Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
502 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
In Aprils edition of Guns and Amoo on page 88 is a nice piece about the need for the M14 type of rifle for the Army and the Marines.

The M16/M4 isn't doing the job, so some heavy hitting power is needed. The unit commanders are buying Springfield M1As from the local gunstores.

Jerry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,769 Posts
I received my April issue of Gun and Ammo today and there is a full page article on page 88 about the British and the 5.56 NATO.

The British Ministry of Defence has authorized the purchase of several hundred Lewis Machine & Tool 7.62AR rifles. It seems they are tired of sending troops to deployments and not be able to gather up enough L1A1 guns. They like many commanders in the US Military have come to realize that the 5.56 is useless at long range and need the power of the 7.62 to kill the enemy at distance or behind hard barriers.

There seems to be many photos of OUR troops picking up and using Dragonov SVD rifles because of the lack of effectiveness of the 5.56. Our Military has also brought back all M-14 rifles sent overseas for the last 40 years for use today, contracted with Knight's Armament for the M110 and Mk11, and individual BATTALIONS are buying Springfield M1As for their troops.

The article also says the latest social amusement of the enemy is showing off the many 5.56 wounds they've survived. It also seems the Taliban are learning that the AK is lacking at longer ranges too, and they are showing up with .303Lee-Enfields.

If anyone out there doesn't think there are MAJOR issues with the 5.56 guns we are sending our troops into battle with, then you have a warped sense of reality. EVERY soldier should have a 7.62 semi-auto gun at the minimum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I argue with my cousin every time we get together about the in abillity of our troops to do thier jobs over seas with the M16. I have told him many times that the M16 has not got the range that the M1A's and M14 do. He tells me that the M16 is a much more accurate firearm even at distance and I tell him that if I was to choose between the two that I am not a soldier and that I would shoot to kill and not opt to shoot to wound. may be he will agree with me now. I think that our government needs to let our military be a military and not a police force and as such they need to give every thing availlable posible to them to see them succeed as quikly as possible for thier safty. They are the ones risking thier lives for us not the idiots sitting behind thier desks making the decisions to under supply and tie thier hands so they can not do thier jobs. That just prolongs the situation and puts more at risk. I support our troops and will do so untill I die they deserve that from all of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
M16 is crap

I started my service with a Garand, it was great.Then the M14, which was even better than the Garand, but not for long. Because some idiot decided we needed the "toy gun". In Viet Nam the M16 jammed, wouldn't penetrate even small log bunkers. Get into a heavy fire fight and more than half of the rifles were out of commission. I hated that POS. And I knew we would be in the shape we are in today with it. I wonder how many of our good men have died because that POS.

At least the move to the M60 MG was the right thing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
505 Posts
.308 and we could be done by now!

It would be nice to think that. Some have M14s but they are few and far between:confused:
Seems that we won all the wars we used the M1a and the M14 as a MBR. Well our guys are trying to kick @$$, but winning is not PC? Too many rules of engagement now, we will look bad if we kill them all? I think as time moves ahead the more guys will have a MBR in .308 again, especially in Afganistan:cool: it would be handy to shoot in all those mtns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
I have served in Afghanistan. I can tell you, there is a need for both. In a vehicle and in populated areas, the M-4 is very handy. However out in the mountains and across valleys, it just does not have the punch to kill at the range of some engagements. The enemy is not stupid. They will back off and use RPGs, 7.62x54 Russians, mortars, whatever they can while attempting to stay out of effective 5.56 range. This is really a problem if the US force has 5.56 M249 SAWs for their crew served weapon rather than the M240B 7.62. You are screwed in long range engagements if you have only a M4 and a M249 (5.56 pure). I had the good fortune of being a ANA trainer (Afghan Army) and those boys always had a PK machine (7.62x54)gun. It is basically a .30-06 ballistically. And them things shoot, rain or shine! Well dust or shine I should say. They shoot and hard and straight. A PK vs a M249 is like Bavarian beer vs Miller Light.

Forget the 6.8mm, the US should develop a new 7.62 light assault rifle. The technology is there to make it lighter than an M14 and dampen the recoil. Not that recoil is the prime consideration. The infantry fight in Afghanistan is a tough one - it's big boy stuff. We should not shy from recoil. If it takes more training and range time, then we should invest in that. The new M4 is a fine weapon from 200 yds and in. It would have been great for Viet Nam IMO (especially with the new piston driven options and the new and improved magazines). But for desert warfare, well it is just lacking. That non expanding 5.56 bullet just isn't destructive enough at carbine velocities. A 7.62 would be much better. Give our squads light 7.62 weapons and a light variant of the M240 (7.62 pure squad) and they will be more effective in the mountains in Afghanistan (even while carrying fewer rounds).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
Bird Dog II,

I respect your views and time served there. I have also been in Iraq for years and currently still in Astan. I have carried both and both have served me well. I can hit with the 5.56 as far as I can see a threat. The M14 is still carried over here in limited numbers but they have never won a war (too late for Korea and got replaced in VietNam). The M14 is the shortest main rifle in the US Armys history (only 5 year production run). Our armorers are not trained on the system and parts are very few, it was also not designed for optics. A better design would be the Mk17 SCARH or AR10/SR25. I still believe that the 6.8 would serve our troops better. It seems that since the M1 was designed for the .276 Pederson in the 1930s we keep coming up with a .277-.284" bullet around 2600fps as optium for an assualt rifle but never adopt it.

Between us, mounting a M249 as a crew serve weapon is flawed. That should be either a M240, Mk 44 minigun or M2. The M249 is a automatic riflemans weapon (same job as the BAR in the squad, hence Squad Automatic Weapon) The new Mk48 7.62 lightweight Machine Gun will help in these role.

Me and my son in Iraq in 04'. He should be leaving Iraq shortly (end 3rd tour, he does have his M4, SPR and M110s)


CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
CD - I agree totally that the 249 is a poor crew serve option. And I also bet that you can hit anything that you can see with the M4. I am doubting, that in some engagements (at range) the M4 has the lethality that it should have.

But I am not dissing the M4. No doubt based on you signature block, you have had a lot more trigger time than I have (or ever want to have). And the one time I was in a real tough spot, the M4 was perfect. The range was close, I was in a soft skinned vehicle (one of those quad cab Ford Rangers), and it was at night. The enemy was in soft skinned vehicles as well. (BTW, the CCO is great in my opinion, although as rough as the roads are in Afghanistan, we had to re-zero frequently.) Anyway, under those conditions, the M4 was just about perfect.

So I am not down on the M4 - believe me! What I am saying that we could do better and should not be married to the 5.56 forever just because it is cheaper. I just saw a show that ticked me off about how we (taxpayers) ponied up 1.2 trillion to save AIG and several other failed financial institutions because Goldman Sacks and Morgan Stanley played the system a certain way. So when I hear that replacing the M4/M16 with something better is "too expensive", I get a little hacked off. Perhaps the 6.8 is the answer. That option makes sense from several angles. It would be an improvement. I am an Ordnance officer and did an informal study on it once and came to the personal conclusion that a .250 Savage would be a great option. With a 110gr boat tail bullet, both the sectional density and BC are higher than we get from a the new 5.56 rounds. MV would be about the same as the 6.8, but the .250 would have a higher BC and SD than the 115 grain 6.8 as well. I looked at the 6.8, .243, 7-08, and .250 Savage as alternatives to the 5.56 and .308. Barrel life, ammunition and magazine size/weight, and ballistic performance were all taken into consideration. The .250 Savage/110 gr BT was what I came up with as the best option. It makes sense as an option (which of course is why it is not in consideration.......this is the government we're talking about after all;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
Bird DogII,

Nice post, and concur. The M16 system and the 5.56 is getting long in tooth, its is our longest service rifle and has been around for over 50yrs+. The Army started testing them the day after the M14 was adopted. The 6.5 Grendel is another interesting cartridge that meets the BC for long range, velocity, bullet weight, and fits inside the M16 envolvope. Time will tell.

CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
My personal Two Cents on calibers for war: It seems that the Generals in Command are always fighting 'The Last War' when the Troops are in the 'Present War'. Machine guns were invented in the Civil War but they were deemed too wasteful of ammo, so troops were massed and marched in to the 'meat grinder' instead, fighting like Napoleon's wars. The British went into the Colonial wars with arms from the previous European wars and found that they needed more powerful rounds to put down the 'enraged Natives' effectively. Vietnam followed Korea, where Deep Cold caused dysfunction problems for M1s of both Rifle and Carbine types. The M14 was 'determined' to be too much Rifle for our SVN allies so we first gave them Carbines, mostly M2 types, and the Generals found a 'light low recoil rifle that our allies could handle, even though it was inferior to the AK in Jungle combat situations. Never mind the Troops problems, make them use the M16! The M16 has been a 'good weapon' in the General Staff's minds as it got them their Stars. Only those troops who have a say in what they carry into the Fray say differently.

Now for some blatant POLITICAL SPEECH: Thanks to the 'Peace Dividend 're-purposing and the Democratic Party led stampede to downsize the US military to 'limited War-fighting' abilities to prevent more 'Vietnam's' we have a Military Establishment that is struggling to fight the more than 'Two Regional Wars' at one time the Democrats envisioned. No, we will not get an effective 'Long Range MBR' developed if we are still 'fighting the 'Jungle War' over and over.
The Accountants and Politicians will use the money to buy Votes at home instead.
END OF POLITICAL SPEECH.

Our Police Forces are publicly demonstrating 'the small and fast is better than the large and slow' fallacy, just read how many round are discharged by Police to 'down' a Perp. in reported Officer Involved Shooting incidents.
Historically, one glaring example comes to mind: the Bank of America, North Hollywood Branch Robbery. Police did what they were trained to do, shot at the Center of Mass of the Perps. using their Service 9MM sidearms - against Full Body Armored Perps. armed with 7.62 AK series Fully Automatic true "Assault Rifles" many Police casualties over a relativly long moving Fire fight before some Rifle armed Police shut down the Perps.
Then the pPolice were sued for Wrongful Deaths of the Perps.!
One altercation between an unarmed Civilian in New York resulted in Four Officers firing reportedly 44 rounds at the civilian, striking him 11 times before he fell to the ground.
Effective Firepower? I beg to differ.
Just my Two Cents.
Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I served in Somalia as a Marine in 1994. I carried the M249 Saw. Fortunately I never had to fire it in anger. I have wondered if our troops may be well served with a Rifle based on the AR 10 platform. It would be the same cycle of operations as the current Service Rifle with the added punch of the 7.62X51 Nato Cartridge that is already in service all over the World.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,616 Posts
The AR10 variant is a standard US service arm. It is known as the M110 SASS (Semi Automatic Sniper System). It is a Knight SR25. Before being type classified it was known as the Mk11 series under Special Operations. I carried a Mk11 in Haiti in 95'. The M110 is issued along side the M24 Sniper System (Remington 700 in 7.62x51 or .300 Win Mag) The M24 uses a long action to be able to be converted from 7.62mm to .300 Win Mag. FN also makes a M249 SAW chambered in 7.62x51mm. Its been issued to SOF and conventional troops in Astan since 11' known as the Mk48 machine gun. Just doesn't have the ability to run a magazine from the side.


CD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Although things have improved for the AR with heavier bullets, back when the M1A/M14 ruled the range their problem was pretty obvious. It wasn't unusual to see ARs hitting the target next to the intended one during a heavy wind day at Camp Perry. Of course that tendency increased with the range. Thankfully, I'm too old to worry about combat now, but if the hordes come hear, I'd much rather have a M1A than an AR15.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,929 Posts
Something like 2 years ago, there was an article in "Soldier Of Fortune" magazine about testing the new Ruger Mini in 6.5 or 6.8 caliber, I can't recall but I can remember that the NAVY took the M-14 and tossed the old wooden stock! Then they added an AR type stock and they were done with all the BS about what is good to go for the Navy. :rolleyes::(

Now lets face facts shall we! Those who have manipulated the funding for this caliber and that new caliber, have simply wasted millions of tax payers dollars. We had the best of the best for what our troops needed but keep giving them these friggin varmint calibers to take to the battle field. :eek: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
If any new issue, not old surplus, in 308 is given to the troops, it will likely be a version of the AR-10.

US troops won't have to be retrained in the operation, cleaning, of an AR-10 because they know how to clean and shoot an AR-15.

I have a bud who used to work on military rebuild lines, the Army would take these guys out to military bases and fix what was there. My bud is a competitive shooter, very familiar with the M1a/Garand.

He was at Hickam, somewhere around 2007-2009, and there were old M14’s that needed to be rebuilt. He said he had no manuals, no gages, no Army supplied anything for M14’s. The M14 has been out of inventory so long they are logistically unsupportable.

What he did was cannibalize parts, like hammer hooks, etc, to make a few functional M14’s. If he had not done it, all those M14’s would have gone to the crusher.

Until such date the Army starts publishing manuals, making full spare parts and gages, and training troops again, I really doubt the M14 will be general issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,363 Posts
I argue with my cousin every time we get together about the in abillity of our troops to do thier jobs over seas with the M16. I have told him many times that the M16 has not got the range that the M1A's and M14 do. He tells me that the M16 is a much more accurate firearm even at distance and I tell him that if I was to choose between the two that I am not a soldier and that I would shoot to kill and not opt to shoot to wound. may be he will agree with me now. I think that our government needs to let our military be a military and not a police force and as such they need to give every thing availlable posible to them to see them succeed as quikly as possible for thier safty. They are the ones risking thier lives for us not the idiots sitting behind thier desks making the decisions to under supply and tie thier hands so they can not do thier jobs. That just prolongs the situation and puts more at risk. I support our troops and will do so untill I die they deserve that from all of us.
Simple issue, do the troops want to use a 77-80 grain pill or a 175 (M118LR)?

Yes the AR/M16 platforms are very accurate, but the lightweight pill don't stand up to wind and so on and they don't have the terminal velocities the 7.62 does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,363 Posts
In Aprils edition of Guns and Amoo on page 88 is a nice piece about the need for the M14 type of rifle for the Army and the Marines.

The M16/M4 isn't doing the job, so some heavy hitting power is needed. The unit commanders are buying Springfield M1As from the local gunstores.

Jerry
Not completely true, they are/were buying from Multiple sources. Smith's have proven to be a problem. SAIs and Fulton's work fine.

BTW if you want ammo data, doing a lot of .308/7.62 ammo testing in: 3 SAAMI chambers, 1 M14 and 1 M21, 2 NM 7.62 chambers (M1 NM Garands NAY/USMC)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,363 Posts
Bird Dog II,

I respect your views and time served there. I have also been in Iraq for years and currently still in Astan. I have carried both and both have served me well. I can hit with the 5.56 as far as I can see a threat. The M14 is still carried over here in limited numbers but they have never won a war (too late for Korea and got replaced in VietNam). The M14 is the shortest main rifle in the US Armys history (only 5 year production run). Our armorers are not trained on the system and parts are very few, it was also not designed for optics. A better design would be the Mk17 SCARH or AR10/SR25. I still believe that the 6.8 would serve our troops better. It seems that since the M1 was designed for the .276 Pederson in the 1930s we keep coming up with a .277-.284" bullet around 2600fps as optium for an assualt rifle but never adopt it.

Read "The great rifle controversy". It'll help you understand the M14 production problems and actually production schedule.

There are M14 parts in inventory, problem is people don't seem to know where they are and how to get them.



Between us, mounting a M249 as a crew serve weapon is flawed. That should be either a M240, Mk 44 minigun or M2. The M249 is a automatic riflemans weapon (same job as the BAR in the squad, hence Squad Automatic Weapon) The new Mk48 7.62 lightweight Machine Gun will help in these role.
Did independent study on the SAW contenders before the actual military testing. The 249 was the best of the bunch, but my report was 5 pages long on the problems with it. Only thing the DoD did was to adapt the assault pack. I got a 249 in a crate with a note "Break it" and 3 different crates of ammo. Wasn't impressed and when I took some of the DoD suits out to point out some problems I also took: 1 BAR, 1 1919A4 and 1 M14 NM. Needless to say they weren't happy with me past 300 yards. .30 does it, .223 especially in those days was seriously flawed.

Here's the 1919A4 and the BAR is sitting to the right.

1919A4_zps6bf7a217.jpg Photo by rojkoh | Photobucket

We actually overhauled a lot of both, in '06 and in 7.62.

The M240 was a good LMG until they decided to go titanium... bad idea. Always hated the M60.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top