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: 6/21/2002 11:32:33 PM EST
www.dvc.org or search jeff cooper.

They are saying that the M14 and 1911 are in serious demand over there.I guess they say that the 5.56 and 9mm are not getting the job done.

O well,I wonder if this little foray will bring us back to our senses that Marksmanship,7.62mm M14 Battle Rifles and M1911 .45cal pistols are the way to go.
I know im gonna get flamed on a M16/AR15 site but o well.
But to tell you the truth there wasnt a damn thing wrong with the M14 rifle.We can argue that and this but the truth is 7.62mm/.30cal is gonna put a man down better than 5.56/.22cal that just the way it is.Bigger holes mean worse things happen inside the body.
We could have been improveing the M14 rifle over the last 35 years than F@#king with that varmint/target rifle that we have now.
Look what has come out of private sector for M14 type rifle's and the military.
(1)Pistol grip synthetic stocks."for all you Ergo freaks".maybe with a adjustable cheak rest too.
(2)Bush type rifles for SOF's add the above pistol grip stock and you have a nice MOUT weapon.
(3)I'm gonna add this cause it is a significant upgrade in M1/M14 developement.Ranch rifle type integral 1913 scope base's that are centerline over the bore.
And Whalla ultimate battle rifle.
Link Posted: 6/21/2002 11:36:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By tdkak:
They are saying that the M14 and 1911 are in serious demand over there.



1911's always have been with Marine Recon. As someone who has seen two Beretta 92FS self destruct, iwould never carry that weapon.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 3:47:22 AM EST
Yup, the 1911 is still in use with the Marines in the form of the MEU(SOC) pistol. This is a highly accurized 1911, tuned like something from Wilson, Clark, etc. In our armory we had a crate of Springfield Armory slides and frames waiting for the 2112 to build them up.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 3:51:11 AM EST
Actually, if the U.S. had not suffered from the "Not Invented Here" disease, we would probably have adopted the FAL, like all of our NATO allies. That would have been a better choice than the M16, and a toss-up with the M-14, in my humble opinion.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:26:06 AM EST
The M14 was/is fine. The military had a chance back in about 57 to choose a better weapon (AR-10) but decided to stick with the M14 till Armalite could develop the AR-15/M-16. They could have chosen the FAL, cause at least it had a few years of battle history at the time but didn't.

Somebody needs to put the AR-10 into action, then we could lay the M14 to rest, as it should be.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:43:38 AM EST
Will this wailing of 'oh why did they replace the M14, wah, wah, wah' ever stop? Get over it.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:45:08 AM EST
The problem with this topic, is it is based upon what has almost become an urban legend. I’m sure most have received E-mails that report to be written by either SF, Ranger, CCT, PJ, SEAL or Recon Marine. (I personally got the same Email 3 different times attributed to 3 different Spec Ops types on my government Email account prior to deploying). There is a partial grain of truth in it, the Marine Corps did continue use the MEU (SOC) 45 after the M9 was adopted and did deploy some prototype DMR rifles to Afghanistan, but that doesn’t mean the M14 is making a come back or that there were allot of M9/M16 failures.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:54:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 4:58:26 AM EST by ChrisGene]
An often overlooked point about the demise of the M14 is the cost of producing it. It was a manufacturing nightmare. It would be very hard to keep a company in business selling them at the government cost of M16's. Yes the Garand was very similar in construction, but things just get done when your at war.

I agree that we are definetly under-gunned considering the enemy might be firing at you with an 8mm Mauser. You may even be able to see him but your little gun can't reach him. I love the M16, I just don't beleive this "one gun for every task" crap.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 5:24:42 AM EST
The FN M855 round was designed to be launched from a 20" barrel with a 1/7 twist rate. Specifically designed by FN for the M249 SAW, when the Corps got wind of the new round they implemented the same twist and kept the 20" barrel in the M16A2 developement program. They did this to take advantage of the new M855 round which was developed to outperform the 7.62 NATO round.

The M4 is a CQB, jungle warfare, up close and personal type weapon. Within 100 meters the loss of critical velocity from the 14.5" barrel is acceptable for the convenience of having a compact CQB type weapon in a CQB environment. Afghanistan is "not" a CQB environment, the critical loss of velocity is getting the operators in deep shit.

The motivators in Afghanistan have no clue why their weapons are not performing like they want them too. They just take what uncle sugar hands out and uses it. The problem is not with the 5.56MM round, it's that the M4 is ballistically worthless in that environment with its neutered barrel.

As usual the Corps looked before it lept and determined that the M16A2 is still far superior to the M4 Carbine. You have a longer line of site which makes it more accurate, you have a weapon that was designed around the ammo you are issued which takes avantage of the rounds full velocity giving you better "fragmentation" at greater ranges. As we know or should know, fragmentation and massive tissue disruption from that fragmentation is what the M16/AR15 is all about. If you don't have the velocity then you might as well have a Thompson contender .22 out there.

Now, I have nothing against a .30 cal weapon system per se, however unbeknownst to most, shooting is only half the game in combat. The other "Big one" is movement. Try moving with a full kit, 15lb M14 and let's say enough ammo to make you comfortable - 10 fully loaded steel M14 mags. Thats a lot of weight and the mags alone would be like having 10 bricks hanging off your chest.

I know there has been a newfound adoption of the M14 since the movie BHD was released. As I stated previously, I have no problem with the M14 and believe it has its place in the safe/armory. However, roping into a neighborhood for 30min which turned into hours is a whole different story compared to humping hills for miles over a sustained period of time. I know because I have done it toting both the M60e3 and the 240G which are even heavier than the M14. Most also do not know that each 100rd bandolier of 7.62MM ammo weighs 10lbs and 1000rds is about the minimum you would take into battle. As you can see, It's not fun!!

Semper-Fi Do or Die, 03 out!!
________________________________________________

Colt M-16A2 - Developed for Marines by Marines.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:46:46 AM EST
I say let's go to the drawing board and make a 6.5x39-45 mm assault rifle round. You'll get the best of both worlds, and HOPEFULLY, they'll integrate the round with an AK or G36 style gas system.

themao
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:56:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 8:19:51 AM EST
Frankly, I think the basic infantry weapon should be the mini-gun type, like Jesse Ventura carried in the movie "Predator." Give those grunts a lot of PT and Steroids, and it'll feel like lugging a 10/22. A twenty click hump would be a snap.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 8:28:26 AM EST
03SKILL, let's not exaggerate here. The A2 weighs around 8.8 lbs. loaded (according to what the Army taught me). The M14 weighs approx. 9.1 lbs. empty and 11.0 all up ready to go. Which is the same weight as my issue M4/203 loaded. The weapon weight issue became a non-argument when everyone got the A2 over the pencil barrell A1s.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 8:33:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 8:36:40 AM EST by djk]

Originally Posted By 203gnr:
03SKILL, let's not exaggerate here. The A2 weighs around 8.8 lbs. loaded (according to what the Army taught me). The M14 weighs approx. 9.1 lbs. empty and 11.0 all up ready to go. Which is the same weight as my issue M4/203 loaded. The weapon weight issue became a non-argument when everyone got the A2 over the pencil barrell A1s.



So you would only carry the weapon and one mag? I think the point is that the 7.62 ammo weighs a heck of a lot more for the same number of rounds than does the .223.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 8:50:08 AM EST
There are assault rifles and battle rifles. They have somewhat different missions, albeit with considerable overlap. Seems like a reasonable mix would be the best. For the most part you want your force to have similar weapons. I'd think one battle rifle per fireteam is not to damn bad an idea.

I also think that .308 capability in Afghanistan would be very desirable given the terrain and nature of enemy. Snipers throughout the area would be even better. Take out their leaders when they come out of their caves. Would also work well for recon/intel.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 8:56:16 AM EST
45ACP in FMJ isn't very great compared to 9mm FMJ. And doesn't it sound stupid to say that they are using the M14 for range, yet somehow they get close enough to use their 9mm handgun? I see a slight contradiction.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 9:12:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By 203gnr:
03SKILL, let's not exaggerate here. The A2 weighs around 8.8 lbs. loaded (according to what the Army taught me). The M14 weighs approx. 9.1 lbs. empty and 11.0 all up ready to go. Which is the same weight as my issue M4/203 loaded. The weapon weight issue became a non-argument when everyone got the A2 over the pencil barrell A1s.

I love how you compare loaded weight vs. empty weight. The two loaded weights are 2.2 lbs. That may not seem like much, but it gets old after a while. Also, you compare an M14 rifle weight alone to a rifle plus grenade launcher, which is a bit more of a weapon that just a rifle. Apples and oranges.

Face it, some people still long for the M14 and no amount of logic is going to change their minds.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 9:30:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 9:34:12 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
Then why don't they just go with Ar10's... I would choose an AR10T before I would choose an M14...




As we know or should know, fragmentation and massive tissue disruption from that fragmentation is what the M16/AR15 is all about. If you don't have the velocity then you might as well have a Thompson contender .22 out there



I have to say something about this, the 5.56mm Nato is not the only round that will fragment, so to will the 7.62mm NATO(West German). It is merely a function of Velocity,Mass, and whether or not the bullet is cannelured..



NATO 7,62x5lmm (West German version)

The design standards for ammunition that can be called "NATO" ammunition do not specify the bullet jacket material or jacket thickness.

The construction of the West German 7.62 NATO bullet differs from the US 7.62 NATO round in that the jacket material is copperplated steel, whereas the US version is copper (or the so-called gilding metal alloy, which is predominantly copper).

The West German steel jacket is about 0.020in (0.5i-nm) thick near the cannelure and the US copper jacket is about 0-032in (0.8mm) thick at the same point. This design difference is responsible for a vast difference in performance in tissue.

The German bullet after travelling point-forward for only about 8cm, yaws and breaks at the cannelure. The flattened point section retains only about 55% of the bullet's weight, the remaining 45% becomes fragments.

The wound profile can be described as an enlarged M16 profile with dimensions of the tissue disruption increased by 60 percent (temporary cavity about 22cm diameter; permanent cavity about 11 cm diameter, penetration depth of the bullet point about 58cm). The uncomplicated thigh wound from the bullet is likely to have a large exit with the loss of substantial tissue near the exit; still this might not be a very serious wound since the bullet fragmentation does not occur until beyond 10cm of penetration depth and, in most shots, the bullet will have passed well beyond the major vessels before this occurs.

The abdomen shot, however, because of the much enlarged permanent cavity from bullet fragmentation, is likely to prove fatal in a majority of cases



NOTE THE 7.62x51mm produces a wound profile %60 larger then that of the 5.56mm... Sorry but that is just the way it is..
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 9:51:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 9:54:15 AM EST by Benjamin0001]
Hell all Bush would have to do is pick up the phone and Call Armalite and say, "Hey I need an AR10 chambered for 7.62mmx51(nato) with free floating handguards, picatinny rales, detachable iron sights, semi/burst/full capability and I need 100,000 of them."

You sure as hell wouldn't get a NO out of them, they would be YES SIR..

Then all he would have to do is pick up the phone and call Federal, and say I need all the 7.62mmx51(nato) rounds you can produce...

To hell with all the political wrangling and just get the job done.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:03:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Benjamin0001:
Hell all Bush would have to do is pick up the phone and Call Armalite and say, "Hey I need an AR10 chambered for 7.62mmx51(nato) with free floating handguards, picatinny rales, detachable iron sights, semi/burst/full capability and I need 100,000 of them."

You sure as hell wouldn't get a NO out of them, they would be YES SIR..

Then all he would have to do is pick up the phone and call Federal, and say I need all the 7.62mmx51(nato) rounds you can produce...

To hell with all the political wrangling and just get the job done.



Sounds like a plan to me.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:08:29 AM EST
I think O3skill has hit right on. I have heard the problem in afghanistan is that hits at 100 yards out of the 14.5 inch barrels are not having good results. Bad guys are getting hit and are still able to get away. The loss of velocity out of the shorter barrel is probably causing more of a problem than the caliber. But I do hear that instead of asking for a longer barrelled weapons they are asking for .308s. The M4 has it's place in CQB, but they need something else for the 100 meter battle. I agree that a 20 inch M-16 would probably be a better all around compromise that already is largely available. At the same time I, given the choice would prefer a 7.62 round. I also agree the time has come to develope a new main battlefield gun, maybe with an entire new round.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:16:26 AM EST
Why would we go with the AR10?We have 500,000 of M14's warehoused.
With the Ar10 it still has the bugaboo M16 stigma about it "not being reliable".
Yes it will cost to retool and all but damn i think our troops are worth it.
The M14 can now be made by Investment Casting cause we are not ever gonna issue a full auto general issue rifle again i dont see it happening so the cast vs forged debate goes out the window.
All the forged componets of the M14 of old were for the pounding a select fire weapon dish's out.Cast is just fine for a Semi Auto rifle.
Building a semi auto rifle out of tediously forged componets is like building a 13:5:1 compression big block racing engine with all the best forged rods pistons and crank and then driving it on the highway at 55 MPH with it.It dont make sense.
If you want to see how far investment casting has come look at your AR15/AR10 and see.

So i really do hope the M14 makes a comeback,its a proven commodity i know a lot of you disagree but thats ok.
Look at how the AKM series weapons have survived and their lineage is over 55 years old.
Another reason for my love of the M14 is its lineage of WW2 and the M1 Garand.We had it right the first time gents we really did.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 11:43:29 AM EST

posted by tdkak
Another reason for my love of the M14 is its lineage of WW2 and the M1 Garand.We had it right the first time gents we really did.

I still appreciate a lot of OLD things that still get the job done. That's how I ended up with my name. But when it comes down to it, with all the advancements we've made with the AR-15, the AR-10 is just a superior weapon, it just needs a little war-time use to prove it. And as you put it, it was pretty much only a "stigma", and an old one at that.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 12:38:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By O3SKILL:
The FN M855 round was designed to be launched from a 20" barrel with a 1/7 twist rate.



Actually, IIRC the ideal twist rate for that round is NOT 1/7, but 1/9. The 1/7 twist rate on the M16A2 is a compromise between the 1/9 twist rate ideal for M855 and the 1/5? twist rate ideal for the longer tracer round.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 12:45:37 PM EST
LARRYG, as you noticed I did bring up the loaded weight of the '14. Yes, I'll admit to longing for one. No, I don't plan on carrying just one mag. If I'm wearing a 20-30 pound LCE, and a ruck that weighs anywhere from 40 to 100 lbs, I give less than a damn about a 2.2 lb. weight difference. The reference to the M4/203 was to show that I already carry a weapon that weighs the same loaded as a M14. Not to mention that 25% of a fire team nowadays carry weapons that weigh 22 or so lbs. loaded (M249). Give me the best weapon for the job at hand and let me worry about getting it to the fight.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 1:01:18 PM EST
I have never been in the military, not even a SEAL, Delta or what ever. The closest I've come is shooting play games in the form of IPSC 3 Gun from about '86. I have had all the rifles mentioned and I would not want to go into combat with an AR-10. No way. Had one and sold one. I have a M1A, that rifle, yes. FAL, yes. The problem with the M16 family is the M4 and it's barrel length. I had a report I downloaded sometime back from Biggerhammer about the Marines testing the M4 and their relectance to accepting it. They went with the "non-cool" looking 20" rifle for better hits and better velocity, sound thinking. For the desiginated marksman, the M14 is a sound rifle, for the rest, I'd be happy with the 20" M16, I'd bet my life on it. I have shot AR15's for years now and the problems of anykind and so few that I can't recall what they may have been. This is one of the most refined rifles in military history. The AR-10 with it's bootleg magazines was a jam-a-matic frustrating mess that I never had enough confidience to even shoot an IPSC match with. It always seemed like a fine idea if it I could get it to shoot for a year with out a faliure, I could not get a day. As for the pistol, well I have a Beretta and have and have had many Colts (read 1911's) and shoot 1911's in IPSC Limited 10. In combat with both shooting FMJ's, it is a toss up. I have an incredibly amount of respect for the M14's reliablity and accuracy, it is good to see it defending our country, there are a lot of worse rifles to use.

Bill
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 1:46:14 PM EST
There have only been one case, substantiated in a credible source (both official AARs and Army Times) , so far of Taliban being outside the range of US forces weapons. It was a sniper team equipped with M24 sniper rifles (again already 7.62 and more accurate and given to troops that can take advantage of the accuracy).

US forces already have 7.62 weapons that can engage out to 1800ms, in the companies and platoons, it would be a waste to equip more troops with the 7.62 when its max effective range isn't allot longer than what they carry now, it weighs allot more for both weapon and ammo and doesn't add allot combat effectiveness of the unit.

There have been no substantiated cases of M9 failures in Afganistan.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:02:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By marvl:
Actually, if the U.S. had not suffered from the "Not Invented Here" disease, we would probably have adopted the FAL, like all of our NATO allies. That would have been a better choice than the M16, and a toss-up with the M-14, in my humble opinion.

A-M-E-N...........
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:03:15 PM EST
I have not seen ANY authoritative source that there has been any problems WHAT SO EVER with using the M4 in Afghanistan. Everything has just been rumors largely pushed by people who want to sell things... like .30 cal rifles and ammunition.

There has been hardly any infantry fighting. The engagements during Operation Anaconda are ALL the infantry combat there has been. Untill a authoritative source comes forward either from within the military or from some organization like Janes, all this is just wishful thinking for certain advertisers.

The M4's are getting the job done it seems, and are much easier to carry.


Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:06:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By themao:
I say let's go to the drawing board and make a 6.5x39-45 mm assault rifle round. You'll get the best of both worlds, and HOPEFULLY, they'll integrate the round with an AK or G36 style gas system.

themao

EXACTLY..........actually...it`s already there....armalite produces a10 uppers in 243win.....a MUCH more efficient all around round than 223......lets face it...uncle likes to save $$$.........at the expense of lives.............
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:10:29 PM EST
Uncle ALMOST adopted the sig sidearm.......again....$$$$ talks........imagine if the std issue sidearm was a sig in 357.......well the SKY MARTIAL program uses them.......HUH?.......
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:21:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By marvl:
Actually, if the U.S. had not suffered from the "Not Invented Here" disease, we would probably have adopted the FAL, like all of our NATO allies. That would have been a better choice than the M16, and a toss-up with the M-14, in my humble opinion.

A-M-E-N...........



Total BS.

The FAL was good in its day, in its class, but it is not superior to the M16 as a infantry weapon. Sure it was reliable, it was also heavy and long. And now in 2002, as opposed to 1962, the M16 is as reliable as the FAL ever was.

7.62 rifles belong to snipers, and they would probably be better off with one of the .300 Magnums.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:25:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 2:26:03 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]

EXACTLY..........actually...it`s already there....armalite produces a10 uppers in 243win.....a MUCH more efficient all around round than 223......lets face it...uncle likes to save $$$.........at the expense of lives.............


That is total bullshit.

It is a solution to a non-existant problem.

And it is a total lie that lives are being lost because our people use .223 rifles.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:32:47 PM EST
Has anyone even had to use their M9 in anger yet?

Even the chopper pilots that were shot down all had M4's cause they were from the 160th Reg.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:40:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
It is a solution to a non-existant problem.



Exactly, most of the talk was caused by the rehashing of unsubstantiated email/report. Someone is using a war to push their personal fire arms agenda regardless of the truth of the supposed need.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:50:07 PM EST
I'd have to go with STLRN on this one. It seems every time that the US goes to war, you hear reports of soldiers demanding the 1911 and the M14. Happened in Desert Storm, it's happening again.

I seriously don't think that most of the troops over there know the difference between 5.56 and .45ACP and 7.62, except that one kind goes in M16's, another goes in M60's, and what's a .45ACP? I know that when I went through AF Field Training, most of the people didn't know or care that the pistol they used was made by Beretta, and that the civilian version is the M92FS, and that there have been reports of slide breakages twenty years ago.

I wonder if in WWII, if they had bulletin boards claiming soldiers were demanding that they break out the M1903's...

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 5:03:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By ERAUFox:
I wonder if in WWII, if they had bulletin boards claiming soldiers were demanding that they break out the M1903's...



Actually, my understanding is there was a very LARGE amount of institutional reluctance to adaopt the Garand to begin with, and it's worth noting that the Garand did not completely replace the 1903 until sometime in 1943, almost two years after the war began.

So in answer to your question, Yes, and No. :)
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 5:31:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By ERAUFox:
Happened in Desert Storm, it's happening again.



It is funny you mention that. That issue has also raised to the level of military urban legend. There is a slight grain of truth that some troops still used 1911s and M14s, but not because of failure of the M9 or M16A1/A2, but rather there were still some units that had yet to transition to the M9, there were quite a few army units and a few Marine that still had 1911s just because the fielding schedule didn't have them getting the new pistols yet. Units in both the Navy, both inside and outside of NSW had M14s, NSW likes to use them in some circumstances and the other unit types were never given M16 since their primary function is not infantry/ground combat.

But normally they say "the Marines were issuing/ going to issue M14s" but that is just false. Think about the problem of transitioning a generation of troops that had only trained on M16 series weapons to the M14. At that point only the few Vietnam Vets left around had ever even trained on the M14. Further complicating an attempt to issue anything other than the M16 is no ones 782 gear could accommodate magazines for another system and to top it off the DODIC for loose/stripper clip 7.62 is no longer a common one, after the M14 went away most of that ammo was converted to the DODIC for belted ammo.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:35:42 PM EST
When I went through basic training in the 60s I learned how to shoot the M-14 and I loved it. However, it was not a useful full auto weapon.

When I first got to RVN I used the M-14. It was a bear to cary around the boonies. The gun and ammo weighted a ton. It also was not that effective in a jungle environment.

Later I was issued the M-16 and thought it was a great breakthrough. It was great to have full auto and be able to carry a bunch of ammo.

I think the 20" (or maybe even 16") M-16 is a great standard battle weapon. However, certain battle situation would favor a gun like the M-14 that has 100-150 yards more effectiveness.

If I had to go back to the "Nam I would want the M-16. The M-4 would probably be very effective. Hell, I hardly ever saw the bastards more than 100 yds away.

If I had to go to Afghanistan I think I reconsider the M-14. I heard that the Soviets were mostly out gunned with their AK-74s against the rebels 30 calibers.

Actually the best thing is that I don't have to go back to Vietnam or to Afghanistan. And I have 2 M1As and 4 ARs and 2 M-4s in case of SHTF.

Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:02:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By Another-Bill:
I have never been in the military, not even a SEAL, Delta or what ever. The closest I've come is shooting play games in the form of IPSC 3 Gun from about '86. I have had all the rifles mentioned and I would not want to go into combat with an AR-10. No way. Had one and sold one. I have a M1A, that rifle, yes. FAL, yes. The problem with the M16 family is the M4 and it's barrel length. I had a report I downloaded sometime back from Biggerhammer about the Marines testing the M4 and their relectance to accepting it. They went with the "non-cool" looking 20" rifle for better hits and better velocity, sound thinking. For the desiginated marksman, the M14 is a sound rifle, for the rest, I'd be happy with the 20" M16, I'd bet my life on it. I have shot AR15's for years now and the problems of anykind and so few that I can't recall what they may have been. This is one of the most refined rifles in military history. The AR-10 with it's bootleg magazines was a jam-a-matic frustrating mess that I never had enough confidience to even shoot an IPSC match with. It always seemed like a fine idea if it I could get it to shoot for a year with out a faliure, I could not get a day. As for the pistol, well I have a Beretta and have and have had many Colts (read 1911's) and shoot 1911's in IPSC Limited 10. In combat with both shooting FMJ's, it is a toss up. I have an incredibly amount of respect for the M14's reliablity and accuracy, it is good to see it defending our country, there are a lot of worse rifles to use.

Bill



Seems to me your problems with the AR10 were due to bad mags. If issued, the govt could easily just contract proper mags. I like the AR10 idea. It keeps training simple since they are manipulated exactly the same as the existing M16. And full auto would be at least a little better than with an M14 (are they even full auto as issued these days?) due to it's straight pull stock. The basic design is very sound and versatile.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:17:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 10:20:41 PM EST by skullworks]

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:
well the SKY MARTIAL program uses them.......HUH?.......


Sky Martial? Do they look anything like this www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/3063/marv.gif or did you mean the Sky Marshalls?
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:24:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 10:28:25 PM EST by Charging_Handle]
This deal with weapon weight is killing me! If we could get teens in a strength conditioning program or to do manual labor these days, then maybe they would have the strength to pack around a gun! Instead they spend all their time on a computer or playing Nintendo and Playstations. That lifestyle breeds laziness. Our guys in WWII packed around Garands and BAR's and they kicked butt! They managed with these weapons because they hadn't experienced this new group of exotic weapons made from plastic and lightweight materials. Their's were 'beasts of iron and wood, and they were greatful"! If the enemy is close, the M4/M16 is fine. But if engagements are possible out to 500+ yards, the .308 wins hands down. And stopping power? Again, the 308 beats the 5.56 anyday.

But considering that we can't seem to find the enemy over there, it doesn't much matter what they carry anyway. And, air power has much better range than either 5.56 or 7.62, so if they do find the enemy they can close with and engage or just sit back and enjoy the barbecue. So take your pick between rifles and calibers. I like them both. But some are better suited to certain tasks than others.

And oh, BTW, I would take a 1911 over a Beretta any day of the week. That's especially true if both have to be used with FMJ rounds. Think about it, if the 9mm was so great, why would you need +p+ rounds to have a decent stopper? And that's with premium hollowpoints. I would really hate to have to try to stop a determined foe with 9mm hardball. It's no wonder the SEAL's practice a double tap to the chest and then throw in one between the eyes for good measure.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 12:05:45 AM EST
In Afganistan all they gotta do is corner the Taliban and have planes bomb them. The infantry blocks the escape route. The M4 ought to be capable of that, especially supported by M249s and M203s.

On the pistol topic: it seems that our modern armed forces would not be capable of figuring out what all the levers on a 1911 are for. Not to dis on you military guys, but many in the military are not shooters, and for them a simpler gun is better. Maybe a glock or HK in 40 would be a worthy sidearm for the next century, but dont hold your breath. And another thing: 9MM NATO is hotter than +P+. All the bad stopping power reports we hear come from the hottest FMJ loads around. Sounds pretty pathetic to me. Maybe we should change the rules and allow JHPs.

I think the M14 and M1911 are fine weapons, but are no longer suited for use by regular troops.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 2:03:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/23/2002 2:04:26 AM EST by Ross]
One of the supposed E-mails that I read from Afghanistan was a variation (almost a duplicate)of one (I also read) that appeared during Desert Strom. Both of the e-mails were worded the same. In fact you'd call them word for word except for the unit designation differences, and the service (one was USMC the other was Army). They were both sent to gun sites that were famous for their hatred of anything "modern" (i.e. .45 should never have been replaced and neither should have been the M1). I find it suspect at best.

The e-mail in question also didn't "sound" like it was written by a GI. Hard to explain that, but those that have served will know what I mean. The word usage, the slang, everything was just a bit off. Sorta like when you run a Chinese to English translation program. It was just smelled like a phony e-mail.

I'll question the effectiveness of all weapons in wartime as a matter of course. It's the best time to find out what really works, and what doesn't. But that proof has to come in some form of evidence. Nothing I've read on the subject has come even close to even warrant the title "conjecture".

Ross
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 2:22:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Disgustipated:
9MM NATO is hotter than +P+. All the bad stopping power reports we hear come from the hottest FMJ loads around. Sounds pretty pathetic to me. Maybe we should change the rules and allow JHPs.



Not always true. Federal 9mm 124 gr NATO military loads leave the muzzle at about 1150 fps. For comparison, Black Hills 124 gr +P JHP's leaves the muzzle at about 1250 fps. Some foreign NATO loads are about equal with +p ammo. Shows how there is nothing standard about NATO's standards! Hehe.

I think you are correct about switching to JHP's for use in this war. While the Geneva Conventions prohibit this type of ammo in war, it doesn't apply to fighting terrorists. Isn't that what we are doing? I say arm em up with Black Hills +p or Winchester Ranger Talon +p+ if they are gonna pack 9mm's. That should boost effectiveness a few notches!
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 3:23:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/23/2002 3:26:05 AM EST by marvl]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By BlackandGreen:

Originally Posted By marvl:
Actually, if the U.S. had not suffered from the "Not Invented Here" disease, we would probably have adopted the FAL, like all of our NATO allies. That would have been a better choice than the M16, and a toss-up with the M-14, in my humble opinion.

A-M-E-N...........



Total BS.

The FAL was good in its day, in its class, but it is not superior to the M16 as a infantry weapon. Sure it was reliable, it was also heavy and long. And now in 2002, as opposed to 1962, the M16 is as reliable as the FAL ever was.

7.62 rifles belong to snipers, and they would probably be better off with one of the .300 Magnums.



Uh, we were not talking about NOW, we were talking about THEN. Also, it comes in many variants, including carbine types that are pretty short.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 5:01:54 AM EST
Fal variants are still in military units in some countries........not saying the fal is superior to m14...however....it would have been a good choice to have in addition......it is a simple effective battle rifle......wieght is not a big deal in terms of the rifle.....moreso in how much ammo can be carried......yes I meant MARSHALLS.......finally.....ask around of spec-ops...seals.....the ones who get to choose thier weapons......sure...m9 and m16....but you will get a LARGE number of responses in favor of 762 and 45.......most likely upgraded m14 and h&k or sig sidearms........
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 5:03:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

EXACTLY..........actually...it`s already there....armalite produces a10 uppers in 243win.....a MUCH more efficient all around round than 223......lets face it...uncle likes to save $$$.........at the expense of lives.............


That is total bullshit.

It is a solution to a non-existant problem.

And it is a total lie that lives are being lost because our people use .223 rifles.

Wasn`t a lie in vietnam....was it?..
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 5:06:00 AM EST
What was the primary reason that the garand rifle...(originaly designed in 27 caliber) was refitted to 30 cal.?........
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:21:17 AM EST
Charging Handle

Your comments were amusing.

The WWII GIs carried an eight round rifle and were mostly up against bolt action foes. I don't know what the standard combat load for a M-1 is but I would suspect it 10 or 12 clips. The standard load for the M-14 was about the same. The advantage to the M-16 was that for the same weight you could carry more ammo for your full auto, therefore more firepower.

I have no proof of this but I would strongly suspect that the physical condition of our first line infantry troops have not changed much in the last 100 years. It may even be better nowadays due to the smoking factor. I would also bet money that the average trooper carries more weight into combat nowadays that his WWII or Vietnam era counterpart did.

I'll tell you what. Lets go back to 1968 to Vietnam and you try carrying a M-14 and six or eight loaded mags around in 100 degree heat and 100% humidity while humping some very difficult terrain. You will be damn glad when they give you a much lighter M-16. Of course you'll be still be fucked when they tell you to carry twice as much ammo.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:51:14 AM EST
Flash 66, you are correct, from what I've read, the minimum load was typically considered 10 eight round clips for a Garand- I'm sure alot of people carried more if they could, just like nowadays.

Though I like the M1-A, and appreciate the fact that mine has never jammed, even with crappy ammo (can't say that about my Bushmaster) from what I read in an article this month on the M-14 being used by EOD personnel to destroy unexploded bomblets, they said the USMC is still planning long range to go with a bolt action M-24 with some more tweaking, not the M-14 tweaked to be the DMR.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top