for sniping, buying new AR-10 type rifles, like the Navy's Mk 11 Mod 0 rifle makes more sense than trying to rehab M14's. For one thing, anyone who has learned to strip down and service a M16 already knows how to take care of a AR-10. Also the accessories and some of the minor parts will interchange. Even then, such a weapon doesn't belong in a rifle platoon but with a specialist sniper team due to its non-standard ammo.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 9:35:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By 7IDL:
explain to me why the 7.62 is making a comeback, especially in afgan. and don't forget the Corp's DMR.

www.marinescoutsniper.com/dmr.html


AR's and M14 types all have their place on the battlefield.

The M1A/M14 is a great rifle and WE (fans)WILL NOT GO AWAY!
(FWIW, I have just as many AR's as MBR's, so here,


Just what 7.62 is making a comeback in Afghaninstan?

The only 7.62's in the Army are M24's and the M240.

The Marines DMR M14's left Afghan when the Marines did and never saw combat. The whole concept is a joke, they have enough trouble trying to keep the M40 fleet running and they go and try to indulge a few officers fondness for antiques and give the armorers even more work. The M14's in Afgan were also prototypes and it remains to be seen weather they will be accepted for fleet wide deployment. Even amongst the Marines they are controversial.

If they wanted a DMR it should have been a flattop M16 HBAR like the SOCOMS M16 Special Purpose Rifle. When the DM's supply of special issue match grade heavy bullet ammo runs out, he can be resupplied with standard ammo and mags and no one has to hunt down loose 7.62-or sit around breaking up MG belts-and digging up spare M14 mags to load them in. Most parts other than the trigger and the carefully matched bolt interchange with any M16A2, and with all the rails it accepts all the usual accessories.

Even for sniping, buying new AR-10 type rifles, like the Navy's Mk 11 Mod 0 rifle makes more sense than trying to rehab M14's. For one thing, anyone who has learned to strip down and service a M16 already knows how to take care of a AR-10. Also the accessories and some of the minor parts will interchange. Even then, such a weapon doesn't belong in a rifle platoon but with a specialist sniper team due to its non-standard ammo.



Well, Delta and other spec ops teams still use variants of the M14 as well as the "obsolete" 1911 so maybe it takes elite troops to use these weapons effectively.

7.62 is non-stanadrd ammo? Tell that to NATO.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 12:03:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By AKADave:

Originally Posted By Halfcocked:
Bigger bullets make bigger holes.



Cant argue with physics!

I felt that the M16 was the best battle rifle in the world until I read an Army armorers rant on another board. Basically he said that the M16 was proving inadequate in Afghanistan because it took 3 or more solid hits on Taliban to end their fighting career. They also had problems with the 9mm and he said that there were a lot of guys getting ahold of old 1911 .45's and that they were getting the job done a lot better.

I still like the .223 round for plinking, varmminting and paper punching but I wouldnt stake my life on one.

Suuuuurrrrreeeee, he was an Army armorer. Probably some M14 advocate claiming to be such.
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 12:16:45 PM EST
I don't want to burst anyone's bubble, but if I knew I needed a serious rifle for a serious purpose, I would take the M-14 over the M-16 anyday of the week. Now don't get me wrong, I like the AR-15 and think it is a fun little rifle to shoot. It is also a pretty good combat weapon in the 0-200 yard arena. But I prefer the power of the full size battle rifle and I feel that even today, the M-14 design is a more reliable choice than the best AR. Those two factors mean more to me than anything else. The only negative thing that I can find about the civilian M1A is those with wooden stocks could be problematic in a tropical environment...a concern I don't have where I live. But of course, slap on a fiberglass or composite stock and even that problem is solved.

I don't think the military always makes the wisest decisions, nor does our government. McNamara's "whiz kids" proved that during Nam. In a setting such as Europe or the deserts of the world, the M-14 is just simply the better rifle. In a close-in environment such as the jungles of Vietnam, the shorter, lighter weight M-16 had a purpose. But I bet that if you introduced the shorter Bush Rifle M-14 variant, that advantage gap would dwindle. And the .308 was a much better penetrator of cover than the 5.56. Many times, they employed the M-14 rifle to take out bad guys behind trees that the 5.56 round couldn't even begin to reach.

I don't want to say one gun is great and the other sux. Both designs are good and both can serve a very important role in modern battles. But if I could only have one rifle, I would take the M-14 over the M-16, simply because it can do all the tasks a rifle can do. Why choose an M-16 when it's only effective within a 200 yard zone? Sure, with the M855, it may be able to strike targets out to 600 yards or more. But just how much affect is that little whimpy bullet gonna have at that range? The 5.56 is a great round when it is used inside the range it fragments (200 yards max with 20" barrel and M193 ammo). On the other hand, the .308 is effective all the way out to 800 yards or more. Those long range shots may not be as common on the battlefield as closer ones, but when they come about, I damn sure would rather have a gun that could take care of the problem than not. LONG LIVE THE M-14!
Link Posted: 7/26/2002 1:20:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/26/2002 1:24:37 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
Yes Dave, 7.62 is non-standard ammo in US infantry platoon.

Only GPMGs get it, in belted form, and then only in US Army units. Marine rifle platoons have ONLY 5.56mm weapons, their GPMGs being kept in a seperate weapons platoon-part of the rational of which is ensuring that they are kept properly supplied with their special ammo and in the large volume they need.

Adding back a handful of rifles with odd ammunition and magazines that don't interchange with others in their unit is a BAD thing when shit really hits the fan.

We had this problem repeatedly in Vietnam with the various "special" little units that were given great latitude in what they did. People like the LRRPs, SF "A" teams, Aero Scouts, ect.. Some of these units thought they knew better and amassed collections of exotic weapons like AK's, Thompsons, Sweedish K's, M2 Carbines, Stoner 63's, full-auto M14s, BARs, all kinds of wierd stuff that technicly WERE available, they had stock numbers, the Army did keep ammo for them.

But the first time they got caught in over their heads by the NVA and got into a real serious fight for survival they were screwed. When they ran out of ammo and had to call for emergancy resupply what they always got was 5.56 in bandos or preloaded M16 mags and 7.62 belts. That is what all line infantry units had, so that is what any nearby supply unit had to send them to answer their emergancy call. Fat lot of good that shit is going to do you when what you needed was 9mm or .45 or 7.62x39. More than a few people died because of this kind of facination for boutique firearms.

People like to point out that Randy Shughart carried a M14 when he went into the streets in Mog. They forget however that it was out of action-out of ammo-by the time Mike Durant spoke to him for the last time. The rest of the fight he used the M16's of the two crew chiefs of Super 63, whos ammunition, along with that brought by his partner Gordon, he also exhausted. This was in spite of him sitting practicly on top of 3000 odd rounds of 7.62 ammo left inside Super 63! There is no time in a firefight to sit down and pick apart MG belts to refill rifle mags.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top