[DMK]

The 5.56mm and M-16 vs. the world debates can almost go on forever, but I think everybody agrees that the initial resistance by the DOD to adopt the Armalite AR-15/M-16 was stiff and there was a time when it's future as a military weapon was in doubt. Some of the resistance was due to the rifle's strange design, some of the resistance was due to the small caliber round it fired.

Let's pretent that the proponents of the rifle and it's ammo had failed. The AR-15/M-16 rifle never resurfaced. The M-14 continued for a longer time as the main battle rifle of the U.S. Army and Marines, at least through the Vietnam conflict.

What would the state of todays military rifles be? Would the U.S. still be using the M-14? Would we have developed carbine versions of it, or completely new designs by now? What about our allies and NATO partners? The light round used in the M-16 may have even been a trigger for popular bullpup weapons used by Europeans today.

The small caliber cartridge was adopted by almost all NATO countries. Even Warsaw Pact countries adopted a 5.56x39 cartridge certainly influenced by the 5.56x45. Would these rounds even exist today? Would somebody else have created another small caliber weapon at a later time? Would we have developed a lower power version of the 7.62x51?

What do you think? :)

[Rattler]

It would probably have been like the selection of fighter jets. After the government found that nothing appealed to them, they would have given the major weapon manufacturers a spec sheet and told them to go to work. After much debate, spec comparison, demonstrations, proving field testing, and lets not forget cost evaluation, they would have chosen the winner that fit their criteria the best. What it would have been or looked like is anyone's guess.

Rattler

[4v50 Gary]

The FN FAL and HK G-3 could still be in standard inventory until we made the big switch.

We might have gone caseless if the M-16 was never developed. It would have been quite a leap from the 7.62 mm Nato to a caseless sub 30 caliber round.

[Correia]

If the AR15 had never been invented the internet would be a lot duller.

Seriously, I think it would only have been a matter of time before we adopted some sort of smaller cartridge. Winchester also produced some smaller caliber rifles for government use that were never adopted.

[Spieler]

If the M16 had never been adopted there wouldn't be so many commercial enterprises who make their fortunes hocking every conceivable bolt-on doo-dad and doo-hicky to hang from them. :p

[Hkmp5sd]

We would still have adopted some intermediate caliber select fire weapon. The Germans came up with the Sturmgewehr Assualt Rifles firing the intermediate sized 7.92mm Kurz in WWII. The Russians were using the 7.62x39 in the SKS and AK. The M14/.308 just didn't match the requirements for an infantry weapon in the jungles of Vietnam. The original Armalite AR-10 was a .308. A rifle firing an intermediate round was needed and the AR-15/M16 was the one that got there first.

[Blain]

Why is a 22 caliber needed? The way I see it, a shotgun can and should provide all the close range work needed out of a carbine weapon. If it is out of shotgun range than it is M14's time to shine. The mouse gun just can't hold a candle to a real combat rifle. Nor can the mouse gun do what a shotgun can at close quarters. It is a compromise gun, jack of all trades but a master of none.

[Sir Galahad]

For one thing, the M-16 has lighter ammo. Do this experiment with me. Get 200 rounds of .223 and put it on your bathroom scale. Then take it off and put 200 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buck on it. Then put the boxes of each side by side. See the difference in weight and bulk? You can even do this experiment with 7.62x39 ammo.

In the 80's army, we had TA-50 (Totally Archaic-50 pieces). This crap had to be schlepped everywhere. Those leftover wool uniforms from WW2? Yep, got 'em. How about a wool sleeping shirt like the guy wears in the 1800s? Got it. MOPP suit. MOPP booties and gloves. Extra boots and socks. So, you cram all this and other assorted crap into an ALICE rucksack and, uh oh, what's for supper? Yeah, you forget MREs (Meals Ready to Excrete). Got to have those. Hmmm....what else? You smoke? Need at least a carton in there. How about that shaving kit. Yep, have to have that. Now comes your LBE harness. Two canteens of water. Now do you REALLY feel like schlepping 200 rounds of shotgun shells along with this assorted crap that army efficiency in paperwork has now made sure you can't just throw away? That 7.62x39 or 5.56mm is looking mighty nice about now. No? Ok, do this little exercise with me Blain. Ok, walk down to your local army recruiter. Tell him you want to join the army. Get your physical and sign your name where the nice SSG says to. Then you will be abe to ascertain what is an acceptable bulk/weight to caliber ratio with some OJT. :D

[tac17]

Why is a 22 caliber needed? The way I see it, a shotgun can and should provide all the close range work needed out of a carbine weapon. If it is out of shotgun range than it is M14's time to shine. The mouse gun just can't hold a candle to a real combat rifle. Nor can the mouse gun do what a shotgun can at close quarters. It is a compromise gun, jack of all trades but a master of none.

Aren't most shotgun rounds going to be extremely uneffective against flak vests and body armor? I can assure you that as mentioned previously the ammunition for the shotgun would very much out weigh the 5.56.

To address the M14 part of your post, the 7.62X51 M80 FMJ bullet is inferior to 5.56 M855 FMJ rounds when the 5.56 fragments and only minimally better when the 5.56 fails to fragment or yaw. Neither caliber is a death ray, you still must put the lead where it counts. So the extra weight of the rifle and its ammunition isn't really justified without a new round to increase the effectiveness of the 7.62X51.

As to what if the M-16 was never adopted, if not the M-16 then there would have been another rifle of the same basic theme that would eventually have been adopted for use. The intermediate caliber seems to be a better fit for the more modern approach to military conflicts. It was only a matter of time until such a rifle was adopted.

[BamBam-31]

Our boys would be toting the Mini-14 around!!

:what: :D :what: :scrutiny:

[Kaylee]

well yeah... but it would be one NICE Mini-14. :D


hrmm.. seriously though, I imagine if we hadn't gone to the 16, the 14 would have hung on a few more years before being dropped for a FAL variant.. maybe we'd have imported a FN factory. Who knows, maybe that 6.whatever mm round would be in the inventory by now.

But as much as I love the 14... I don't think we'd have kept it too much longer in any case. It's a great rifle... but it ain't so hot for an army I don't think.

-K

[Deadman]

What about a Stoner M63 derivative?

Maybe the M2Carbine would have seem more use?

[Jeff White]

Blain,
I hate to burst your bubble, but the M14 was probably the most dismal failure of any rifle this country ever adopted. It was an attempt to make a 1930s standard caliber assault rifle. It was hawked as a system weapon, one rifle to fill the carbine, rifle and squad automatic weapon role. I don't think the carbine ever left the drawing board and the squad automatic weapon version was too light to be controllable on full auto. It was sold to the Army over the FN-FAL as a cheaper weapon because it supposedly could be produced on the same machinery that the M1 was made on. This also proved not to be the case. It was plagued with production difficulties throughout it's short career, the Ordnance Deptment and a couple civilian contractors were never able to produce enough to fully equip the military. Many units went right from the M1 to the M16A1 in the early 1970s. The sniper varient (M21) was withdrawn from service because it wasn't maintainable at the user level. It had to be cleaned by a specially trained and equipped armorer, who often had to rebed the action affter he broke it down for routine cleaning.

If we didn't adopt the M16, we would have had a small caliber weapon within a few years regardless. The Army Ordnance department did a study (assigned to David Hall at the Aberdeen Ballistics Laboratory) on small caliber high velocity weapons from 1950 to 1952. Abiout the time the Hall study was released, another Army lab, the Operations Research Office had another engineer,(Norman Hitchman) conduct a similar study. Both reports came to essentially the same conclusion; That a relatively "conventional" small caliber high velocity rifle offered a number of worthwhile advantages over the issue M1.

Work proceeded on a .22 caliber service rifle and Aberdeen Proving Ground built some M2 carbines chamered for the Remington .222 round.

At the same time these projects were going on, the Ordnance Dept was also playing around with the M14 and the FN-FAL which was originally designed in .280 caliber and upscaled to meet the requirements of that program. If it hadn't been for Frederick H. Carten, PhD, Civilian executive to the Chief of Ordnance's slavish devotion to the T44 light rifle (adopted as the M14) and the 7.62 full power round, we probably would have seen a .22 caliber service rifle 8 years before we had the M16. That is the direction all of the US research was going at the time.

Development and testing is constantly going on. Just like we now have the XM8 and before that the Advanced Combat Rifle, no sooner had we adopted the M14 then we started ouring R&D money into a program called the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon). The SPIW was somewhat like the XM29 OICW of today. It utilized a grenade launcher and a rifle that fired flechettes. On January 21, 1963 Defense Secretary McNamara cancelled the M14 program and decided to put all further effort and funding into the SPIW. Considering that today, more then 40 years later, we are still unable to make some of the SPIW concepts work in the OICW I think we would have had a .22 caliber rifle either the Aberdeen M2 or the Winchester .224 or possibly another design. The full caliber battle rifle was a flash in the pan as far as the history of small arms development goes. Adopted in 1957 and cancelled in 1963.

You can find all this information and more in Small Arms of the World By Edward Ezell (I have the 11th edition) and Ezell's The Black Rifle.

Jeff

[Badger Arms]

The FN FAL and HK G-3 could still be in standard inventory until we made the big switch.This is a common belief that defies logic. The Commies would have torn us up with sheer volume of fire. The M-14 was an outstanding rifle FOR EUROPE. For mountains, jungle, and Desert, it lacked somewhat. The same can be said of all automatic rifles of that caliber, they cannot be controllable at that weight.

The small-caliber rifle arena was not populated solely by the AR-15. To be sure, the AR-18 and later the Stoner 63 were better weapons (in many respects). Even the Army was trying to produce a revolutionary small-caliber weapon and has tried over and over and over again and failed. The AR-15 was a "One-time" buy for the Army as a stopgap until their own multi-projectile small-caliber rifle could be realized. The imagined ray-guns never materialized in one system much like the OICW will not ever come about in a single system. The wonder-gun the Army imagined in the late 50's and early 60's was much like what we have with the M-16A2 and M-203 combination.

What-if's are tricky. I believe that the only reason the AR-15 would NOT have been adopted would have been the adoption of the AR-18, Stoner 63, or perhaps even the AR-10 to replace the M-14. The school of hard-knocks we were attending in French Indo-China was being taught to the "rat-a-tat-tat" of AK-47's. Jungles SCREAM for a small machinegun. The only ones we had in inventory were the Grease-gun and Thompson's left over from Korea. The M-14 was an automatic rifle, but could not effectively face an ambush the way the AR-15 or a good Tommy-Gun could.

Many different weapons were tried in Vietnam. There was a shortened, silenced 458 magnum. Duckbilled 'spreader' chokes were used on shotguns. Pump-action grenade launchers, silenced submachine guns, revolvers, Stoner 63's, 50 caliber sniper rifles, mini-guns, etc. In the end, the M-16A1 proved more effective in the infantry rifle role than any other tool tried.

[BDM]

If the M16 never was ther would be nothing for the AK crowd to bitch about because the AK dosent compare to the M14 when you compare those two the AK has 10 more rounds,thats about it the M14 more accurate just as reliable and stronger although heavier and colt would finally be bankrupt those losers..:cuss:

[Badger Arms]

The .22 caliber Carbine you mentioned was actually not a 222 but a shortened version thereof.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=436559

This is a page from "The Black Rifle"

[DMK]

Wow, very interesting historical info in this thread! Thanks for digging up this stuff guys.

It seems that something along the size of the 5.56mm rounds was pretty much written in the cards. I had assumed that a slow progression would have continued from the 30.06 to the 7.62x51 to something along the lines of the 7.92Kurtz or 7.62x39.

I wonder what kinds of rifles might have used that 5.56x51 NATO round?

[Dave Markowitz]

I wonder what kinds of rifles might have used that 5.56x51 NATO round?

One with a very short barrel life. :) That round is seriously overbore and would cause severe barrel erosion.

Because it's a 7.62 NATO necked down to .22, the rifle's action would have to be about the same size as for the parent round.

[Blain]

For one thing, the M-16 has lighter ammo. Do this experiment with me. Get 200 rounds of .223 and put it on your bathroom scale. Then take it off and put 200 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buck on it. Then put the boxes of each side by side. See the difference in weight and bulk? You can even do this experiment with 7.62x39 ammo.

While many have reported needing two, three, and sometimes more hits of .223 to get the job done, it only takes one blast of buck or slugs to down a man at carbine ranges. Besides, it is easier to hit/point shoot with a shotgun than a carbine. Also, accurate fire, not spray and pray, should be what is emphasized. There are around 10-12 shells in one lbs, and 40 .223 rounds in one lbs.

I would never issue out 200 shotgun shells. I would issue out an M14 to everyman (and a few M240s for the SAW) and anyone also wanting a shotgun, or wanting to trade in their M14 for a shotgun, could have one. A shotgun would come with about 14 rounds on the gun (sidesaddle), and with as many 12 loop shotgun shell pouches he wanted in either buck or slug. Obviously, more people would want shotguns in jungle or urban conditions than others.


Aren't most shotgun rounds going to be extremely uneffective against flak vests and body armor? I can assure you that as mentioned previously the ammunition for the shotgun would very much out weigh the 5.56.

Flak vests? Are you kidding me? Those are merely fiberglass plates! I have shot through those vests at 25 yards with buck before no problem! As for body armor, class 4 will pretty much stop multiple rounds of any small arms caliber. So you’d be making head shots anyway (easier with buck) not to mention that buck has an easier chance of finding a nick in the armor than a rifle round. I know of SWAT raids where officers were lost to perps with shotguns and buckshot. Besides, do you really know many third world countries which issue out body armor, or even flak vests for that matter?

To address the M14 part of your post, the 7.62X51 M80 FMJ bullet is inferior to 5.56 M855 FMJ rounds

This is pure foolishness. Combat experience from VETS proves otherwise, the M855 rounds is one of the worst rounds there is! Heck, most of the times it zips right through baddies, anybody remember Blackhawk down?

Blain,
I hate to burst your bubble, but the M14 was probably the most dismal failure of any rifle this country ever adopted.


Oh right, that’s why all the VETS who were forced to give up their M14s for the mighty mattel still complain today about that POS weapon! Regaurdless of expectations, the M14 rarely failed to perform, unlike the M16 which was jamming up at the worst possible moments, getting soldiers killed as a result because their guns would not fire.


I also bring the following quotes to your attention in regaurds to the M16/M4s.

Trust me, I have seen the physical affects of all three the M-16, M-4 and the Ak-47. Throw all those things you read away. THe 7.62 is still the deadlestt round within 200m, trust me it will rip flesh and bone right out of your body,, I have seen it first hand. THe M4 has alot to be said, it is a good weopon within 150m mostly because of it's small size so for close quarters it is perfect but alot of the guy say, and I have seen it, for myself, it does not have the stopping power needed in combat. Especially at distances gereater then 150m. Some of the guys have even picked up[ AK47s to use and just sling thier M4 over thier back. It;s like shooting a .22!!!! As for the regular M16 you get the distance because of the longer barrel, some of the guys here have added Scopes to thier standard M16 and have been hitting guys out at 500m in the head with no problem. And as for how either t! he M4 and M16 are doing. Well like in every conflict since they were invented! Clean it Clean It Clean it Clean it Clean it! If not it WILL jam at the worse time! It WILL JAM! And dont' leave your magazines loaded with a full 30rds, springs get really weak, especially in these high temps over here. And then they wont feed correctly! The AK47 of course hasnt had this problem. Oh course the enemy has the better WEAPON!

Hy, Jeff. I used to repair the thing. Does my opinion count? (MOS 45B Small Arms repair.) The M-16A1 was pathetic, truthfully. Never got to repair A2s so I can't fully comment on them.

Jeff, first off, the A1 was a barrel-eating monster. Thing went through barrels like crap through a goose. Auto fire was the usual reason if it was sustained. Then the heat usually "welded" the barrel nut to the aluminum upper receiver because of the two dissimilar materials having a tendency to do this anyways. So, to replace the barrel almost always resulted in replacing the upper receiver. Then the gas tube had to be "just so" in alignment or weapon would not work because bolt carrier assy key (forget the actual nomenclature for that piece; been over thirteen years ago now) would not fit over gas tube. Many times, the barrel nut had to be backed off a smidge from tight to make gas tube align right. I also saw several early models without forward assists stil in service. Handguards flying of during D&C. Great way to protect that thin gas tube, what with handguards that fly off when buttstock is tapped on ground. Buttstocks that break on the bayonet course. Then there was the change from a chromed bolt and carrier assy to a parked one. You couldn't mix any of these items up or a headspace issue could blow the rifle up. Barrels warping from sustained full auto fire (this was one of the big reasons for three round burst BTW; barrels cost money.) And, as you pointed out Jeff, this weapon did not take abuse to well either. The biggest complaint I got was jamming during full auto. Never could pin that down to a specific part failure. Since weapons had to be clean prior to bringing them in for maintenance, this could have ben a cleaning issue. If a weapon is not at least somewhat soldier-proof, my God...

[DMK]

Here the M-16 doesn't exist, never did. The 5.56x45mm doesn't exist in any U.S. service weapon (unless it was resurrected in a later rifle design).

So you're saying that because we don't have an assault rifle, the shotgun would have a more prominent place on the modern battlfield? That is an interesting suggestion, they were used heavily in SEA and the South Pacific theatres.

What about submachine guns? Would the Thompson have lasted longer as a service weapon?

[Blain]

Yes, I am suggesting that the shotgun is used instead to fullfil the role that the carbine would otherwise.

[Joe Demko]

Blain,
Your devotion to the M-14 and shotgun wouldn't happen to be influenced by the fact that you own the famous "ultimate shotgun" (of HCT fame) and an Armscorp M-14 clone, would it?
The other contributors to this thread have given a wealth of interesting and valuable information. Thanks to all.
IMO, Jeff is entirely correct. If it hadn't been the M-16 it would have been some other small-caliber rifle. All the research, pretty much everywhere, was going in that direction.

[tac17]

Besides, it is easier to hit/point shoot with a shotgun than a carbine. Also, accurate fire, not spray and pray, should be what is emphasized.
That is opinion not fact and you own statement makes no sense. If accurate fire, not spray and pray, should be emphasized then what difference does it make if it is easier to hit/point shoot with a shotgun?

As for body armor, class 4 will pretty much stop multiple rounds of any small arms caliber. So you’d be making head shots anyway (easier with buck) not to mention that buck has an easier chance of finding a nick in the armor than a rifle round.
Actually class IIA will stop most handun ammunition and 12 ga. 00 buckshot, you can prove this with the following link, http://www.bulletproofme.com/NIJ_Test_Rounds_CHART.shtml. As far as the headshot thing goes, that would greatly depend upon the range at which you were making the headshot. I personally wouldn't think that we should gear our entire military against thrid world nations that do not issue body armor to their troops.
This is pure foolishness. Combat experience from VETS proves otherwise, the M855 rounds is one of the worst rounds there is! Heck, most of the times it zips right through baddies, anybody remember Blackhawk down?
I will refer you to the words of Pat Rogers who is much more qualified than me to speak on the subject.
“7.62X51 has it's place, but having actually carried and shot people with an M14, i have my opinion about it. Remember that an infantryman may not always have an observable target. Many times he will be engaging a terrain feature to achieve fire superiority, in order to allow another element to close with the enemy. You need a fair amount of ammunition to actually do this, and carrying a lot of 7.62x51 means that you are not carrying other mission essential equipment- like water, batteries and the like.
Also note that M80 ball is not a very effective bullet (please query Doc Roberts on Terminal Ballistics). At close range- where the 5.56x45 shines, M80 ball will- if it doesen't contact something viable- leave a perfect .30 caliber hole, and may not incapacitate anyone. On 21may66, i had the occassion to bump into a large number of NVA at very close range- 3- 15 yards. I shot one mortarman 6 times with my M14 at less then 10', all rounds in the chest. He emptied a magazine from his K50 at me without effect, and i shot him twice. He went down and i shot another guy, 2X in the chest and he went right down. The mortarman retrieved his K50 and started to get up, and i shot him 2x more to the chest. he went down and i shot another guy in the brain housing group- immediately effective. And the mortarman got up again. I fired two more into his chest, he went down again. I shot another guy in the side and he went down, and my first contact got up again- slowly, but probably very upset. I threw a frag on him and that ended the life of a very tough and motivated soldier.”

As I stated earlier neither round is a death ray, you can document failures to stop with either round till your finger are bruised, because neither round is the ultimate killer of enemy troops.

Throw all those things you read away. THe 7.62 is still the deadlestt round within 200m, trust me it will rip flesh and bone right out of your body,, I have seen it first hand.
Oh please save it for the movies. I thought that you were on the kick that the 7.62X51 shouldn't have been replaced. According to what we read here perhaps we should have adopted the 7.62X39.

[TODD3465]

I'm no cartridge ballistics expert but I think a round like the 280 maybe either a 6mm or 6.5 would have been picked. Case capacity I'm not sure of but something 39 to 45mm and maybe same case head diameter as the .308. .30-'06 etc.
Well maybe I'm talking about a stretched out 6.5-PPC then? :confused:

Plus, there would still be all the "political" variables present.:rolleyes:

[Jeff White]

Blain,
What is your first hand experience with all of this?

While many have reported needing two, three, and sometimes more hits of .223 to get the job done, it only takes one blast of buck or slugs to down a man at carbine ranges.

There are plenty of reports from all conflicts of men taking multiple hits from all kinds of weapons and still continuing to function. Why is it that when an American soldier receives multiple fatal wounds and still continues to function long enough to complete the mission, he's deserving of the MOH, but when an enemy soldier takes the same amount of damage and continues to function, our small arms are at fault?

I could dig out countless examples of people receiving multiple hits from 7.92mm, .30 M2 ball, 7.62x51, shotgun slugs, buckshot etc. Could crash the server with all that anecdotal information, but what would it prove? Just that there are no magic bullets or death ray calibers. People can be hard to stop.

Besides, it is easier to hit/point shoot with a shotgun than a carbine.

Please provide me one example of an approved training program anywhere that advocates point shooting with a carbine or shotgun. Even the Quick-Fire program the Army used in the '60s and '70s had you raise the weapon to the shoulder and sight down the horizontal plane.

Also, accurate fire, not spray and pray, should be what is emphasized.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of fire and maneuver? Much of the firing an Infantryman does will not be aimed at an individual target, but at a terrain feature, a building, a treeline etc. You see the enemy doesn't walk around in the open like the E and F silhouettes you shoot on the range. Much of what you call spray and pray is known to professional soldiers as suppressive fire. The idea is to keep the enemy's head down while another element maneuvers into a position where they can bring accurate, aimed fire on the enemy and kill him.

I would never issue out 200 shotgun shells. I would issue out an M14 to everyman (and a few M240s for the SAW) and anyone also wanting a shotgun, or wanting to trade in their M14 for a shotgun, could have one. A shotgun would come with about 14 rounds on the gun (sidesaddle), and with as many 12 loop shotgun shell pouches he wanted in either buck or slug. Obviously, more people would want shotguns in jungle or urban conditions than others.

And add this to the weight of the rest of the fighting load; water, NODs, radios, batteries, grenades, pyrotechnics, body armor, kevlar helmet, mission specific equipment i.e. demo and breaching tools, a couple claymores distributed through the squad, additional 7.62 linked for your LMG in the SAW role and your wieght per man would be what, 90-100 pounds without a sustainment load, 170 - 200 pounds (depending on the climate) with sustainment load? And how long would you be able to fight with what you carried on your body?

Flak vests? Are you kidding me? Those are merely fiberglass plates![QUOTE]

Hmm...the PAGST vest that is being phased out has no fiberglass plates, and while not rated to stop any direct fire weapons, testing has shown it's about equivilent to level II body armor, proof against many handgun rounds and buckshot.

[QUOTE] I have shot through those vests at 25 yards with buck before no problem!

Could be why they aren't issued anymore. Those old flak vests were designed to stop the biggest killer on the battlefield, the oddly shaped missles created when shells burst. They lose their velocity quickly and are relatively easy to to stop. They were never meant to be proof against direct fire weapons.


As for body armor, class 4 will pretty much stop multiple rounds of any small arms caliber.

This is true, so lets add level 4 body armor to the load your ideal infantry squad carries. Another 15 or so pounds??

So you’d be making head shots anyway (easier with buck) not to mention that buck has an easier chance of finding a nick in the armor than a rifle round.

Patterned your shotgun lately? My Benelli M121 M1 is tight enough at 25 yards that I have to aim to hit the head just like I do with my M4. Past 25 yards and I have to aim more carefully to make sure I get enough pellets into the head to be assured of a disabling hit. In the SWAT raid example you used, the ranges are so close that the pattern would have been about as big as the bore, so chances are a rifle or handgun aimed the same way would have found the opening in the body armor.

I know of SWAT raids where officers were lost to perps with shotguns and buckshot.

Officers have been lost to .22 short. But should that mean we should depend on it for defensive use?

Besides, do you really know many third world countries which issue out body armor, or even flak vests for that matter?

So you are saying that the only threat our military will face will be a third world country?


This is pure foolishness. Combat experience from VETS proves otherwise, the M855 rounds is one of the worst rounds there is! Heck, most of the times it zips right through baddies, anybody remember Blackhawk down?

And you know this how? What patch is on your right shoulder? Ahh...Black Hawk Down and the now famous passage about how SFC Paul Howe was experiencing frustration over his inabilty to knock Somalis down with his M4. Yep it's proof positive that M855 is worthless. Did you read the whole book? Because if that passage is proff positive that the M16 and M855 are worthless, then what does this passage say about the M60 and your beloved 7.62x51? Black Hawk Down Atlantic Monthly Press, First Edition pp 45-46

The 60 gunner knew what the old man was trying to do. DiTomasso had spread the word that Chalk Four was stuck one block northwest of their position. The old man was obviously looking for a better vantage point to shoot at Eversman and his men.

"Shoot him, shoot him," urged his assistant.

"No, watch," Nelson said. "He'll come right to us."

And, sure enough, the man with the white Afro practically walked right up to them. He ducked behind a big tree about fifty yards off, hiding from Eversman's Rangers, but oblivious to the threat off his left shoulder. He was loading a new magazine in his weapon when Nelson blasted about a dozen rounds into him. They were "slap" rounds, plastic coated titanium bullets that could penetrate armor, and he saw the rounds go right through the man, but the guy still got up, retrieved his weapon, and even got off a shot or two in Nelson's direction. The machine gunner was shocked. He shot another twelve rounds at the man, who never the less managed to crawl behind the tree. This time he didn't shoot back.

"I think you got him," said the assistant gunner.

But Nelson could still see the Afro moving behind the tree. The man was kneeling and evidently still alive. Nelson squeezed off another long burst and saw bark splintering off the bottom of the tree. The Afro slumped sideways to the street. His body quivered but he seemed to have at last expired. Nelson was surprised at how hard it was to kill a man.

To me all this proves is that men can be hard to kill. But by your logic we have just condemned the 7.62x51 to the scrapheap of failed, ineffective cartridges. If you go to member Shawn Dodson's excellent Firearmstactical site, you can find a link to Dr. Martin Faclker's tests of most modern military rounds. And yes those tests did conclude that M855 had better terminal effects then US M80 7.62x51 ball. The top performer in 7.62x51 is a West German load. Of course this is just science, anecdotes and someones unscientific observations in a firefight didn't figure into it.

Oh right, that’s why all the VETS who were forced to give up their M14s for the mighty mattel still complain today about that POS weapon! Regaurdless of expectations, the M14 rarely failed to perform, unlike the M16 which was jamming up at the worst possible moments, getting soldiers killed as a result because their guns would not fire.

Again Blain, what is your personal combat experience with the M14/M16? No one is denying that the way the military chose to field the M16 was a hosed up mess. The problems it had were not anything that was wrong with the design. Every problem it had could be traced to lack of training and lack of cleaning equipment. The logistics system failed those soldiers and Marines, NOT Eugene Stoner or Colts. If the weapons had been issued with cleaning equipment and there had been NET (New Equipment Training) like we do today you would not have seen the problems that happened. Someone should have gone to prison for the way the M16 was fielded.


Given it's relatively short service life, the number of vets you'll find who actually used on in combat is going to be pretty small. There is certainly going to be many more vets, myself included, who have much more experience with the M16 series.

To address Sir Galahad's comments from the other thread. As a 45B, small arms repairman, he would have worked at a Direct Support maintenance shop or higher level of maintenance. He may even have worked at a training center where thousands of weapons were given very heavy use. I don't know, perhaps he'll chime in and tell us. But he would have only seen the rifles that were beyond the unit armorer's capability to repair. I don't know what the manual said in those days, but the current TM 9-1005-319-23&P says that you never loosen the barrel nut to align the gas tube. The current TM authorizes the repairman to slightly over torque the barrel nut to align the gas tube.

And his experiences with the weapon or more valid then mine? Why, because they reinforce a legend that you choose to believe? What part of his post invalidates my observations of the old M16A1s in use in the Honduran Army?

Yes the light M16A1 barrel did shoot out fast when heated up with a lot of full auto fire. But name me one assault rifle that doesn't. The M14E2 wasn't in service long enough to even make a valid comparison on how long it's barrels lasted. Heat destroys a barrel and full auto fire generates a lot of heat. I have heard a rumor that I can't verify so it will forever remain a rumor, that the addition of the full heavy barrel to the M4A1 is a direct result of an ODA expending ammunition at the end of a training cycle and then submitting a QDR (Quality Deficiency Report) to cover their butts for burning out several new M4A1s. I don't know if it's true, but it seems plausible, knowing how weapons are treated in the military.

As for the original post in the M16/M4 performance in Iraq thread, that may be one X-ray techs perspective but it flys in the face of my own personal experience as an Infantryman for 21 years serving in every position in a rifle platoon. Again, is it more valid then mine and other vets experiences because it reinforces your point of view?

Jeff

[tac17]

What about submachine guns? Would the Thompson have lasted longer as a service weapon?
I guess that it would have had to stay in service until something else was deisgned to replace it.

[DMK]

That is just amazing that a guy can take 6 rounds of .308 to the chest at close range and get right back up or another guy can take a burst or two from an M-60 and crawl to a tree. These guys certainly would have done the same if it was a 5.56mm round. They just didn't get a CNS hit or lose blood fast enough to overcome their desire to kill the enemy.

Apparently, the only thing to do in such situations is keep poking holes in them until they do go down. Air support, mortor, grenade or artillery fire aside, full auto fire is obviously the best way to do that, at least at the ranges of those two events.

Well it certainly does seem like a weapon capable of effective automatic fire was definately needed no matter what round was chosen. Despite common myth, full automatic fire does not have to be spray and pray. I'm a huge fan of the 7.62x51 and battle rifles in general, but the M-14 unfortunately was not an effective weapon for accurate full automatic fire. Neither of course was the FAL, although it's ergonomics may have helped slightly. Those weapons were too light for the 7.62 NATO round.

It's obvious to me that a lighter recoiling round was needed at the time. It's also obvious that ammo of a lighter weight was needed so that a soldier could carry more, therefore be able to sustain the higher rate of fire.

Another problem shows up in the other scenario, trying to get accurate, effective fire at long ranges. Subguns are out of their league here as are some assault rifles.

[seeker_two]

I think there would have been a resurgence in the M1/M2 carbines for many front-line troops (as there was in the early days of Vietnam)....

And I believe that a lighter, smaller caliber would have been developed anyway. Possibly the .243Win or .260Rem in a FAL or AR-10 type rifle....

YYMV...

[Jeff Timm]

Blain Opined
While many have reported needing two, three, and sometimes more hits of .223 to get the job done, it only takes one blast of buck or slugs to down a man at carbine ranges. Besides, it is easier to hit/point shoot with a shotgun than a carbine. Also, accurate fire, not spray and pray, should be what is emphasized.

Depends on how you define "carbine ranges." If you define the range down to under 100 meters (9mm Carbines like the MP-40 and Uzi) the shotgun may have a higher hit probability, but it's pattern is going to be very large, and the individual .33" projectiles are going to have considerably less energy than a 124gr pistol round at 100 meters.

Third world body armor. The museum at Fort Hood back in the 1970's had examples of 6 and 8 magazine carriers. They were vests with overlapping pockets in the front which put AK magazines over the vital areas of the rifleman. Hit four layers of steel and closely spaced steel case 7.62x39 rounds packed closely together and your shotgun becomes ineffective. M-16 rounds had trouble penetrating such armor.

The shotgun remains a special weapon for limited circumstances. Very few people would carry a shotgun in addition to their rifle, especially in hot climates.

Geoff
Who thinks flexibility is an advantage in a general purpose rifle.

[zahc]

I just think the .223 should've had a tad more taper.

[telewinz]

The .30 carbine would have been necked down to .22 wildcat and our M1 and M2 carbines would still be in service. We would be singing the praises of how Winchester and Carbine Williams designed a "classic" assault weapon decades ahead of its time. The M1 "assault carbine" is accurate and effective out to 300 meters, is compact, lightweight, reliable, and is soldier friendly. The high velocity light weight cartridge permits a normal combat load of 400 rounds, this coupled wih the all purpose grenade launcher attachment makes this "Bantam weight" a dominate force on todays hi-tech battlefield.:D

[Hkmp5sd]

This biggest effect of no M16, no black plastic guns! :)

[Turk]

00 buck better than a M-193 ball?? Carried both in combat. I'll stick with the 16. I'm not ready for this debate again so I'll set this one out.

Turk

[Sir Galahad]

Jeff, I was with the 101st Airborne. The TM may say one thing (and the army says you have to have the TM open to the appropriate page while repairing the weapon), but actual repair is quite another. What the TM says is great for Aberdeen Proving Grounds Ordnance School, but it isn't what happens always. Many times, the barrel nut would not tighten enough to get the cog tooth of the nut over far enough to align the gas tube. So we would back it off a smidge instead. Maybe the TM said not to do this, but we HAD to do things the TM said not to to accomplish the repair mission. When you have a unit going on DRB/DRF status in one day and they need red-tagged weapons online NOW, you have to do these things. This was in the old "Rapid Deployment Force" era of Soviet fun-and-games. The other option was replacing upper receiver and we did that quite often from necessity. The way the gas tube has to align with the bolt carrier key is ridiculous and makes for a real PITA to replace the barrel, gas tube, and/or bolt carrier key. Another real fun thing to do was replacing all the tritium night sight front posts on M-16A1s. Some army ordnance whiz-kid decided the rifle needed night sight so they installed them. Then some clod wanted them all off. Orders are orders and I spent lots of evenings removing sight after sight. Another classic was seeing M-16s without forward assists still in arms rooms. You know, I'm not saying there aren't functional M-16s out there; there are lots of them. But that doesn't mean every army arms room as them. I never saw a M-16A2 after I left Aberdeen. I was usning A2 buttstocks to repair the A1s still in use. People wonder how these weapons fail. It's often because they are not routinely REPLACED. You can keep replacing parts, but after a while, yous sank to new rifles worth of parts cost-wise into one POS. Better to repair them for, say, so many years then get rid of them and get new ones and EVERY trooper has the latest version. Not A1s over here, A2s over there, and some amalgam of both over here, and the non-forward assists early versions sitting in this arms room and so on. Take the old ones and have a yard sale. Give them to Pakistan; who cares? But get our troops the latest and best, not some worn-out POS. I saw arms rooms that made you want to cry. Rusty weapons in there, dirty weapons, parts missing, obsolete weapons...you just wanted to scream. I was never trained on how to repair a 90mm recoilless rifle. Supposedly obsolete. But I had to learn---the frickin' things were still in use!!! The whole army needs to be on the same page and not just some Charlie Foxtrot in olive drab.

Blain, when you have some TI, then you will know some of the answers. Do this exercise with me. Flush out your Yellow Pages. Look under the government pages. Find "U.S. Army recuitment." Make appointment. Take physical. Join. Then when you come back a squared away, standing tall and looking good trooper, see if you still want to carry that fowling piece.


"Your mother was home when you left, your father was home when you left, your brother was home when you left, your sister was home when you left...your mother your father your brother your sister your dog your cat your rat...they were ALLLLLL home when you left, and that's the reason you left...":D :rolleyes:

[Gabe]

Had we not adopted the M-16:

I think the Army would publish a 1 million page study detailing how 308 sucks in Vietnam. Sometime in the late 70's - early 80's we would adopt an improved variant of the AR-18 firing something similiar to the 6mm SAW.

I have often wondered what would've happened had we adopted the M-14 in .276 Pederson in the late '50s in lieu of the 308. The Pederson was ofcourse the original intended cartridge for the Garand but we stayed true to the 30-06 for bugetary reasons. Seems the Army forgot all about it when the time came to retire the 30-06.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

It might be instructive to look back to the period before the M14 to see what might have taken root if .223 hadn't come along. More than a few countries were working on intermediate loads that were between .308 and .223 in power. The original Fal, Cetme and the experimental British bullpup were built around such cartridges. The Brit gun was around a 6mm.

So after forcing all of Nato to redesign their guns to .308, and then leaving them alone (no M16), the old ideas might have resurfaced and taken hold. Especially since the 6mm saw program seemed to indicate that the smart money was in that venue, from the late '40s to '70s.


On the other hand, most countries that adopted the G3 in late '50s, early '60s time frame kept their guns until quite recently. So maybe we would have junked the M14 for G3s as well at some point and be looking to the G11 or similar right now.


But I think any serious student of the subject will agree that the M14 was a mistake (though nice target shooting mistake) and .223 was just a little too light.

[Gabe]

Okay I'm having a vision of the ideal M-14 alternative, take Beretta BM-59 with the integral muzzel brake, chamber it for .276 Pederson, should be easy since the Pederson has identical case length as 308, make it select-fire capable.


Would look something like this but maybe a little longer 19" barrel:

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/1BM59.jpg

[Blain]

I think the Army would publish a 1 million page study detailing how 308 sucks in Vietnam.

Yeah....the VETS sure did hate having that big heavy bullet punch through all that thick cover and vegitation. They wanted smaller rounds which would be easily deflected off brush.

[Loaded]

Think about this - The .223 round is meant to injure not kill right? If so, then it takes 1, even 2 other comrades to help the wounded guy to the back lines for medical attention. Now instead of 1 guy out of the scenario you have 3. And what man is going to fight if he sees his comrades leaving his wounded buddies in the field to die? No one is going to fight that's for sure! If they stop fighting, then the battle is won. If they help their buddy, they've reduced their fighting force in numbers by helping their wounded. :uhoh:

[Art Eatman]

Loaded: The FMJ bullets were used to avoid expansion--avoiding "inhumane wounds". This goes back to the WW I era. Geneva Convention. "Rules of War".

The first bullets used in the .223, at ranges inside 100 or 200 yards, blow up like varmint bullets. This is not exactly a "wound, not kill" deal. My cynical view, back in the 1960s, was that this is a way to give the appearance of FMJ but have the effectiveness of an expanding bullet.

The "Help your wounded buddy" might be a valid idea when one's opponent is of our culture. When attacking a position in the Grand Charge tactics once used, I rather doubt many will stop their advance to help one who is wounded. In our system, that's the job of a medic.

In other words, I seriously doubt that the issue of wounding vs. killing has ever been a serious part of cartridge selection.

Art

[Correia]

Blain, I am the biggest shotgun nut you will ever meet. I use a shotgun to protect my home. I shoot shotguns in competition, and I love them more than any other kind of weapon.

But if I had to go outside and fight, I'm taking a carbine.

You have got to know your weapons limitations.

[Jeff White]

Loaded wrote:

Think about this - The .223 round is meant to injure not kill right? If so, then it takes 1, even 2 other comrades to help the wounded guy to the back lines for medical attention. Now instead of 1 guy out of the scenario you have 3. And what man is going to fight if he sees his comrades leaving his wounded buddies in the field to die? No one is going to fight that's for sure! If they stop fighting, then the battle is won. If they help their buddy, they've reduced their fighting force in numbers by helping their wounded. :uhoh:

This is a military urban legend. You'll even hear it from some people in the military, but it's not true. Only the larger Western armies put anywhere near the emphisis on evac and treatment of casualties as we do. Considering that most unit's SOPs call for double tapping or firing an anchoring shot into any downed enemy soldiers who are not obviously trying to surrender, while crossing the objective and before reaching the limit of advance it hardly makes sense that we'd design a weapon to wound.

Blain said;
Yeah....the VETS sure did hate having that big heavy bullet punch through all that thick cover and vegitation. They wanted smaller rounds which would be easily deflected off brush.

Who are these VETS? Can you cite some references? This vet has seen .50 BMG deflect in the brush. If you can find a copy of the old Deadly Weapons video tape you can see it for yourself.

Sir Galahad,
I know what you're talking about. But most of your rush jobs most likely resulted from poor maintenance management in the units you supported. Instead of evacing weapons to DS or GS maint when they broke, they'd sit in the arms room. Then a mission would come up and all of a sudden, they had to be fixed NOW. IIRC, we used to replace a lot of M16A1 barrels after the annual gaging and before a deployment. Not that they were shot out, but they were bent.

Jeff

[tac17]

Yeah....the VETS sure did hate having that big heavy bullet punch through all that thick cover and vegitation. They wanted smaller rounds which would be easily deflected off brush.
Most of the vets that I have spoken with on the subject said that never could carry enough ammo out while using the .308. Let's assume that you are going to carry out 22 lbs. the comparison below deals with the FAL being the .308 so subtract a pound for your M14. Here is what 22 lbs. looks like in different systems.
FAL & 9 20 rd. mags for 180 rds.
AK47 & 7 30 rd. mags for 210 rds.
AR15 & 15 30 rd. mags for 450 rds.
That is a pretty drastic difference.





I am going to go a little off track here for just a sec.

What if the AK-47 had never been adopted?:uhoh:

Has anyone ever done any looking into the 7.62X45 Czech round. I have a rifle chambered in this and it is a rather interesting round. It throws a 130 gr. bullet to 2440 fps. giving 1719 fpe. The Czechs were on their way to making the perfect intermediate round. The AK-47 came along and rained on their parade however, the Soviets wanted the Czechs to get on board and use their weapons. The Czechs had resisted this and designed their own rifle in the 7.62X45 caliber called the VZ52. If left alone they would more than likely have refined their new caliber into something special. What if they had necked down their round down to something like .257, gotten away from that stubby .30 bullet to something that would hold its energy better downrange and made the best intermediate cartridge ever. :scrutiny: Instead they folded and adopted the 7.62X39 :what: and the rest is history.

These what if games are fun. Coincidentally if you neck down the 7.62X45 to .257, load it with a 120 gr. bullet at 2540 giving you a third more muzzle energy than the .223, It will still fit the OAL for AR mags.

[Frohickey]

After the success of the military M-14 and the 7.62x51mm cartridge, the military would be clammoring for more bullet diameter.
Some designer would make a M-16 style rifle, with a 20 round magazine, firing a rimless version of the venerable 45/70 Govt.
These would be supplemented with tracers, armor piercing, incendiary, as well as explosive tipped ammunition.

:D :D :D

[Hkmp5sd]

If you can find a copy of the old Deadly Weapons video tape you can see it for yourself.

Good tape. Not very scientific, but very interesting. The other "deadly" videos were also pretty good too. They were Deadly Effects: Wound Ballistics and Deadly Force: Firearms, Self-defense and the Law.

[Sir Galahad]

Jeff, you are right on there! Some unit armorers, I guess, thought I liked working until midnight. They thought they could drop off the weapons and then come back in the morning. Nope! If I'm here, you're here. "Awww, maaaannnn....I'm going into town tonight!" No, you WERE going into town tonight. Instead, you're going to sit right here and meditate on the realization that wasting my time wastes your time until you come to the epiphany that you should bring the weapons in at an appropriate time next time. :D

Blain, Jeff is right in what he's saying here. I disagree with the weapon for the reasons I have listed. But I would carry the M-16 before a shotgun in a military situation. During the 1980s, the possibility of getting separated from a supply line by a Soviet/Warsaw Pact push into Western Europe was a real thing. In those cases, you'd have wished to have even packed a few extra rounds as 5.56 suppositories.

[Badger Arms]

Yeah....the VETS sure did hate having that big heavy bullet punch through all that thick cover and vegitation. They wanted smaller rounds which would be easily deflected off brush.Which vets did you interview and when can I speak with them? The 5.56x45 penetrates as well as or better than the 7.62x51. Like it was said before, the 50BMG will deflect in vegitation at the same rate of the .223 will. Deflection is more a matter of velocity, sectional density, and bullet shape than it is one of the size of the bullet. Conventional wisdom on this one is wrong. I recall reading a study on bullet deflection which listed the .338 Magnum as the least suceptible to deflection over the 375 magnum, 44 magnum, 30-06, 300 Winchester magnum, etc.

Vets who have spoken to ME have ALL favored the M-16 despite the shortcomings. Reasons: weight, killig power, and controlled firepower. The reasons they didn't like the M-16: Magazine capacity (only 20), cleaning the darn thing, and their preception of its durability.

It seems that many from the Korean War generation and earlier will favor the M-14 and M-1 Garand based on the McAurther fallacy that caliber and power are everything. "Whiz Kids" who count beans at their desks in the Pentagon will favor the M-16 because it makes bigger numbers (kill ratios and rounds fired). Soldiers in the field like the M-16 because it's light, ergonomic, and easy to fire. To opine that the M-14 was preferred by soldiers is a matter of historical inaccuracy. Soldiers who had exposure to both guns almost always preferred the Armalite.

Now, back to the subject: What's the reason behind the killing power of the .223? It's the fact that the bullet is traveling at higher velocity and spinning at a rate that makes it stable in air but unstable in tissue. This is true of the .308 also but the .308 destabilizes deeper in tissue than does the .223. In fact, most .308 shots pass through and through before truly becoming unstable in human targets (enemy combattants). This is, in my opinion, a matter of design.

HAD THE M-16 NOT BEEN ADOPTED, IT IS LIKELY THAT A PRODUCT-IMPROVED 7.62X51 ROUND WOULD HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED. That round would likely have been either a duplex round or a lightweight round with improved termial performance by means of a cavity in the nose (the same conclusion the Russians came to) or perhaps a partitioned core which separates at the cannelure when upset in tissue.

[Joe Demko]

Who are these "VETS", Blain? I've known a number of Vietnam combat veterans, Army and Marines, who trained with the M-14 and then used the M-16 in Vietnam. None of them had the love affair with the M-14 that your "VETS" seem to have. None of them thought the M-16 was perfect, but none of them thought the M-14 would have been better in its place. Every combat veteran I have ever known, and I've had the privilege of talking with veterans from every war since WWI, has said the same thing: Lighter=Better. As one of my uncles (a highly decorated WWII vet and fan of the M-1 carbine) said "You carry the f----ing thing an awful lot more than you shoot it."
When you have to carry everything yourself, ounces matter. When resupply is iffy, being able to hump more rounds for the same weight matters.
I think you should do exactly what Sir Galahad told you to do. Go sign up for the Army or Marines. Hump that pack, rifle, and other stuff around yourself and see how your opinions change. BTW, while you are at basic, I want you to be sure to share your opinions with the DI's. A bright boy like you, with such a vast knowledge of weapons, will surely be a great favorite.

[telewinz]

With the R&D of military smallarms amunition during the past 40 years as a guide, it seems that regardless whether the M16 had been adopted or not our ammo would have been lighter and more compact. If not .22 caliber or smaller, it would at least have been something like the 7.62X39 in performance. For anything other than a GP machine gun or sniping the 30/06 and 308 have had their day in the sun, just as the 45/70 and 30/40 Krag had there day. Repeated research documents that most engagements don't require the power or range (and weight) of the 308 cartridge for the individual combat weapon. The M16 as a design has been faulted much more than the .223 ammo it fires.

[Marcus]

In my "what if fantasy world",the M-14 would have continued in service for some time until it`s flaws because even more apparent. Eugene Stoner would still have developed the M-63 system but in a 6mm or 6.5mm x 39-45 intermediate round. Careful selection of a rifling rate/bullet weight/bullet construction would favor terminal effectiveness over pinpoint accuracy at unrealistic ranges. After "trial by fire" by SEALs and other SOFs it would be adopted by all of the US armes forces in carbine,rifle and SAW roles. After 30+ years of refining an already outstanding weapon system it would be todays premier assault rifle and the envy of every other nation. And they all lived happily ever after (except for the BGs),the end. ;) Marcus

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

The Marines tried to adopt the Stoner 63 as their service rifle in the '70s. They were told they had to stay on the M16 bandwagon.

Interestingly, the Marines recently rejected the M4 in favor of staying M16 due to the better reliability of the full size weapon.

[Blain]

the M-14 would have continued in service for some time until it`s flaws because even more apparent.

What flaws were these?


Golgo-13, go to www.battlerifles.com LOADS of Vietnam vets there, many who have had personal horrible experiences with the M16 series. Many who hate it with a passion, and rightfully so!

The Mighty Matel
http://www.battlerifles.com/viewtopic.php?t=84&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=matel&start=0

"I will never forget the time I was ordered to report to the company armor to turn in my M14 and pick up my new Matel Toy (Matel made some of the stocks for the early M16s, including mine), otherwise known as the M16. I was truly amazed at it's light weight and the fact that it would empty a 20 round mag in no time flat when it was on full auto. Other than that it was the worst combat weapon I had ever seen or carried and the only thing that saved my hide was that my MOS was that of a machine gunner and it did not take long for me to work my way up the ladder to where I did not have to carry it or use it to keep me alive.

Reliability, durability and dependability were out the window as far as I was concerned. There were so many of my Brothers, whose names might not be on the Wall in DC today, if it not had been for what they were issued to defend themselves. Involved with constant troop movement, it was difficult to simply stop and clean your weapon and whenever possible, we all did as best we could and the majority of the time we would still have problems with jamming and malfunctions. To this day, I do not care to even so much as touch one. Matter of fact, I recently was employed (for approx. 3 years) at a local gun store and range and I always cleaned the rental weapons after use except for the AR/M16. The boss never pressed me to do it and understood my feelings. Over the years I have spoke with numerous owners of the AR/M16 who all loved them and never had any problems but when I asked, none of them had used theirs in a combat situation and always had the time to keep the weapon neat and clean. Understandable in that type of scenario but no matter what the case may be, reliability, dependability and durability is out the window as far as I am concerned. Glad I had the Sixty and if I would not have had that opportunity, I would have scarfed up an AK47 from my enemy or broke into the armory to retrieve my M14. Just my two cents worth and no pun intended for anyone who owns an AR or M16. Your turn ..."

"I dunno how much the last 35 years has been refining, or just polishing the turd. I know for a fact the M16A1s I was issued were grossly unreliable and I doubt the vaunted forward assist helped in one out of 50 cases.

The A2 arrived at my unit with much fanfare about the high-speed, low-drag "heavy barrel". I quickly found out is was NOT a Colt HBAR when I boloed the first time around on qualification. In the prone unsupported I took up a damn tight sling hold (like I do with my Garand when I'm playing with the boys) and was rock steady, and pulled almost every shot low.

Turns out only the last 4 inches of the barrel at the muzzle end is "heavy", the rest is as flimsy as the A1 so it will take the M203. What do I mean by flimsy? Well, the Army's own tests revealed a really tight sling hold is enough to pull shots as much as 4 inches low at 100....8 at 200...16 at 300.

Then they had to find the worst possible 3-shot burst device on the planet (I'm willing to bet H&K or FN have something better). It doesn't automatically reset to 3 if you don't fire three, so if you shoot two your next burst may be a burst of one, kind of like an Army of One maybe.

AND it does icky things to the trigger pull, which many, including myself, consider to be one of the most important aspects of good marksmanship. The burst regulator helps the semi-auto pull wander from 5 to 8 to 11 pounds.

At least ours didn't jam when we got them, but they were brand new. I notice the manual says that in inclimate weather the weapon AND ammunition may need cleaning "many times daily". Serving only a minor part in Storm at the end of my service I don't claim to be a real veteran, but c'mon, anyone who's at least spent real time in the field would have to find that advice ludicrous.

Any fool knows to clean or at least empty a rifle after it's been submerged, but the manual also states you need to do that with the M16A2 if IT'S BEEN EXPOSED TO DEW?!?!? I'm glad the Marines slogging through seawater and sand and volcanic ash at Iwo Jima had weapons (M1s) that could be exposed to dew.

When I went to the range as a reserve deputy, I watched the SO's AR-15s have numerous failures to feed while the PD's Mini-14s just kept chugging away. I now carry a Mini in the back window of my truck for varmints and stray liberals, clean it maybe twice a year, and it always goes bang when I want it to.

Now I see Col. David Hackworth on Fox & Freinds morning show talking about our boys in Afghanistan having trouble with the M-4 jamming. Where are you when we need you John Moses Browning?"

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Blain, why do you answer a post about the problems with M14s with a page about the M16's failings?


The M14 is a terrible selectfire weapon.
It is not optics friendly.
It's huge and not light.

There's three, the first being the real killer.

[Iain]

I find all this bizarre because I have been told that our SAS can choose the weapon issued to them (not individually but they do not have to have the SA-80), whenever you see them (those photo's with the bars across the eyes) they are carrying M something style weapons, no idea whether they are M16 or M4's.

[Blain]

Select fire in a combat rifle? Fo-getabout it!! A rifle man is a rifleman, not a SAW gunner! Full auto is pointless and a waste in mag fed weapons anyway, and it goes against proper marksmanship training.

Besides, I know of 90 lbs. women who can handle the recoil on a full auto M14E2, so it can't be that bad.

No one should be firing their rifle on full auto anyway in combat.

[Turk]

Had enough can't set it out anymore.

I'm one of those Vn. Vets that trained with a 14 and then carried a 16 incountry.

If I had to go back to a jungle warfare enviroment and I had a choice I'd pick a 16. Weight of rifle and ammo.

I carried a M-60 for 4 months (400 rounds) and I'd take the SAW any day weight. If you've ever humped the Central Highlands of Vietnam you'd know what I mean.

Now concerning the M-193 ball wounding. nonsense I've seen quite a few one stop hits from the 16. Also if bigger is better than you should of told the NVA soldier that had taken a MaDuce hit but was still able to fight. Lets see was that a buddy story no it was in Oct. of 68 west of Ankhe along the Highway 19 (French Mobile 100 was wiped out a few clicks east of this firefight in the 50's).

Now concerning the M-193 ball round being deflected. Let me give you some sound advice. If you should ever go to war (jungle) DON'T try and hid in the bushes and think they will deflect the rounds. Quite frankly YOU LOSE.

I have to agree with one of the posts. The Army and Marines are hiring go for it.

Also do I think there's a better round out there sure do and think a 6mm bullet on a short fat case like the 300 WSM or smaller might fit the bill. High MV that's a good thing.


Turk
RVN 68-69
173 Abn. Bdge (sep)

[tac17]

No one should be firing their rifle on full auto anyway in combat.
For the most part yes, but I hear it can be quite handy at times also.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

Blain,

Your post makes about as much sense as the doctrine that came up with the magazine cut off for bolt guns.

Full auto IS useful and necessary in modern warfare. At the very least, the M14s muzzle rise (why full auto is so difficult) makes for slower followup and target acquisition.

Funny you mention the M14 E2. It was a last ditch effort to change the gun's basic design to make full auto possible. But most of the military left the original stock and blocked the selector. Then switched rifles.

[Marcus]

Blain,your ideas on rifles for the military are good. They were quite common as late as the 1930s. Hitler and the Emperor of Japan even largely held on to them into the 40s. As I said,they`re good ideas...they`re just 70 years out of date. Course even short sited ol Adolf (and Stalin for that matter) saw the need for full auto fire at a personal level,hence the deployment of millions of sub machine guns. Now follow me here,why not give all of the soldiers a weapon that can deliver accurate semi auto fire out to 300yds.+ AND fill the role of a submachine gun all while carrying an ammo load twice as big as a full power battle rifle? Don`t wanna "spray and pray"? Fine ,just don`t,but you have the choice now. All this said I like M-14s,FALs,G3s etc. as much as the next guy. For a lone rifleman they may very well be the best choice but for a full fighting force I`ll still take the flexibility and much larger ammo carrying ability of my imaginary 6mm Stoner. If you`d rather choose an M-14,Rem. 870 or a blunderbuss that`s cool,I just disagree. Marcus

[Jeff White]

St. Johns said;

I find all this bizarre because I have been told that our SAS can choose the weapon issued to them (not individually but they do not have to have the SA-80), whenever you see them (those photo's with the bars across the eyes) they are carrying M something style weapons, no idea whether they are M16 or M4's.

Welcome my friend to the big bore branch of the American Gun Culture. The choice of the service rifle has always been fraught with emotion and controversy here. Many American males believe that they emerge from the womb with an inherent knowledge of marksmanship, ballistics and armed combat. No amount of logic, science or personal BTDT experience will dissuade them from their views. They consider the choice of Eugene Stoner's mousegun to arm the men and women who defend our country over the mighty full power M14 to be a crime against nature on the order of beastiality. This is the way things are and nothing will change their mind....:rolleyes:

Blain, Blain, Blain...where to start?

First off, the link you posted didn't work for me, so I can't see the info in it's entirety.

What flaws were these?

I'll add, hard to manufacture to self proclaimed expert's answer....

"I will never forget the time I was ordered to report to the company armor to turn in my M14 and pick up my new Matel Toy (Matel made some of the stocks for the early M16s, including mine), otherwise known as the M16. I was truly amazed at it's light weight and the fact that it would empty a 20 round mag in no time flat when it was on full auto. Other than that it was the worst combat weapon I had ever seen or carried and the only thing that saved my hide was that my MOS was that of a machine gunner and it did not take long for me to work my way up the ladder to where I did not have to carry it or use it to keep me alive.

First off, Mattel (two Ts) never made any furniture for the M16. Period, they were not ever a subcontractor for Colt's, GM Turbohydromatic Division or Harrington and Richardson. The second error in that post is that a machine gunner in either the Army or Marine Corps didn't carry an M16. They were issued the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol for personal defense.

Involved with constant troop movement, it was difficult to simply stop and clean your weapon and whenever possible, we all did as best we could and the majority of the time we would still have problems with jamming and malfunctions.

It is no secret that the M16 was rushed to Vietnam before there was a support structure in place to support it. It was kind of hard to clean your rifle if; number one the chain of command tried to cover itself and told you the weapon was self cleaning, and number two; you didn't have any equipment to clean your rifle with. Contrary to popular belief the M16 doesn't require constant cleaning. I recently completed Pat Rogers' carbine course. I used my Colt R6920 LE Carbine which is essentially a semi auto only M4 with a 16" barrel that Colt's sells only to police officers because of the abomination that is the 1994 crime bill. In 3 days I fired 1000 rounds through it. I started the course with a dirty weapon, hadn't had time to clean it after the last dept. qualification shoot. I experienced 3 malfunctions, one my fault when I failed to seat the magazine, one that was a bad USGI surplus magazine that I have since destroyed, and one squib load with Federal XM193 ammo. Not one of these stoppages was the fault of the weapon. You'd think that if it required constant cleaning, it would have jammed left and right. But it didn't. How come??


Glad I had the Sixty and if I would not have had that opportunity, I would have scarfed up an AK47 from my enemy or broke into the armory to retrieve my M14. Just my two cents worth and no pun intended for anyone who owns an AR or M16. Your turn ..."

Ah another myth..the one the troops preferred the AK. Well, I got into the Army too late to see service in Vietnam by about a year. So instead of the opinion of a nameless poster on the battlerifles forum, how about Major John Plaster, author of The Ultimate Sniper. During Vietnam, then SSG Plaster was one of the most decorated operators in MACV-SOG. Major Plaster has published a lessor known (in the civilian community) book that is a history of MACV-SOG. It is called SOG A Photo History of the Secret Wars On page 141 he addresses the AK vs. M16 (CAR-15 in the book) debate.

THE CAR-15 VS. THE AK

Because SOG RECON MEN FREQUENTLY CARRIED AKs IN CAMBODIA, and trained with AKs almost as much as CAR-15s, their experience with both weapons allows a valid comparison. The criteria below are listed in the order they influenced a life or death SOG recon gunfight.

Ergonomics: Generally both weapons are handy and readily manipulable, but the CAR-15 points a bit more naturally. A tie

Reloading: The AK bolt doesn't lock to the rear after firing the last round, adding another step and turning it into a two-hand exercise. The CAR-15 bolt locks to the rear and slams shut with a slap of the left palm against the receiver. The CAR-15 is twice as fast to reload. The CAR-15 wins

Readying to Fire: The shooting hand never leaves a CAR-15's grip, but you cannot place an AK off safety withouttaking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.

Firing: The lower recoil on a CAR-15 enables it's 3-to-5 round bursts to stay closer to the intended impact point. The CAR-15 can switch between semiauto and full auto without taking your shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins

Accuracy: Both have identical sight planes, but the CAR-15 has superior sights. The CAR-15 wins.

Ballistic Effectiveness: Both have similar maximum effective ranges and both will kill equally by proper shot placement at typical SOG engagement distances of 50 meters or less. A toss up

Magazines and Ammo Load: The 5.56mm cartridge and magazines were about half the bulk and weight of AK magazines and rounds. Although inherently a CAR-15 advantage, this was not so decisive since SOG men had to carry all their ammo while the NVA could be resupplied in minutes from nearby units and stockpiles. Still the CAR-15 wins.

Reliability: This is listed last because seldon did a weapon malfunction. Like the M16 the CAR-15 had to be kept clean, but SOG men took it a step further, firing up their entire basic load before each operation so they would have tested each magazine-and replaced any mags that failed-and reloaded with completely fresh ammo. Using this procedure, my CAR-15 malfunctioned perhaps three times during practice fire but never once in a real gunfight. Yet I have never seen an AK malfunction, ever. The edge goes to the AK.

In summary: the CAR-15 points more naturally and is faster to get off safety, easier to fire, faster to reload, essentially as reliable, and superior overall to the AK. For those whose lives depended on it, their almost universal choice of the AK tells it all.

I have had the honor of training with Major Plaster back in 1988. I will tell you from personal experience, he's the real deal.

The A2 arrived at my unit with much fanfare about the high-speed, low-drag "heavy barrel". I quickly found out is was NOT a Colt HBAR when I boloed the first time around on qualification. In the prone unsupported I took up a damn tight sling hold (like I do with my Garand when I'm playing with the boys) and was rock steady, and pulled almost every shot low.

Turns out only the last 4 inches of the barrel at the muzzle end is "heavy", the rest is as flimsy as the A1 so it will take the M203. What do I mean by flimsy? Well, the Army's own tests revealed a really tight sling hold is enough to pull shots as much as 4 inches low at 100....8 at 200...16 at 300.

So how does the M16 manage to win at highpower at Camp Perry every year. Perhaps echosixmike or Steve Smith will tell us when the last time an M14 won.

At least ours didn't jam when we got them, but they were brand new. I notice the manual says that in inclimate weather the weapon AND ammunition may need cleaning "many times daily". Serving only a minor part in Storm at the end of my service I don't claim to be a real veteran, but c'mon, anyone who's at least spent real time in the field would have to find that advice ludicrous.

This is an out and out lie. I have in front of me a copy of TM 05538C-10/1A U.S. Marine Corps and TM 9-1005-319-10 U.S. Army dated August 1986. This is the little pocket sized manual with the camouflaged cover. It would be the correct manual for the era this quote was made from. No where does it say this.

Any fool knows to clean or at least empty a rifle after it's been submerged, but the manual also states you need to do that with the M16A2 if IT'S BEEN EXPOSED TO DEW?!?!? I'm glad the Marines slogging through seawater and sand and volcanic ash at Iwo Jima had weapons (M1s) that could be exposed to dew.

Where did this come from? I have every manual that has been published on the M16A2. Nowhere does it say this. Not in any of them.

Now I see Col. David Hackworth on Fox & Freinds morning show talking about our boys in Afghanistan having trouble with the M-4 jamming. Where are you when we need you John Moses Browning?"

We all know that David Hackworth has a bone to pick with everything the Army does. Obviously his experience is greater then Blackhawk6's who commanded an Infantry company in Operation Anaconda or OEF-Vet's who was also there. :banghead:

Jeff

[EchoSixMike]

So how does the M16 manage to win at highpower at Camp Perry every year. Perhaps echosixmike or Steve Smith will tell us when the last time an M14 won.

Well, the M14's stopped being really competative about 1996 or so, but some obstinant people continued to use them for a long time. I was happy with this, I kicked their ??? all the easier. Ever since the M16 has been in high power, the scores have gone up and up. Rapid fire clean scores are now a gimme, where as with the M14 you had to really work at it. The M14 has real durability issues when in a match state of tune, they just go south at the slightest battering. The AR keeps running and running, even with heavy bullet, high pressure loads that would kill a M14. In fact, the issue M118LR ammo was recently detuned from 2680fps to 2600 fps spec velocity and IMO it was done to keep the damned M14's alive. The USN, SOCOM and the USMC use a few M14's with M118LR and so they can live longer, the guys with the bolt guns get to eat approx 3.5 MOA of additional drop at 1K yds. Lucky us:rolleyes: S/F...Ken M

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me that comparing the M16s of the Vietnam era with the ARs and M-Whatzits of today isn't realistic. The appearances are the same, but I keep reading of various little changes in many of the features.

I bought my Terlingua land from a retired Green Beret M/Sgt who spent entirely too many years in SE Asia, much of it with MAC/SOG. I read his 201 file, one time. Let's just say I was highly impressed by what some might call idiotic heroism. Not many people actively try to get a Medal of Honor...

His comments about the relative merits of the M16 and the AK47 focussed mostly on the latter's abiliity to function when crawling around in mud and goop; it was superior to our rifle. However, a primary reason for the use in behind-NVA-lines insertions was twofold: First, it wasn't identified as a US weapon if captured. Secondly, it sounded like other AKs and didn't give away one's position and identity if a firefight occurred. I guess one could add a third reason insofar as resupply...

He pretty much indicated to me that in "normal" battle conditions, the M16s showed no notable problems when starting one's day with a clean weapon. Go on patrol, maybe have an engagement, disengage, return to base, no problems with the rifles. But I wasn't there...

AS for the M14: Several years back, SOF Magazine had an article about comparison of an old BAR against the M14, FAL and G3. The target was a one-meter rock at 500 meters. From the prone position, only the BAR stayed on target through a full magazine. The others walked off target from recoil.

Art

[ocabj]

The M14 and M16 debate is moot. I feel that both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages, but remain quality weapons.

I feel that the biggest advantage that the M16 has over the M14 is weight of the weapon and ammo. tac17 wrote in a previous post how if carrying the same amount of weight in ammo, .223 gave you significantly more rounds than if carrying .308. This allows the operator more shots, and theoretically more kills. Obviously, special forces would prefer to carry more rounds since they operate in smaller units and need as much ammo as possible to exhibit force.

If I went off to war, I'd prefer the M16/M4, but I wouldn't complain if I was issued the M14.

[Badger Arms]

While you can make the point that the M14 vs. M16 debate is moot, I will definitely make the case for the .223 over the .308 on many more levels than you bring up in your post. Here they are:

- The .223 has lighter recoil which gives it:
-- greater controllability in full-auto
-- easier and faster training of new recruits, many of which are 'city boys'
-- less pounding of the gun which means an equally well designed gun will last longer, all other things being equal
-- follow-up shots in semi-auto are quicker

- The .223 shoots at a higer velocity which means:
-- hydrostatic shock effects are more prominent
-- range estimation is less necessary due to the fact it shoots straighter
-- you need to lead moving targets less
-- the bullet is more likely to break up on impact if of equal design to the larger bullet

- The .223 is lighter by far:
-- troops can hump much more ammunition.
--- this isn't just a function of the weight being part of the overall load, troops most often carry their rifles in their hands or slung. Weight in a pack is much easier to carry than on your hands or loosly slung. 16 ounces is SIGNIFICANT and 2 pounds is a God-send.
-- you can afford to shoot at shadows and possible hiding areas
-- you can use mass automatic fire when ambushed to charge (close ambush) or retreat (far ambush). After the firefight, you'll have some left.
-- higher capacity magazines (than the 20 standard on the .308 guns) How heavy would a 100 round drum magazine be in .308?

One makes a mistake comparing the two guns on an accuracy or terminal effectiveness level. Both have their merrits in both of these. While the .308 will outrange the .223, the bell curve of engagement ranges means that only about 1.5% of targets would be engaged with a round that will now poke littler holes than the .308 and might make you bleed half as fast. What a silly concept.

When you outweigh this miniscule range advantage and essential equality of wounding potential with the MASSIVE superiority of the .223 in other areas, your argument falls apart. In fact, your argument is dangerous and bound to get more US soldiers killed by having weapons chambered for inferior rounds.

[Badger Arms]

Oh, and one other thing. If one had a weapon of equal weight, length, reliability, and accuracy to the M-14 but chambered in the .223... Well then, which weapon would you choose. You could have double the capacity in the smaller caliber, recoil would be miniscule, full-auto fire would be much more controllable. Would you still choose the M-14?

What I'm wondering here is if all of you M-14 zealouts want the gun because you have this preception that steel and wood are superior or do you want the gun because you have the idea that it's vastly superior in the terminal ballistics realm?

[Ironbarr]

I wouldn't have an AR15.

And I would probably have squandered the money on frivolous toys (and junk food).

[Badger Arms]

IRONBARR:

Please state your reasons. Every opinion counts. Your cryptic message leaves me wondering WHY?

[Ironbarr]

Seems I bypassed my own philosphy re communications - that is... that good communications requires that the conveyor provides enough clarity in his message for the convey-ee to, in fact, understand the conveyor's intent.

Semantics might have been better had the statement "I wouldn't have an AR15." been preceded by referencing part of DMK's thread starter - as in:

"Let's pretent that the proponents of the rifle and it's ammo had failed. The AR-15/M-16 rifle never resurfaced."

Hopefully better:

If the AR-15/M-16 rifle never surfaced, I wouldn't have an AR15.

And... I'd of spent the money elsewhere (as indicated above).

There are three reasons I, at my age, invested in an AR-15:

1. To upgrade what I owned to be better prepared for whatever - if ever.

2. I wanted it available to those following me for whatever their needs might be.

3. Frankly, I liked the looks, the feel, and the price. So I bought it.

Had there been no AR15/M16, I wouldn't (probably) have gotten that enthusiastic over any regular rifle and the coins would have been dissipated elsewhere.

I hope this clarifies my post.

-Andy

[tac17]

And I would probably have squandered the money on frivolous toys (and junk food).
Of course you also might have spent the money on some way cool rail gun that was never invented because the M-16 was adopted.:scrutiny:

Might be best not to think about it like that though, makes me wish I had my rail gun.
:cuss:

[texcalibur]

Gabe has a good point. If the AR 15 was not adopted as the M16, we may have wound up with the AR 18, which was developed after Eugene Stoner left Armalite by about 5 engineers there. Ir used the AK 47 piston/tappet system rather than the direct gas into the chamer system of the AR 15, and probably would be even more reliable. Although with the development of cleaner powder the AR 15 is reliable. However, the AR 18 was also developed for the 223/556 round.

[Badger Arms]

AHHHHHHHH!!! NO, NO, NO!!!
The AR-18 does NOT have the same gas system as the AK-47. This is a pet Pieve of mine. It's like saying that the Jet engine that powers a helicopter is the same as the piston engine that powers your lawn mower. They are completely different animals. The vastly cleaner and more reliable gas system of the AR-18 is unique, patented, and has several advantages over the AK-47. I'll go into them later if anybody cares to listen. Right now, I'm just going to rant about it. Reading that is like when your wife says, "Which end of the gun do I put the bullet thingy in?"

[Mike Irwin]

Even had the M-16 never been invented, we'd still be in the mid to sub caliber class of rounds.

The 7.62 would have gone by the wayside, and everyone would have something else to bitch and moan about...

It was stupid dropping the .45-70, if you ask me. :)

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

The AR-18 was a response to the AR15. If the 15 never existed, why would anyone try to make a cheaper replacement?

I don't think .223 would have ever taken off independantly. It came part and parcel with the rifle, which was designed by a division specializing in aircrew survival gear. The very light AR15 and its little bullet may well have been viewed more like an FN P90, rather than as an infantry rifle.

I would think a more intermediate cartridge in a scaled down Cetma, Fal, whatever would have ruled the moment.