Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/16/2001 10:39:03 PM EDT
Wouldn't an M14 would have a few advantages in a sandy, mountainy and rocky terrain like Afghanistan over the M16, especially a shorter barreled M4? I know that the Russians did fine with the AK74s, but an ability to reach out and touch someone from longer distance seems advantagous. Even if the ammo and weapon is heavier and less ammo can be carried.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 1:45:51 AM EDT
Yes if range is the criteria. The M-14 has better "range" Of course it is heavier and you'll carry fewer rounds. Most engagements won't be at long range. There is the theoritical range of a weapon and combat range. The M-16 family of weapons are fairly accurate. They are more controllable on full auto. The also have more accesories.... optical and M-203. If the Army goes in they'll most likely have airplane, helicopter, and artillery supposrt. Not to mention SAW's (M249) and MG support. M-16 even with less range is better suited for LRRP where you gotta carry your stuff, and you only get what u can carry. Having said that I didn't understand why US Forces didn't have a greater variety of weapons when I was in. I think a platoon with M-16/M-203/M249/M240/M-14 and some shotguns would be tough to beat. Yes it wouldn't be uniform and at long range the shotgun guys would be out of range, but having all those weapons would also mean that at alomost any range you'd have the ability to put the right weapon on the job. If the shotgun guys were the AG's it would be tougher to "overrun" the MG's with infantry. Imagine a 12 ga. launched grenade....
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 3:04:48 AM EDT
All those different weapons would be a nightmare for ammo resupply. Lets say you are out of .308 and the 5 guys around you only have M16's. They have plenty left but none which can help you. Not a good situation.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 3:37:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 6:36:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 7: All those different weapons would be a nightmare for ammo resupply. Lets say you are out of .308 and the 5 guys around you only have M16's. They have plenty left but none which can help you. Not a good situation.
View Quote
When I was in we had M-1911's, M-60's, M-203's, and M-16's. We also had 90mm recoiless rifles at one unit. M-14's, M-60's and M-240's all take 7.62x51, they can be pulled from MG links rather easily to be used in M-14's. M-249, M-4, and M-16's all take 5.56mm. M-203 and shotguns take their own type of rounds. I think it would be easily workable and the shotgun was just a little brainstorming..... Some say we should have gone to a 6mm or 6.5mm for all personal long arms. We didn't, even in my scenario it would probably involve less ammo types than the US used in WWII
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 6:51:39 AM EDT
After the initial insertion and takeover of Afghani Gov't, this war will be fought by pulling enemies out of bed in the middle of the night and capping their asses with a pistol.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 6:55:38 AM EDT
Does a shotgun really give you anything a machine gun doesn't? Think of it as a sequential pellet shotgun. And 12ga buck basically gives 9x low caliber pistol kinda performance. I'm partial to 308, but I don't see Uncle Sam switching back. I DO think however, that 3 rd burst is bad. 3rd burst turns the M-16 into a 10 shot rifle shooting ammo weighing 50% more than 308, and it doesn't fullfill suppressive fire needs. Set back on safe/semi/auto, drop the rate, and preach fire control. I'm also dubious as to the automatic rifleman shooting the pop gun round. They don't ask my opinion anyway. I really don't think that Uncle Sam cares about the range advantage of 308 over 223 for the individual soldier. Lots of other weapons cover that zone better.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 6:59:34 AM EDT
WWII- small arms ammo 30-06 (M1 Garand, Browning .30 cal machine gun, Springfield Rifle, Johnson Rifle and LMG) .30 Carbine (M1 carbine and variants) .45 ACP (1911 variants, Thompson variants, M3, 1917 revolvers) .38 Special (various revolvers) .380 ACP (Colt automatics issued to General Officers) 12 Gauge Shotgun Shells (variety of shotguns issued to MP's and others) .50 BMG (.50 BMG) There are no doubt a few I might have missed that were issued in tiny quantities, .22 Hornet for use in air crew survival rifles, for example. Still quite a mix... Equipping each platoon with a hodgepodge of weapons can be done, but count me among those who doubt that it is necessary. This isn't like a game of golf where you have the leisure to choose the best club from the bag. I can see issuing everybody M-14's or issuing everybody M-16's, but no real reason to mix the two. Soldiers being human, they WILL blaze away during a firefight whether their weapon is at appropriate range or not. For an example of real logistics nightmares, study the Germans in WWII. They seem to have given every last functioning firearm ever captured a gov't designation and re-issued them to somebody.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:04:32 AM EDT
I think they should issue FAL's over M14's. I own both. I would take my FAL.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:09:11 AM EDT
Thuumtrap, good points, esp. the 3 rnd burts. Shotgun or M-16 on auto is good for building clearing or in final defensive lines. Shotguns were deadly in WWI in the trenches. Goglo-13, I thought of the M-14 as being maybe 1 pers squad or 1 per platoon, like the designated marksmen. Since M240's use the same ammo I didn't think it would be difficult to supply. Same with shotguns 1 per squad, or MG depending on the equipment. Still would have the basic weapon an M-16 type weapon. The Germans used everything the captured. They didn't have enough equipment. Surely it created supply problems. Of course not having something creates more problems.....
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:10:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thumbtrap: I DO think however, that 3 rd burst is bad. 3rd burst turns the M-16 into a 10 shot rifle shooting ammo weighing 50% more than 308, and it doesn't fullfill suppressive fire needs.
View Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I read somewhere that the US Military did a lot of studies on what was most effective, and settled on the 3-round burst. The reason being was that 3-rounds on auto makes a larger grouping (than 1 round...not rocket science) that ensures a higher "HIT" percentage on target. However, you aren't wasting ammo on full auto. I agree that teaching fire control is important, but I guess when the SHTF and the adrenaline is pumping...many times training techniques are forgotten. MY opinion? Why not give them all three...Semi, 3-round, full auto. Seems to make sense to me!
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:19:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARDOC: Wouldn't an M14 would have a few advantages in a sandy, mountainy and rocky terrain like Afghanistan over the M16, especially a shorter barreled M4? I know that the Russians did fine with the AK74s, but an ability to reach out and touch someone from longer distance seems advantagous. Even if the ammo and weapon is heavier and less ammo can be carried.
View Quote
Don't make the mistake of thinking just because Afghanistan is mostly desert that fighting will consist of 800 yard sniping contests between forces. Also, don't expect your enemy to stand up at 500 yards and let you take pot shots at him either. It doesn't matter if it's Afghanistan or Vietnam, chances are we'll be fighting an elusive enemy that can't and won't stand toe to toe with us and duke it out. This war won't be a clashing of two armies, it will be a guerilla war much like Vietnam was. The Mujadeen repelled the Soviet invasion in the 80's quite effectively using small forces and guerilla tactics. If we try to use conventional large force tactics against such an adversary, we'll most likely meet with the same dismal results the Soviets did, or as we did in Vietnam. So, our M4's and M16's will serve us just fine. I would be more concerned with our tactics and logistics.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:34:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I think they should issue FAL's over M14's. I own both. I would take my FAL.
View Quote
Yeah, we should call up DS Arms and place an order for about 1 million FAL's. We'll just deduct that from the 40 billion dollar relief fund Congress approved. Great use of funds! What would we gain? Oh, a rifle that's notorious for not working in the desert sand, that is heavier, the ammo is heavier therefore soldiers can carry less (oh yeah, better order up an additional 500 million .308 rounds), and a rifle that has no appreciable gain in either accuracy or hit probability. We'll negate any usefulness of fullauto capabilities as well. We'll also be sending troops into the field with a rifle they aren't familiar with... so we'll have to retrain everyone. Yup... makes perfect sense! Yes, I know the M16 isn't known for its reliability in desert conditions, but if we're going to waste time, money, and training, we might as well have gained something. I know, let's rearm our military with Galil's! :) Ok, sarcasm off. Didn't mean to tear into you. :) Really, there's no reason to switch rifles, especially just before a war. Let's focus our attention to winning strategy and tactics. Let's set some obtainable military objectives and win them. This non-sense about switching service rifles is silly.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:50:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wgunn: This non-sense about switching service rifles is silly.
View Quote
All I'm saying is I would take the FAL over the M14. I'm NOT saying we should take ANYTHING over the M16. You should consider decaf. [}:D] FAL's make FINE full auto rifles. Only the ENTIRE rest of the free world uses them. The M14 muzzle rise COMPLETELY negates the extra 1" tighter groups at 100 yds. The FAL has a pistol grip, a distinct combat advantage over the M14. The integral bipod of the FAL is a distinct combat advantage. The adjustable gas system of the FAL provides a distinct combat advantage when your terrain varies from desert to mountainous. Anywho, this is a THEORETICAL debate - Army Ordnance hasn't knocked on my door asking for a recommendation.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 8:06:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2001 10:19:01 AM EDT by wgunn]
Originally Posted By garandman: I'm NOT saying we should take ANYTHING over the M16.
View Quote
Ok, I'll let you slide with this excuse. [;)]
You should consider decaf. [}:D]
View Quote
Well, I'm lucky... I'm naturally hyper. I don't drink coffee. But then my post was meant tongue in cheek anyway.
FAL's make FINE full auto rifles. Only the ENTIRE rest of the free world uses them. The M14 muzzle rise COMPLETELY negates the extra 1" tighter groups at 100 yds.
View Quote
Have you actually fired a FA FAL? I have quite extensively. My buddy is a FAL kook (I am too really) and he has several. He can't even come close to the fullauto controllability of my M4. If you're claiming you can, then I'm going to have to say you're a little [%|]. The FAL was a great rifle and I agree the US should have adopted it over the M14. No arguement out of me there! But times have changed and the MBR is out the door, and with good reason. Yes, 90 some nations [b]USED[/b] the FAL but all of our NATO allies have since switched to the 5.56 cartridge. Name a first world country that is still issuing the FAL. Third would countries still use them because they are sold cheap or are given away as military aid. Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, etc. are examples of major countries that issue 5.56 (or .22 caliber) rifles now.
The FAL has a pistol grip, a distinct combat advantage over the M14.
View Quote
I'm not arguing that the M14 is better. I agree, the FAL is a superior design.
The adjustable gas system of the FAL provides a distinct combat advantage when your terrain varies from desert to mountainous.
View Quote
Not true at all. The gas system of the FAL is probably one of it's weakest links. Please give me an example where the M14's gas system ever needs adjustment. How about the M16's, or the AK-47's. They don't. It was a novel, and wholly European concept that found little favor in more modern designs.
Anywho, this is a THEORETICAL debate - Army Ordnance hasn't knocked on my door asking for a recommendation.
View Quote
Well, even in such a theoretical situation I'm afraid the Army Ordnance Dept. would laugh at your recommendation. Sorry... but the MBR's day in the sun has passed. If you were suggesting we travel back in time and you were asked which rifle the US military should adopt in 1950, then I would say you're spot on. [BD]
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 8:37:30 AM EDT
For an example of real logistics nightmares, study the Germans in WWII. They seem to have given every last functioning firearm ever captured a gov't designation and re-issued them to somebody.
View Quote
As bad as Germans may had, Japanese were much worse. Can you imagin having 3 types of same caliber (rimmed, semi-rimmed and rimless) and none were interchangable.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 8:39:52 AM EDT
"After the initial insertion and takeover of Afghani Gov't, this war will be fought by pulling enemies out of bed in the middle of the night and capping their asses with a pistol." You better read your history, Afghanistan has never been conquered. Occupied yes, but never conquered. Alexander the Great tried, The Russians and British tried twice. All of them were run out of the country.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 9:15:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wgunn: Have you actually fired a FA FAL? I have quite extensively. My buddy is a FAL kook (I am too really) and he has several. He can't even come close to the fullauto controllability of my M4. If you're claiming you can, then I'm going to have to say you're a little [%|].
View Quote
yeah - compare firing a full auto FAL with a full auto M4. And my Lamborghini can waste your Yugo. Great comparison. If you recall, I was ONLY comparing the M14 with the FAL. It seems like you are trying to create a scenario you can argue against. Since you are naturally hyper (which I will concur with) why don't you try some valium??? [BD] [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 9:22:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: yeah - compare firing a full auto FAL with a full auto M4.
View Quote
If I'm not mistaken, this discussion was/is titled "M16 vs. M14 in Afghanistan". We're discussing the replacement of the M16 with an MBR. Perhaps now you can see the relation and therefore my comments. If not, no skin off my pooper... I never compaired the FA ability of the M14 vs. FAL. Again, we're talking about replacing the 5.56 rifle with a 7.62x51 one. [B)]
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 9:32:06 AM EDT
It seems when these type of discussions come up over what weapon would be best, nobody ever considers the most important variable that should be considered, weight. Most people, if not all, after hauling around a FAL all day, would gladly turn it in for an M16. Look at the Galil. Here is a rifle that is basically superior to the M16 in every way except one, weight. Guess what weapon is most favored by Israeli troops and civilians? Yep, it's the M16, because nobody wants to carry a Galil around all day.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 9:35:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 9:45:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2001 10:16:54 AM EDT by wgunn]
Originally Posted By XxSLASHERxX: hey. .....i feel the love in here! save it for the enemy wgun...garandman is on our side
View Quote
Why are you reading into what I'm posting? I'm not mad at Garandman and I'm certainly not scolding him. We're debating, which if I'm not mistaken, is the driving ideal behind a BBS. Call me crazy... :) If you feel I've attacked Garandman then accept my humble apologies. I'm not flaming anyone, I'm just talking... which I think is pretty clear in my posts. Perhaps you should save it for the enemy. [;)] I think Garandman and I are talking about two different things. He's stuck on the M14 vs. the FAL thing and I'm stuck on the topic of this thread, M14 (or FAL) vs. M16. I thought we were talking about the same thing when he made the comment about making the suggestion to the Army Ordnance board to adopt the FAL over what I assumed to be the M16... since we don't issue the M14 to regular troops anymore. Just a simple communications problem. No reason for hostilities. I think we've been quite civil to each other. Thanks for the concern though. [God I hate typos...]
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 10:02:00 AM EDT
We need to unify these two threads: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=52470[/url]
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 10:29:16 AM EDT
My two cents: While Russia was in Afganistan they found that the Afgani's were quite adept at usuing old Enfield's and commercialy built high power rifles to enage Russians at ranges beyond their Ak-74's. The Soviets were so surprised at the Afgani's marksmanship that they TRIPLED thier use of SVD armed snipers in response. For my money, give me a match accurized M1A/M14.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 10:54:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2001 11:02:16 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Or a 20" HBAR with a scope, that way you wouldnt have to change different kinds of ammo. You can take the Lee Enfield thing too far- they outranged the AK74, yes, but they also dont have any optics. That limits their effective range too. Tripling the number of SVD's had more to do with increasing the number of telescopic sights than putting more 7.62x54R rifles out there. Even the Seals arent going to take the M14 out again, now that they have the Mk11 Mod0 7.62 rifle.[img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sr25-2.jpg[/img] They wont have to retrain anyone, since it is a AR, and since it has picitinny rails it can carry the M203. Use M240B's or M60E3's as support weapons instead of M249's. Just dont shoot that much.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 10:54:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:02:04 AM EDT
I wish I could remember exactly which army has a dedicated marksman with a scoped MBR at the squad level, but frankly I can't. However, the concept is you take your soldiers with the best marksmanship and you put it to use. Each squad has a designated marksman using a scoped MBR such as an M14. His job is to use his superior accuracy potential to take on enemy officers, nco's, MG's, etc. with greater accuracy or at greater ranges than your ordinary rifleman. Consider him a semi-sniper, operating at the 200-500meter range, not the 100 meters of most engagements. Using scoped M14s for this purpose would be ideal for Afghanistan. Having shot the M14 for years (FALs as well), I consider the M14 to be superior for this role as it's inherently superior accuracy gives you a greater effective range. I like my FAL, but it just can't group it at long range like the M14. As for the pistol grip issue, sorry, but I just don't see the M14 as being less combat effective because of the grip. I am in favor of the M14 because we have them in stock. What I don't know is their current condition. If the ones we have left are worn out and need to be rebuilt for such a role, than I'd scrap them and go with Armalite AR10's with flat top receivors. They'd be even better and you'd have the advantage of a lot of interchangeable parts with the M16 and a common manual of arms. While ammo compatibility is desirable, you really need to look at the mix of weapons to see if it is giving you the firepower you need at realistic combat distances. Most combat takes place at 100 meters or less. The M16s and SAW give you maximum firepower at those distances. As ranges increase, the SAW or LMG become more paramount, as does the M203. As your ranges increase and/or you need greater precision in your fire, then a designated marksman becomes useful. I wouldn't want to clear houses with one as it would be totally inappropriate. But it would be very useful to have one hanging back, taking headshots on exposed mujahadeen and MG crews as the rest of the squad assaults the position.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:12:22 AM EDT
I think that the M16 (full size) would be just fine as long as there are an adequate amount of SAWs. I think we need to use more .50 cal MGs. Tyler
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:13:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2001 11:14:42 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
We have AR-10s in stock, or SR-25's rather, as the Mk 11 Mod0 [img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sr25-4.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/sr-25.jpg[/img] I dont think that- between Knights, Armilite, and possibly FN- that we would have trouble turning out a good bunch of these in short order if needed. Certainly everyone in SOCOM will have access to one, even thought the initial order was only for 400. But if you switch to 7.62 than EVERYONE in the squad has to switch to 7.62, but that can be done. You will not be able to carry as much ammo which will change your tactics. But it can be done.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:16:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I think they should issue FAL's over M14's. I own both. I would take my FAL.
View Quote
I would take the FAL also. It has a better battle service then the M-14. But I'd still like to have one guy in my platoon to carry one for the sniper shooting.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:32:45 AM EDT
ArmedLbrl - I NEED that case. (shown above) Selling them????
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:35:35 AM EDT
A couple of points I wish to make here: 1) Uncle Sam isn't gonna switch. 2) As much as I prefer the FAL or M-14 for an armed populace, I don't even think Uncle Sam SHOULD switch. Different roles. 3) Perhaps my earlier comments speak to a misunderstanding of the SAW and the LMG roles. But you need the capability to touch stuff that the varmint guns won't. The SAW doesn't just throw more lead in the air. It needs greater range and capability. The only reason I could see us switching is if as a result of this conflict, lots of evidence comes out that 223 just isn't taking the fight out of people. But even then - I doubt they would go back to 308. It'll be some new round (I think a 257 or 6.5mm hopped up round would be best anyway) that doesn't fit any preban magazines.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:40:00 AM EDT
In the Army we already have 1 M24 per platoon in the Light Infantry. 4 total per company. Not sure how the Marines divvy up their M40's. The best combination between range, accuracy, power, and payload weight for Afganistan is the Canadian C7A1 with its ELCAN, backed by the Minmi which in Canadian service also has a ELCAN. We need something that is close to this. Now we have the M16A4 type classified, but we havent issued it much, and I dont know of what its standard optic is but I am guessing TA01NSN. That would be the best. And we need to find a optic for the M249 too. Next best, for us, would be to fit existing M16A2's with ARMS bilevel mounts with a Reflex II on the lower rail and a telescopic sight on the upper on a QD mount. I am not sure what scope to use because it would kind of depend on what was available in quantity. But something between 4-6x with a BDC either fixed or variable power would do.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 11:46:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: ArmedLbrl - I NEED that case. (shown above) Selling them????
View Quote
Well when Tikka originally posted this thread someone posted that this was a custom case that Knights ordered to go with each of the 400 Mk11's they built. Someone also wrote that they built 100 extra guns "on spec" and were looking at selling for $8500 for the complete kit less suppressor (unless you are a LEO). Perhaps if you E-mailed Knights Manufacturing they will tell you who they ordered the cases from? BTW, the MK11 does not yet appear on Knights website or catalog, you have to call or e-mail ask about it specificaly.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 12:12:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2001 12:12:29 PM EDT by alphazulu]
It's not a small arm, but let's not all forget the Mark 19 AGL [:)]! The Russians used 40mm automatic grenade launchers to absolutely devastating effects in Afghanistan.
Top Top