Would you feel slighted if issued a M14 instead of a M16 for use in Iraq/Afghanistan? Seems like there are a good many showing up there.

Short answer:
HELL NO!


ETA:
Having an M14 would mean a lot less cover for the bad guys.   There was an issue of Guns this past summer that compared the ability of the 223, 762x51 and the 762x39's ability to shoot through cover.  The 308 did exceptionaly well (no suprise).

Man, I'd be the happiest son of a devil in Iraq/Afghan
It saves me the hassle of bugging and bugging for one.
I like both, but would rather have an M-14

[EDIT] I predict this thread is going to start another flame war on which is better, the M-14/ M-16 because people just can't have a casual conversation without forcing their opinion on others.

[EDIT # 2]

Why, are you a squad DM?  If so, I think it is an acknowledgement of your superior marksmanship and utility to the squad.  

G

FUCK NO!  I'd be fucking GIDDY


(Always liked the M14, probably because I'll never get to own one.)

Prefer the -16 for what I do. Its more of the matter of ammo type and availibility IMO. Really like having a 203 along with a few rounds HEDP and starclusters.  But Im nothing more than an overglorified REMF anyhow..

Quoted: Man, I'd be the happiest son of a devil in Iraq/Afghan It saves me the hassle of bugging and bugging for one. I like both, but would rather have an M-14 [EDIT] I predict this thread is going to start another flame war on which is better, the M-14/ M-16 because people just can't have a casual conversation without forcing their opinion on others. [EDIT # 2] usera.imagecave.com/Hunterex/m14cropped2.jpg

The .45 and M-14 are nice, but you might want to consider upgrading that steel pot and ALICE pack.  Some things have gotten better.

Quoted: Quoted: Man, I'd be the happiest son of a devil in Iraq/Afghan It saves me the hassle of bugging and bugging for one. I like both, but would rather have an M-14 [EDIT] I predict this thread is going to start another flame war on which is better, the M-14/ M-16 because people just can't have a casual conversation without forcing their opinion on others. [EDIT # 2] usera.imagecave.com/Hunterex/m14cropped2.jpg The .45 and M-14 are nice, but you might want to consider upgrading that steel pot and ALICE pack.  Some things have gotten better.

I have a PASGT, and better gear.  I was going for a 'nam theme in the picture.

[ETA]
That helmet more to your liking?  
The three 1911's are USGI , two 1911's and one 1911a1

Not really but it all depends.  In Afganistan, an M14 definetly has it's merits.  Longer ranges this is where the long range power has it's place.

In Iraq where the MOUT is the theme, I would have to ask for the M16A4 or M4.

I also have not seen any loose 7.62 rounds and I think they are just delinking the 240 ammo to feed the M14.  Unless the Ammo Techs are issuing match rounds which would be a definite plus.

Max

BTW nice pics Hunterex

Quoted: BTW nice pics Hunterex

Thanks

I'd choose the M4 because of the short range fighting so common today.  M14s seem to be filling the roll of squade designated marksman now.

 When you absoutley, positivly have to kill someone on the other side of a tree use a 30 cal.
But I'd prefer a FAL

In A'Stan, no, its a goo weapon for the job. In Iraq, I would be screaming bloody murder. The M14 is a good battle rifle, but a poor sniper rifle and a very poor assault rifle.

Of course if it broke I would be screwed, and decent ammo is hard to come by. To my understanding M118LR Special Ball is the only loose packed 7.62 currently issued, and its hard enough for full time snipers to get. Apparently they are pulling M240 links apart to get the rest of their ammo.

Of course I am medically ineligible for military service so its all theoretical.

Quoted: Not really but it all depends.  In Afganistan, an M14 definetly has it's merits.  Longer ranges this is where the long range power has it's place. In Iraq where the MOUT is the theme, I would have to ask for the M16A4 or M4.

+1

I wouldn't mind having a M14, as long as they gave me plenty of ammo.  I'd be up the creek if I ran out, since all my buddies would have 5.56 I rekon.
I'd be looking for a discarded AK and some mag in the heat of the battle.

Quoted: Of course I am medically ineligible for military service so its all theoretical.

I was unaware of that, and it answers a few off topic questions.  

A few months ago I was talking with General Schoomaker, and he commented that what was important was the service to your country, not that you are in the military.  There are plenty of people who serve their country without being in the military, specifically he listed police and fire fighters.  Those are paraphrased words from the man himself, and while not an exact quote, they are very close.


Back to the topic at hand, I would chose the M16 platform for Iraq, and probably for Afghansitan as well.  

M16A2 or A4 for me.

If I had to hump a 7.62 it would be a para FAL.

Quoted: I wouldn't mind having a M14, as long as they gave me plenty of ammo.  I'd be up the creek if I ran out, since all my buddies would have 5.56 I rekon. I'd be looking for a discarded AK and some mag in the heat of the battle.

Aren't they two different 7.62??

Quoted: Quoted: Of course I am medically ineligible for military service so its all theoretical. I was unaware of that, and it answers a few off topic questions.   A few months ago I was talking with General Schoomaker, and he commented that what was important was the service to your country, not that you are in the military.  There are plenty of people who serve their country without being in the military, specifically he listed police and fire fighters.  Those are paraphrased words from the man himself, and while not an exact quote, they are very close. Back to the topic at hand, I would chose the M16 platform for Iraq, and probably for Afghanistan as well.

I am glad you chimed in on this Stickman..........................

I was thinking we may be witnessing StickHunterexman, if you know what I mean....


Oh, and I would be thrilled with the extra umph.



(btw:  that was meant as a compliment to both Stick and Hunterex)

I'd think it would matter quite a bit what role you were filling.  For me, as a (retired) USAF troop, I would most likely be stuck in one place most of the time, so humping a heavier rifle wouldn't be such an issue.  And being able to kill someone's truck with a couple of shots from a long way off would be pretty handy in perimeter defense.

(Side Note: My father-in-law, while in Europe with the 82nd Airborne, was in a position to kill a Mercedes truck in a German convoy.  One shot with AP ammo, right into the engine.  He said the truck "bucked" when he hit it, but he was far enough away that the Germans apparently didn't know their truck had been shot.  He stopped a convoy in its tracks and that was a Good Thing for his unit.)

On the other hand, if I were in a situation where I'd be bouncing all over the place (I was in Comm, so I could have been sent hither and yon to fix various radio systems all over the place-one of my guys did just that ALL OVER Afghanistan for his rotation there), I'd want an M4A1--yep, NOT an M4, but an M4A1, 'cause I like the idea of FULL auto in sticky situations.

Edited to fix goobered up smilies.

Um, the SDM's that you see running around in Iraq are issued both.  They are tools in a tool box, pick the right one for the right situation.  Same thing with the shotguns.  I am sure that someone will pop up telling us about their unit that does not follow this policy, but this is the way it is supposed to be, in the Army at least.

Depends what I was doing.

If my shooting was going to be all under 75 yards...I'd take a 16.

Anything past that, 14.  

A-Stan would probably be more 14 friendly, Iraq more 16 friendly.

Rifles


Magazines

Quoted: Depends what I was doing. If my shooting was going to be all under 75 yards...I'd take a 16. Anything past that, 14.   A-Stan would probably be more 14 friendly, Iraq more 16 friendly.

+1

That's what I'd take, given the chance.

Combat_Jack, how come you're ineligible?

I have ear problems. I tried to get a waiver, but after 9 months, it came back rejected. This was 2 years ago (almost exactly, right before I started Senior year of high school.)

WIZZO

I'd prefer to have a m16. Especially a flattop. More optics options, easier follow-up shots, lighter ammo ect. Lighter gun as well.

Thats just me. If they handed me an m14 I wouldn't feel bad...I'd just trade it out to one you. lol

USMC in particular on account of having been prescribed orthotic devices for flat feet. A history of asthma, surgeries and steroid prescriptions for lung problems mean that it may be possible for me to get a bunch of waivers and enlist in the Army, but at first check I am ineligible. When I am done with college I am seriously going to consider trying to get waivered in. Otherwise I might apply for Federal LE, DSS, DOE or something.

The shame of the situation is all of my medical issues (asthma, hernias, frequent pneumonia etc.) are a decade or so behind me. I am out of shape but in great health now, have 20/10 vision, can blow the lung capacity charts away, can outshoot most military guys I have met, and I got high 90s on the ASVAB.

Well, theres an example of how to NOT maintain PERSEC

I can use both effectively.

Quoted: Would you feel slighted if issued a M14 instead of a M16 for use in Iraq/Afghanistan? Seems like there are a good many showing up there.

I'd take the 14 in a heartbeat.

I had basic training in 1966 with the M-14 loved it, was then trained to use the M-16, damm it was nice too! it would be a hard choice! But now that I'm an "old fart" the lightweight M-16 would be my choice.

If I may suggest without getting jumped on.

If it would be my choice of M-16 it would be a Barret M-468 in 6.8SPC! IMHO the Best of both worlds!

The M14 is an ideal rifle for a doctrine of warfare that pretty much died at that battle of Mons in 1914.  I asked a friend of mine at the infantry center about the fielding of the M14 based DM rifles in Afghanistan a while back, his comments were they really really weren't getting any feed back that it was answering the mail.  Basically  the ability to shoot long distance with the as issued DMR wasn't any better than scoped M16s, hence going with a M16 based weapon for the SDM.  The simple fact that range to target in gun fights is pretty close even in Afghanistan.  The occasions that our troops are able to engage the enemy at "extended distances" is pretty rare and in most cases, it's is beyond small arms range.  When you consider the average weapon carried by the enemy has less range their ours the weapons we are carrying are more than adequate.

Now, all the rifles that I've seen the Aarmy with have been M-21's or M-25's. Are these legit M-14's that DM's are being issued or these their more refined brothers?

Actual M14s. The Army oesnt want them though. No spare parts, few mags, no trained armorers.

Here's a small snipet copied and pasted from ammo-oracles website...found here....

www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm

Which answers the question....

"Q. Isn't 7.62 NATO much better for long range penetration than 5.56 anyhow?  Why would I want to use 5.56 when I could send 7.62 downrange instead?

Well, yes and no.  For some penetration mediums like mild steel, M855 is actually superior. Consider a recent research report:

The SS-109 can penetrate the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the 7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters.  The U. S. steel helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS-109 can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot penetrate it beyond 800 meters.

The current production 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge has remained unchanged since its adoption by NATO in 1953.  As typified by the U. S. M80 ball and the Belgian M77 ball, this cartridge propels a 147-grain cupronickel-jacketed lead bullet at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps (848 mps).  Total cartridge length and weight are 2.80 inches and 386 grains, respectively. Utilizing a standard 22-inch barrel with a rifling twist of one turn in twelve inches (M14 rifle), the maximum effective range of the 7.62×51mm ball cartridge is listed as 620 meters (682 yards).  The U. S. M80 and the Belgian M77 ball projectiles can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45 mm (.14 inch) thick steel plate up to a range of 620 meters and can penetrate one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 800 meters (880 yards).  In barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 147 grain ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks.

The new SS-109 cartridge propels a heavier 62-grain semi-armor piercing projectile at an initial velocity of 3,050 fps (924 mps).  The improved projectile contains a 10-grain .182 caliber hardened steel penetrator that ensures penetration at longer ranges.

The new projectile can penetrate the standard NATO 3.45mm steel plate up to a range of 640 meters (704 yards) and one side of the U. S. steel helmet up to a range of 1,300 meters (1430 yards).  In tests of barrier and fortification penetration however, the steel penetrator of the SS-109 could not pierce any of the test building blocks.

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and power of the SS-109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter and more compact rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the 5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to tumble or shatter on impact.  In summary, the 5.56mm NATO provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and heavier 7.62mm NATO. 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only 47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition.

However:

These comparisons however, do not consider the fact that the SS-109 uses a semi-armor piercing, steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively soft antipersonnel, lead-cored projectile.  A semi-armor piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation technology as the SS-109, would easily outperform the smaller SS-109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges.  With respect to barrier and fortification penetration tests, the 7.62mm ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test building blocks, while the SS-109 semi-armor piercing projectile cannot penetrate a single block."

Now...we all (well...most of us) know that the 7.62x51 absolutely stomps the 5.56 "Thump Wise" with a much higher level of "One Shot Stop/Kills" and while I've loved and handled both arms extensively?...in a combat situation?...I'd hafta go with the 16 hands down....and peferably the M4 Carbine version and here's some reasons why...

1. "MORE AMMO": I can pack far more ammo.

2. "LIGHT WEIGHT": It's markedly lighter to carry 24/7...(tot'in a 14 can get to be a biotch at the end of the day and anything that serves to add to your fatigue levels is never a good thing)

3. "ERGONOMIC SUPERIORITY": You can operate all controls without your trigger hand ever leaving it's low wrist grip with a straight back trigger pull and conduct lightening fast, never skipped a beat...."Mag Changes"..(where even with pratice the 14's mag changes are kinda slow and clumsy)

4. "COMPACT SIZE": I can fight and effectively return fire from inside vehicle or from a phone booth with an M4. (however I'd take pause and a long deep breath before walking into any hot urban areas with a 14)

and numbers 2, 3, and 4 above all play a role in....

5. "A FASTER HANDLING RIFLE/CARBINE": I once watched a friend who was a damn good tactical competitor take his M1A1 onto a Tac Rifle Course for shidz and giggles just to see how he would do with it...and normally?....with his AR?...he'd of finished this "Timed Event" in the top three shooters...there were about 30-40 shooters at this particular match and while we all admired his spunk?...not only did he finish up the day in last place but...his "Time To Complete The Course Of Fire" was right at 80 seconds...79.sumptin...he had no jams...and his two mag changes went smoothly...now to give you an idea?.....I came in 3rd that day...posting a time of 45seconds to fire 60 shots from 5 different positions....places 1&2 were in the 44 second time slots...and the slowest guy besides my 80second 14 totin bud?...even he posted just under 60seconds...with a freaking AK!!! LOL!!!

We all gave my bud a good hearted ribbing about that run...but it was an extremely enlightening experience of just how slow-handling (due to excessive recoil) the 14 truely is in a 10-100yrd tactical environment...not good...and that day I knew what arm I'd be carrying if I was ever placed in a SHTF situation....bottom line?...SPEED KILLS.

And that's JMHO on the matter and...L8R, Bill.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Of course I am medically ineligible for military service so its all theoretical. I was unaware of that, and it answers a few off topic questions.   A few months ago I was talking with General Schoomaker, and he commented that what was important was the service to your country, not that you are in the military.  There are plenty of people who serve their country without being in the military, specifically he listed police and fire fighters.  Those are paraphrased words from the man himself, and while not an exact quote, they are very close. Back to the topic at hand, I would chose the M16 platform for Iraq, and probably for Afghanistan as well.   I am glad you chimed in on this Stickman.......................... I was thinking we may be witnessing StickHunterexman, if you know what I mean.... Oh, and I would be thrilled with the extra umph. (btw:  that was meant as a compliment to both Stick and Hunterex)

Don't quite understand what you mean, but if you say you're complimenting us, then on my behalf I say "Thanks."  

Quoted: USMC in particular on account of having been prescribed orthotic devices for flat feet. A history of asthma, surgeries and steroid prescriptions for lung problems mean that it may be possible for me to get a bunch of waivers and enlist in the Army, but at first check I am ineligible. When I am done with college I am seriously going to consider trying to get waivered in. Otherwise I might apply for Federal LE, DSS, DOE or something. The shame of the situation is all of my medical issues (asthma, hernias, frequent pneumonia etc.) are a decade or so behind me. I am out of shape but in great health now, have 20/10 vision, can blow the lung capacity charts away, can outshoot most military guys I have met, and I got high 90s on the ASVAB. Well, theres an example of how to NOT maintain PERSEC

I passed everything except hearing in my right ear. Still couldn't get a waiver into the Army....

i would probably want the M16...but instead of the M14, how about the Springfield M1A scout sniper rifle...small, accurate, and bad ass!

I'd probably hate it if I had to hump it and ammo for a long time

I'd be a happy camper.  If you practiced with an M14, you could be just as good with it as an M16.

Optics are more of an issue with the M14 and that is a serious matter when you consider their primary role. Add to that the inability to get proper ammo and being overly long and heavy.....as well as not being able to share ammo with the rest of the squad.....

These aren't Crane Mk18s (?) with the Sage kit but the same M1-14s that were stored after the M-16 was adopted.  The SOCOM 16 handles real nice and I wouldn't have too much problems with running one but a stock m-14....mmmmm........

Quoted: I'd probably hate it if I had to hump it and ammo for a long time

I dunno, when my 16 went FUBAR in 1990, the armorer was out of more 16s, so issued me a 60.  For two years, I humped around a 60, tripod, T&E device, ammo, spare barrel, ammo, some more ammo...  It didn't bother me and I kind of got to where I liked going apeshit with the thing.  

give me a 14

I say/know this...you get caught in an urban 100 yard (or less) firefight against multiple AK weilding opponents (I'm talking "2 or 3" here) with a vest full of 30rd 5.56 and an M4 and a competent tactician/marksmen will still stand a damn good shot at surviving the situation...but I can't say the same for the M-14....oh it's plenty powerful enough but it's heavy recoil makes it slow-handling, it's mag change system makes itv clumsy and it's size, weight and ergo's makes it cumbersome....as opposed to the AR format or even the AK format....take for example....

The two brave souls that made up a U.S. Marine Sniper Team who voluntarily repeled from a helicopter onto the streets of somolia in an effort to save a downed Blackhawk pilot....with M-14s....they made it to the pilot but then within minutes?...the first thing that happened was...

"They Ran Out Of Ammo"

Granted...they definantly got "Bum Rushed" however....they probably could've been a whole lot more "Persuasive" had they been FULLY STOKED and toting (20) 30rd mags of 5.56 ='s 600rds vs (8) 20rd mags of 7.62 ='s 160rds....think about that....and more than likely ALL shots taken were at less than 50yds....now....I'm not absolutely positive about the mag counts but you get my drfit...and in the streets of somolia I can't help but KNOW that 600rds of 5.56 would've been a whole lot more "crowd convincing" than a measley 160rds of 7.62 X51...which at those distances was grossly over-powered.

Also...remember gents...prior to the adoption of the M-16 the DOD conducted a random survey of both combat and non-combat soldiers...a mix of both army and marine infantry riflemen...the test consisted of 100 soldiers asked 100 questions....test results were anonymous...and one of the questions was....

"Would you engage suspected enemy targets at distances of greater than 200 yards?"

and the DOD was shocked to find that 85% of those surveyed answered....."NO".

which promted a 2ndary survey/question of....

"If you answered NO please explain why."

Written answers of those 85% who answered "NO" were...

#1. (an over-whelming percentage (( like 75-80%)) answered to the effect that)....at distances of greater than 200yrds it's to difficult if not impossible to disconcern with the naked human eye if your target is friend or foe. (I guess that other 15% that answered "YES" explains where our "Friendly Fire" came from)

#2. About 15% answered..."Why give up your position at those distances?...you may only be seeing a few of the main group at those distances and wind up grossly out-numbered once the decision is made to engage...to far of a distance for proper observation and decision making.

and lastly?...

#3. Where 5-10% anonymously claimed themselves "Conscienscous Objectors" who would not fire unless fired upon...(no doubt some of the unseasoned rookies)

But these were some of the answers that shocked and stunned the DOD...as markemenship training started at 200yds for Marines....and the M14 marksmenship program was geared towards 200-500yd training...things had to change....Lighter faster handling rifles with LESS RECOIL....Lighter yet effective ammo and MORE of it....enter the M-16.

My numbers might be slightly off (but not by far) as it's been years since I reviewed that surveys results and I'm posting from memory of...which at 47 is fading at times...

L8R, Bill.

Quoted: I say/know this...you get caught in an urban 100 yard (or less) firefight against multiple AK weilding opponents (I'm talking "2 or 3" here) with a vest full of 30rd 5.56 and an M4 and a competent tactician/marksmen will still stand a damn good shot at surviving the situation...but I can't say the same for the M-14....oh it's plenty powerful enough but it's heavy recoil makes it slow-handling, it's mag change system makes itv clumsy and it's size, weight and ergo's makes it cumbersome....as opposed to the AR format or even the AK format....take for example.... The two brave souls that made up a U.S. Marine Sniper Team who voluntarily repeled from a helicopter onto the streets of somolia in an effort to save a downed Blackhawk pilot....with M-14s....they made it to the pilot but then within minutes?...the first thing that happened was... "They Ran Out Of Ammo" Granted...they definantly got "Bum Rushed" however....they probably could've been a whole lot more "Persuasive" had they been FULLY STOKED and toting (20) 30rd mags of 5.56 ='s 600rds vs (8) 20rd mags of 7.62 ='s 160rds....think about that....and more than likely ALL shots taken were at less than 50yds....now....I'm not absolutely positive about the mag counts but you get my drfit...and in the streets of somolia I can't help but KNOW that 600rds of 5.56 would've been a whole lot more "crowd convincing" than a measley 160rds of 7.62 X51...which at those distances was grossly over-powered.

Gordon had a M-16 variant, Shugart was the one with the M-14
Both Gordon and Shugart had the BlackHawk's Crew Chief's M-16a2's with them.

Your point stands, but your example is false. It was the rush that did them in.

Still though , personal opinion reigns supreme.  My choice is the '14 , I can see valid reasons to carry either.  When they both have pros and cons, it comes down to personal choice.

I thought Shugart and Gordon were US Army?

In Iraq, I think I'd favor the M16/M4 for MOUT type stuff, but in Afghanistan, I'd go with the M14 to really reach out and win hearts and minds.

Quoted: Quoted: I say/know this...you get caught in an urban 100 yard (or less) firefight against multiple AK weilding opponents (I'm talking "2 or 3" here) with a vest full of 30rd 5.56 and an M4 and a competent tactician/marksmen will still stand a damn good shot at surviving the situation...but I can't say the same for the M-14....oh it's plenty powerful enough but it's heavy recoil makes it slow-handling, it's mag change system makes itv clumsy and it's size, weight and ergo's makes it cumbersome....as opposed to the AR format or even the AK format....take for example.... The two brave souls that made up a U.S. Marine Sniper Team who voluntarily repeled from a helicopter onto the streets of somolia in an effort to save a downed Blackhawk pilot....with M-14s....they made it to the pilot but then within minutes?...the first thing that happened was... "They Ran Out Of Ammo" Granted...they definantly got "Bum Rushed" however....they probably could've been a whole lot more "Persuasive" had they been FULLY STOKED and toting (20) 30rd mags of 5.56 ='s 600rds vs (8) 20rd mags of 7.62 ='s 160rds....think about that....and more than likely ALL shots taken were at less than 50yds....now....I'm not absolutely positive about the mag counts but you get my drfit...and in the streets of somolia I can't help but KNOW that 600rds of 5.56 would've been a whole lot more "crowd convincing" than a measley 160rds of 7.62 X51...which at those distances was grossly over-powered. Gordon had a M-16 variant, Shugart was the one with the M-14 Both Gordon and Shugart had the BlackHawk's Crew Chief's M-16a2's with them. Your point stands, but your example is false. It was the rush that did them in. Still though , personal opinion reigns supreme.  My choice is the '14 , I can see valid reasons to carry either.  When they both have pros and cons, it comes down to personal choice.

I apologize for my inaccurate recollection as you are obviousely far more familar with that event than I EVER was...and thanks for the correction...and I mean that...interesting info indeed...and I'm happy to know you still feel that my "very generalized point" still stands.

Meanwhile...back on the farm...I still contend and always will that...

M14 ='s Cadillac where M16/M4 ='s Dodge Viper...and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who's gonna win on race day.

Outsdie of that?...I agree the M14 is a great combat rifle that still has merits a very narrow niche in such deployments as...mid-range sniper/cover and/or as a "Spotters/Escourt to a .50bmg Sniper"...but not as a standard tactical infantry arm...it's just too long in the tooth for "close-in combat work"...non-compatable ammo and mags and all the ergo's and weight of your great, great grandpa's brown bess...in a word?...."antiquated"....my take?...save the romantics for romeo and pass me the closest M4 cause we all know that in the end?...things didn't work out to well for romeo.

Now...on a positive note?...I would just love to see unc pull all the 14's from service...and replace them all by 2 fold with brand new accurized Bushmaster Varminter type 24" flat-tops with high end tactical scopes cause...well..that would make sense....real good sense....as with heavy weight bullets/loads you'd still have that great mid-range sniper accuracy and the designated marksmen would get to enjoy all the advantages of the M16 format annnnnd.....standardized mag/ammo compatability with the rest of his fireteam members...and that my good frinds would be nothing less than..."extremely cool"...no matter how ya sliced it....and save the "Need To Shoot Through Cement Blocks" situations for the meals on wheels crew...but a little talent on the end of a 24" Varminter with a HP Tac scope and range finder could easily dot heads at 700yds...american civilains do it every season....on prarie dogs....all day long.

L8R, Bill.

Quoted: I thought Shugart and Gordon were US Army?

They were, Army SF Delta. All the debriefs I've heard from that cluster said the Rangers all wished they had a M14 like Shugart's because when he shot someone, they went DOWN.

"Marine Sniper Team in Somalia"

Shugart and Gordon were members of the US Army SFOD DELTA, RIP Brothers.

FUZION, when it comes to the weight of the two systems with no additions, the M4 is a lighter system. This weight difference between the M4 and M14 is offset when you add a RAS, M68/ACOG/Other Optic, PEQ-2/PAC-4C, Tac light, VFG, and-or M203 to the M4. In my part of the army we have a saying, "I carry 100 pounds of lightweight gear."

Yes, you can carry more 5.56mm than 7.62. 210 rounds (7 mags, pre-war basic load) weighs less than the same amount of 7.62. This is a moot point when you go outside the wire. SOP for my platoon is 12 mags, minimum. The middle of a firefight is a poor time to cross level ammo.

Mike

Quoted: Of course I am medically ineligible for military service so its all theoretical.

Sorry to hear that, CJ. Like it was written above, there are other ways to serve. At least you tried.

As for the M-14, I'd be happy to have one. I carried one in Korea when I could (each squad had one as a DM rifle).  I also shot one extensively on my divisions rifle team.

I'd rather have a FAL-which I do-and would have preferred one on the DMZ, too.

I'd be happy with an M-4, though.

I work PT with a guy who was in A-Stan and Iraq with the 82nd, he said they had one M-14 per squad, each with an ACOG. With the other equipment, M-4's, 203's, 240's and SAWs, sounds like a good mix.

Quoted: Quoted: I'd probably hate it if I had to hump it and ammo for a long time I dunno, when my 16 went FUBAR in 1990, the armorer was out of more 16s, so issued me a 60.  For two years, I humped around a 60, tripod, T&E device, ammo, spare barrel, ammo, some more ammo...  It didn't bother me and I kind of got to where I liked going apeshit with the thing.

Because, as we all know....HAPPINESS IS A BELT FED WEAPON



I was an infantry M-60 gunner for two happy belt fed years.

I would Take the M14