Things HAVE changed since Vietnam!


PDA






telewinz
December 23, 2003, 07:08 PM
A young friend who is a vet from Iraq got back Saturday. While we were at the range today a complete stranger walked-up to Jason and thanked him repeatedly for his service to our country. I was so proud to be an American! Be sure to thank ANY serviceman you meet, up close and personal.

Jason is an MP with 10 Iraq KIA's to his credit. He has some very strong opinions (shared by his unit BTW) about our current weapons. He feels (from experience mind you) that the M16A2 and caliber are USELESS and are a disappointment in combat. His opinion of the Beretta and the 9mm are the same. He said their is serious talk of the Marines going back to the M14. I could go into great detail about the graphics of the shots and wounds but I won't, the .223 couldn't get the job done and the M16A2 is too sensitive to dirt. I don't care for the M14 myself but if thats what our forces feel they need, then get it to them! This ends the debate about the M16 as far as I am concerned, nice cop gun but thats all. BTW I own 3 AR's and an M1A, I'm not bashing.

If you enjoyed reading about "Things HAVE changed since Vietnam!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
December 23, 2003, 07:20 PM
Firstly, I'm glad to hear that he made it back safe and sound.

Next, if he considers his issue weapons to be "useless," how did he get ten KIAs?

Ala Dan
December 23, 2003, 08:18 PM
Another vote for the M-14 :D

They make those 1,000 yard shot's real easy; just ask
any Viet-Namese with some age on him! :uhoh:

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

telewinz
December 23, 2003, 08:26 PM
10 "Confirmed" KIA's and a BSM for valor. Believe what you will. One required 3 shots to the HEAD and still lived to be taken to the hospital. This isn't theory its practical application, if you won't listen to frontline troop reports, what will you listen to?:confused: The WEAPON and CALIBER are INADEQUATE! But it killed 50 dogs just fine!

coverdog
December 23, 2003, 08:36 PM
Didn't anyone show him how to doctor up those tips on the .223 rounds?

telewinz
December 23, 2003, 08:44 PM
How do you "doctor-up" the 223 to make it effective and why in the World should we have a combat round that needs doctoring? Its magical, it will blow the paw off a dog.

Moparmike
December 23, 2003, 08:46 PM
I was looking at some .223 rounds the other day in the store, and finally realized just what everyone was bitching about. Personally, I wouldnt want to go into combat with those piddly things, unless all I was fighting was coyotes.

Dan Morris
December 23, 2003, 08:51 PM
Only complaint I had with the M14 was the roller bearing on the bolt. If you didn't keep it well lubed....lubriplate.....it would strip off! This was mostly TRW made. Got stickey in the field! This was in the 60's.
Dan
:(

Lumpy196
December 23, 2003, 08:59 PM
There are no plans for any branch of the military to go back to the M14.

telewinz
December 23, 2003, 09:09 PM
There are no plans for any branch of the military to go back to the M14.
And their are no plans to go back to the .45 either but both are already serving in Iraq. THEY are the weapons of choice.

SPFDRum
December 23, 2003, 09:36 PM
Your young friend is correct. I carried a M14 while on the boarding party and it was 100% effective. Even during a sandstorm.

Gmac
December 23, 2003, 09:54 PM
I luv the M-14:D ! Had one in RVN til they pried it out of my hands and gave me a Mattie Mattel p.o.s.! IMHO the .223 is a damned adequate Poodle cartridge! :what:

duckfoot
December 23, 2003, 10:06 PM
Being a fella with quite a few friends in the corps coming back from the sandbox fight part II all are telling me that they were picking up AKs and using them as much as they could get away with. One 0311 that I went shooting with last month made to comment while shooting my STG-58 of "wish I had this over in the sandbox". Unlike most Marines this SSgt is not prone to boasting.

Byron
December 23, 2003, 10:28 PM
Allow me to address the two topics of this post. I was a grunt in Nam, 4TH INF 68-69. My 16 worked flawlessly and the M193 round was lethal. That being said, I feel the post addressed the returning troops from this war. Go out of your way to tell any person in uniform Thank You. I returned in Oct 1969 and found family and friends turn on me. I was 21. I made my way and will remember the hurt the protesters caused. We had a medic in our platoon that was a consienous objecter. I had no problem with that as he was out there in the middle of it with no rifle but extra medical supplies. Now, I am the old man welcoming all in uniform. I speak as a totally disabled vet from my war. May God Bless and protect our Troops and may they suffer no injustice. Byron

telewinz
December 23, 2003, 10:35 PM
Amen

AZTOY
December 23, 2003, 10:42 PM
While we were at the range today a complete stranger walked-up to Jason and thanked him repeatedly for his service to our country. I was so proud to be an American! Be sure to thank ANY serviceman you meet, up close and personal.


I just came home from Fort Gorden for x-mas and i had my Class A on .
At the airport i had strangers come up to me and thanking me for serving.

I just got of Basic and have not even finshed AIT let!:scrutiny:

PVT Berki

SodaPop
December 23, 2003, 11:10 PM
Still haven't seen the Brits switching back to FALs.:mad:

Zundfolge
December 23, 2003, 11:13 PM
If the military wanted to replace the M4/M16 with a .308 I don't think the M14 is the best choice for modern combat troops ... its too bulky, heavy and long (would hate to have one in tight urban CQB type environment).

I could see them going with something like this though

http://www.dsarms.com/images/ewosw.jpg
http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58OSWNFA&storeid=1&image=sa58osw.gif

SodaPop
December 23, 2003, 11:22 PM
To get the most out of .308 you need a big, long, bulky ect..................

A FAL hacked down to a 16inch carbine is a 7.62x39 in different skin.


I vote for the FAL variant because of SIMPLICITY which is something that lacks in modern firearms.

G21NE
December 23, 2003, 11:35 PM
So I guess what we're getting at is the switch to 62 grain (M855?) ammo was a bad idea?

Also adding weight to the original design with the heavier barrel and the "jam it in tighter if it don't fit" forward assist.

I guess trying to make a light, select fire 200-300m range carbine into an all purpose rifle without changing the ammo was not the best idea?

Preacherman
December 23, 2003, 11:36 PM
I'll be watching the new Remington 6.8x45mm. round with great interest. If, as claimed, these can be fired through existing M16/AR15 platforms with only a change of upper, using existing magazines, it might just be what this rifle needs to make it a truly effective combat weapon.

Kestrel
December 24, 2003, 12:40 AM
The M855 IS inadequate. I don't understand the people that defend it. The M16 is a very ergonomic platform and easy to shoot, BUT - it is not reliable in sandy conditions. Unfortunately, the answer is to have to clean it constantly. What do you do in the middle of a fire-fight and the wind is blowing sand on you and your weapons?

I'm also curious to see the 6.8x45. Should be an improvement. Yep, it can be integrated into the M16 platform, but what about the HK XM8? Is this integration into the M16 platform going to be a stop-gap, until the XM8? Is the HK weapon THAT far off? I'm sure if the 6.8x45 is adopted, the Hk will be chambered in it (or anything the US tells them to). The plant being built in Columbus, GA is going to be building the XM8, by the way. I don't know that the XM8 is the answer, either, though.

I actually like the FAL, too...

Steve

Onslaught
December 24, 2003, 12:58 AM
This is a true story I thought I'd share...

My parents' neighbor across the street went in for "Part Deux". He's out of Ft. Benning and drives an M1. His wife works at the International House of Pancakes. A couple months ago, she was working, serving some HIPPIE LIBERAL MOTHER :what: SUNOFA :what: (pardon me). He had a couple friends with him, and he asked her what she was wearing that yellow ribbon for. She told him that her husband was in Iraq. The guy started bad mouthing everything from the President to the Military, and then told her that her husband was a murderer and he hoped he got killed in action! :fire:

I was told that she slapped him :neener: and I have no reason to disbelieve it. According to the rest of the story, he turned red in the face, reported her to the manager, who took care of their bill but told her he didn't blame her a bit, just please don't do it again.

That's the story as best I got it from my Father, who was across the street frequently checking on her and their dog while her husband was away.

He's home now, and doing just fine. His wife no longer works at the IHOP. I've see him in his yard a few times, and thought about going over to thank him, but I honestly wondered if he'd just think that was just plain "cheesy".... Apparently not, and I'll be sure to do that next time I see him.

JShirley
December 24, 2003, 01:15 AM
There were folks outside the main gates at Lewis, most weekends, holding signs thanking us.

I usually teared up.

There are no plans for any branch of the military to go back to the M14.

Actually, the sooper high-speed gee-whiz IBCT's (Stryker Brigades) are considering throwing them back into the mix for their Squad Designated Marksmen.

Some Spec Ops are using the 16" DSA carbines. Preacherman, I'm pretty sure it's a 6.8x43mm.

John

G1FAL
December 24, 2003, 01:51 AM
The navy still uses the M-14. Few things are as funny as watching a security drill with four squids running around the ship, two or three with 9mm Berettas, maybe one shotgun in place of a Beretta, and an M14. I'm thinking to myself "*** they gonna do with that thing in the confines of this ship? Unless the bad guy is in the hangar bay, the chow hall, or up on the flight deck?" And I was on an LHD, which has quite a bit more room than the smaller ships, such as the LSD's or destroyers. They also use them when in a less-than-friendly port, such as Dubai. Its kind of redundant, really, that they would do so, as there were already at least two Marine machineguns set up on the ship, and at least one sniper team, along with some rifle-totin infantry. But hey, its their ship....I would go the extra mile if it was mine, too.

One of the Marine battalions I was in, they told us if the balloon went up, we could take whatever personal weapons we wanted to, just remember that we were the one that had to carry it. One actual quote: "You can carry a samurai sword if you want, but YOU'RE the one thats carryin it." (I thought long and hard about getting one of those small chainsaws. Good for opening doors, or someone's chest in HTH) Had I known about the FAL then, I would have made sure I had one available "just in case".

WonderNine
December 24, 2003, 02:28 AM
Three .223 rounds to the head and he lived. That's the funniest thing I've heard in awhile.

artherd
December 24, 2003, 02:40 AM
"Actually, the sooper high-speed gee-whiz IBCT's (Stryker Brigades) are considering throwing them back into the mix for their Squad Designated Marksmen"

A role it actually makes quite a bit of sense in. The DM should be part of every infantry-type operation, and should have a round that can really reach out and touch someone (and a gun that can deliver the requisite accuracy.)

I am all for troops using whatever the hell they want to get the job done. If you're more comfortable with an M-14, fine, if you for some ungodly reason want to fight with a MAC-10, or a portable minigun, be my guest!.


The M4s with the 77grain HPBT Match King seem to be doing well.
M855 seems to be a mistake (if you need to punch through a wall/car/tree, call the DM and his M-14 with API rounds, and KEEP MOVING!

I will be sure to thank any uniform guys I see. I don't think it's something they can hear enough. Byron, let me be the first to say, thank YOU.


PS:I am not saying it's an end-all, be-all, but three .223s to the head, unless your friend hit all ear, I don't buy it for a second.

Delmar
December 24, 2003, 03:25 AM
I'd believe 3-223's to the head and live. We had a Dallas police officer take a load of 12 gauge buckshot to the face at very close range and lived:what:

That doesn't negate the power of a 12 gauge shotgun, but like the 223, is anecdotal.

The M855 was designed to give it some penetration on body armor, which it does, and also carries distance a bit better than the old 55 grain, but you have to give something up in the wound channel in order to get the penetration. Pretty simple physics.

Of course you have to clean your weapon often in the desert, regardless of what you're carrying. I have no personal experience with the M16A2 in a desert environment, but it would not matter what I was carrying-I'd still be tearing it down and cleaning it very often. No such thing as a self cleaning rifle so long as they aren't issuing phasers and light sabers! It does make me wonder about the round count on these weapons. Does anyone know whether the soldiers are issued new weapons over there or do they run what they brung?

Lumpy196
December 24, 2003, 04:11 AM
"He said their is serious talk of the Marines going back to the M14"

Does this not imply replacement of the M16 with the M14.

Yes, the M14 is seeing limited usage in some Army units as designated marksman rifles at the squad level and with the Marines as the DMR. The .45 has been in use with the Marine Force Recon units in the form or the MEU (SOC) pistol and with their new SOCOM component, DET 1, which is using modified Kimbers. Both moves, I applaud.

The M16/M4 family and the Beretta remain the issued weapons of the majority of units.


Funny how in after action reports, Marines asked for more M4s because M16A2s are cumbersome when exciting vehicles and when doing building searches. The M14 hardly meets that requirement. If there is a change in rifles for any branch, it will be to either the 6.8mm SPC on a modified M16 platform or the XM8/G36.

Dont take this is bashing of any particular weapon system. I happen to prefer the .45 and particularly the 1911 and I also own an M1A.

Rob96
December 24, 2003, 04:59 AM
I don't think the Corps is going back to the M14, as they just adopted the A4 version of the M-16. Like it has been stated numerous times, the 62gr round seems to be the week link.

VG
December 24, 2003, 07:30 AM
Jason is an MP with 10 Iraq KIA's to his credit. He has some very strong opinions (shared by his unit BTW) about our current weapons. He feels (from experience mind you) that the M16A2 and caliber are USELESS and are a disappointment in combat. His opinion of the Beretta and the 9mm are the same. He said their is serious talk of the Marines going back to the M14. I could go into great detail about the graphics of the shots and wounds but I won't, the .223 couldn't get the job done and the M16A2 is too sensitive to dirt. I don't care for the M14 myself but if thats what our forces feel they need, then get it to them! This ends the debate about the M16 as far as I am concerned, nice cop gun but thats all. BTW I own 3 AR's and an M1A, I'm not bashing.

Sir, what unit is he in?

telewinz
December 24, 2003, 02:26 PM
Its a reserve unit, to respect his privacy I can't give anymore information.

VG
December 24, 2003, 05:28 PM
Reason I ask, that is an awfullly lot of direct combat for an MP unit. A really, really, really lot. And all the soldiers that I've met who have had to take the life of another human don't talk about it, period.

Identifying a unit wouldn't identify your friend, especailly at the Divisional or Brigade level, but would give us some idea of their operational area. I'm surprised you used his first name of Jason if privacy was a consideration: perhaps you should go back and edit it out if it's really that big of a concern. Looking up.

artherd
December 24, 2003, 05:43 PM
You gave us his first name, but not the UNIT he was in?!

Forgive me sir, but my BS meter is now pegging.

telewinz
December 24, 2003, 06:00 PM
Hmmm...I detect a little doubt. None the less I've passed on what he volunteered to me. Take it for what its worth, I have no intention of conducting an interview with him. The main idea on this thread was wishing servicemen thanks, ignore the rest if you so desire with or without your BS meter.Reason I ask, that is an awfullly lot of direct combat for an MP unit. A really, really, really lot.

How do you judge? He was busy but as he told me they are making MP's out of surplus MOS's with only 6 weeks of training. There are not enough MP's to go around, 12-16 hour days are not uncommon, he'll not go active duty but may go back into ROTC. How's the BS meter? He had to leave his ROTC unit because a new contract (voiding his contract with he reserves)had not been finalized when his unit was called-up the second time! The first time was after 9/11 when they pulled security duty at a southern airport. Besides I could easily do a little research and name any unit I wished and how could you tell differently. Let me guess, you are offended by his (my) comments on the M16, the 223 caliber, the Beretta 92 and or the 9mm cartridge. Hows the BS meter?

What the heck, might as well add more "BS". Yesterday when we went to the range I let him shoot my commando arms 45, he had already been to the gunstore and purchased a Sig 234 in .357 sig. He commented that that gunstore had an M1A Thompson for sale and he could buy it for $800 out the door. When I was looking a month ago, I didn't bother trying that vendor. I commented that I'd stop at the gunstore on the way home and look at it. He decided to follow me. Sure enough there was the M1A but to my amazement it was a new Auto-Ordnance, not a Kahr like I assumed. I was going to get it (emotions come first sometimes) but he said he wanted to get it so I handed it over and said I'd give him $700 for it should he ever get tired of it. He not only purchased the M1A ($750!) but a compact Springfield .45ACP for $600 ($50 off that too!). On that day Jason spent almost $2000 on guns:what: If you are going to BS you might as well wear hip boots. Believe it or not, every word I have spoken is true. He earned/saved the money while overseas, as far as I am concerned he is entitled to have a hell of a good time.

artherd
December 24, 2003, 06:36 PM
I don't do 'offence' at the mention of different calibers/weapons sutibility. I have nothing tied up in your opinion of any of the above. Use what you like, that's why there are so many choices.


3 shots to the head with a rifle just dosen't seem to wash with me though. I mean, come on, that is quite exceptional! I'm not saying it didn't happen, but you're telling me 'Yeah, my buddy Josh did it, I won't tell you what unit.' Please understand my skeptacism, and understand it is in no reflection on you. I would hope you would have the same questions when presented with such an outlandish tale.

Lastly:
If I have something negative to say about any impliment or technology, I try to back it up with peer-reviewable fact. If I want to tell you the .25ACP sucks compared to the 9mm, I will show gelatin tests, or autopsy, etc.


At this point, I am retireing from this thread. All the best to you and yours this season!

JShirley
December 24, 2003, 06:50 PM
telewinz,

No-one's trying to offend you. It's just sad fact that some gun owners' anecdotal evidence is lacking and specious...and if you apply that principle to the folks in the military, many, if not most, who have little experience with firearms aside from what they've trained with, you have a huge pool of misinformation.

I heard more off the wall "facts" about firearms in two years in the military than I had from clueless clerks and gun store commandos in the previous ten. Things like: NATO 7.62 can be fired in an AK. :rolleyes: "Yes, it can! I've done it!"

So, in any case, please don't think we're attacking you if we want a little more info. Some folks with peripheral connections to the military have the most ingenious imaginations...

John

telewinz
December 24, 2003, 06:51 PM
I didn' encourage him to talk, its a private experience for him of course and it has affected him emotionally. Jason's plans for the future are very much up in the air. Over time he will talk more, either to my son or to me. But to activate the BS meter, the head shot wounds happened two times not once. Second time was two shots to the head, that and the 50 dogs is all he volunteered.

Quartus
December 24, 2003, 07:12 PM
Does anyone know whether the soldiers are issued new weapons over there or do they run what they brung?


Combat is run what you brung. THere are no magical stores of new weapons that get issued when the balloon goes up. No new PCs, no new rifles. Take care of your gear, soldier - YOUR life depends on it.

Which means that some outfits, especially RESERVE outfits, will go into battle with worn out stuff. Including worn out rifles.


As to the current ammo, yes, it is much less lethal than the old 55 grain was.

But 3 shots to the head with a .223 and he lived?

Yeah, my meter is pegging. I served right after 'Nam, and all my NCOs were combat vets. Even among us grunts, they didn't talk much about their kills.

NEVER to civilians.

Yeah, my meter is pegged.

VG
December 24, 2003, 10:31 PM
Yeah, my meter is pegging. I served right after 'Nam, and all my NCOs were combat vets. Even among us grunts, they didn't talk much about their kills.
NEVER to civilians.
Yeah, my meter is pegged.

If someone says, "A friend in 363rd Military Police Company, a Reserve MP company from West Virginia attached to xx Brigade yy ID in Iraq hates M4's because...." it's a lot more credible than an unnamed unit.

I learned this while I was getting my jump wings as a door gunner on the Space Shuttle....

JohnKSa
December 25, 2003, 01:47 AM
Ok, a reservist with the ROTC serving as an MP has 10 KIAs (love that nice round number) but has on at least two occasions shot an enemy soldier in the head multiple times (once twice, once THREE times) with an M16 without killing said soldiers.

He also implies that he has used the M9 on enemy soldiers with poor results.

Sounds like major BS to me.

telewinz,

Not implying you're less than honest, I understand you're just passing on what you've been told.

It surprises me that an ROTC reservist MP is seeing any significant action. Shooting a person in the head multiple times is quite difficult. Doing it wihout killing them is VERY difficult. Doing it twice is just shy of impossible.

And, as pointed out, soldiers who are willing to come right out and volunteer body counts are kind of unusual.

My grandfather was a radio op in WWII. He never killed anyone and didn't see a lot of combat. He did have at least one radio shot off his back. I'll bet he didn't spend two hours in his entire life after the war speaking about his experiences. He talked to me about it for about 15 minutes once forty years later and my mom said that she was amazed.

telewinz
December 25, 2003, 06:09 AM
Very tastefully done, Thanks for giving him some privacy.:) I've known this young man for many years, among other things he is a devout church going Christian, former Boy Scout, Honor student and JROTC member. This information has developed over many months through letters he wrote my son and telephone calls. My son (Junior in ROTC)is very gunhoo about getting into combat and killing the enemy thats why he questions Jason so much about his experiences but as Jason said "its not like you think it is". I'm as skeptic as anyone in my judgements (maybe even more so)but I believe him.

VG
December 25, 2003, 08:51 AM
Sir, there aren't many companies of Reserve MP's in Iraq, so just by giving his first name and that information, you've given anyone interested in looking into it all the information they need to know to find out exactly who he is if they were interested in doing so. To put the matter in perspective, a sniper had 7 KIA's and he's on the front page of Army Times this week.

But to the point, there are a number of initiatives concerning the equipment used in close quarters battle, including the SASS - Semi Automatic Sniper System; the 6.8mm chambering; and the 77 gr 5.56 round that has been used by Special Operations Forces and may be type certified.

Steve Smith
December 25, 2003, 02:00 PM
You know, Christmas just ain't Christmas without a good AR vs. M14 vs. FAL Vs. AK thread, with all of the same characters and same opinions, it seems. Thanks for contributing to my Merry Christmas, guys.





:rolleyes:




Somebody please make a New Year's resolution that they won't contribute to these threads again? If half of you stick to that resolution, the thread will die twice as fast. Just a request. :)

Andrew Wyatt
December 25, 2003, 02:21 PM
I have three words for y'all that were spoken to me by a man who has seen more action than most of you both in civillian life an in the military.

"Bullets don't work."

Byron
December 25, 2003, 04:25 PM
Mr. Smith and Mr. Wyatt, much of this has dealt with our returning troops and the the Thanks they are owed. This is not a contest about who have and haven't seen action. To your friend, Mr. Wyatt, please tell him "Welcome Home". I will not place my duty to be in contest with his. While part of the 3/8th INF, 4th Inf Div, we did loose 3 companies in 4 days from March 4th to the 6th,1969. And this has been a Merry Christmas!
Byron

Quartus
December 25, 2003, 06:06 PM
To your friend, Mr. Wyatt, please tell him "Welcome Home".


I'll second that. Whenver I get the chance, I go out of my way to thank a vet - ESPECIALLY Viet Nam vets. I've even followed one into a parking lot after seeing the service ribbon bumper sticker on his car. Uh, do that carefully! :D



While part of the 3/8th INF, 4th Inf Div


Whoa! Close to home! I was 1/8thINF, 4th Inf Div. 'Course, by then (mid 70s) the 3rd wasn't part of the 4th anymore. I hate the way they move units around.

cheygriz
December 25, 2003, 07:29 PM
I recently heard an interwiew with Col. Oliver North (USMC-Ret) on the radio. He was in the thick of it from beginning to end, with a Marine unit.

Col. North said that he had heard NO COMPLAINTS WHATSOEVER about either the M-16 or the M-9 Beretta.

I'll take his word over that of some disgruntled grunt.

Quartus
December 25, 2003, 08:50 PM
Who?

Oh, yeah, HIM! Yeah, the guy who lied to Congress under oath, and only escaped several felony convictions on a technicality.

Yeah, that's the guy.


Sure, I'll take his word for, uh.....

Tamara
December 25, 2003, 09:27 PM
Col. North said that he had heard NO COMPLAINTS WHATSOEVER about either the M-16 or the M-9 Beretta.

Col. North stopped pulling triggers for a living long before the M9 was general issue.

The fact that I have no particular animus against the Beretta aside, this is hearsay of the least reliable kind. :uhoh:

VG
December 25, 2003, 10:20 PM
Both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps have published after-action reports on both the M4/M16 and M9 pistol.

There are some complaints, but most soldiers are satisfied. Keep in mind that the average GI has probably never seen an M14. And that any rifle will eventually malfunction in sand so the fact that one is less sensitive than another isn't so important to professionals who clean their weapons at every opportunity.

You can find a number of these after action reports at www.sftt.org - Soldiers For the Truth, and elsewhere.

macman37
December 26, 2003, 12:55 PM
My dad has no love for the M16 platform, but even he had this to say about the guys saying the M16 wasn't good in the sand...

"When troops stopped in WWII what did they do? They cleaned their rifles"

He and I have both read a lot of books on WWII and many of them are profusely illustrated. Lots of them show men cleaning their rifles during a lull in the action.

The same should apply to the M16 series. If it's still jamming despite cleaning yeah, then it's time to get something new or at least fix what's broke on the platform.

The AARs I've read also say that the M4 is "delivering the mail" as it were. Particularly with the new 77gr ammo.

cheygriz
December 26, 2003, 01:06 PM
Tamara,

Col. North is indeed retired from the Corps. However, he was "embedded" with a Marine unit and travelled all the way to Baghdad in a Bradley with a Marine Infantry unit. He was there, on the scene, getting shot at. UNLIKE David Hatchetworth who was dissing our President, our General Staff, our troops and their equipment from a studio in New York city.

I was in the military from 1961-1965. I still remember the (rear echelon) troops crying that the "New" M-14 wasn't as reliable as the M-1. If you lost the magazine, it became a single shot. The cartridge wasn't as powerful as the .30-06. It was too heavy to carry. It was too light for automatic fire. It was this and that and everything else you can think of.

And just hide and watch folks! When we do eventually replace the M-16 and the .223 round thirty or forty years from now with something better, you'll hear the REMF types whining that "it's not as reliable as the good old M-16. It doesn't have the "stopping power" of the goold old 5.56X45."

That's just the nature of troops. Always has bewen and always will be.

LeonCarr
December 26, 2003, 03:01 PM
There is no Sword Excalibur in small arms. Period. I have not been able to find anybody that bad mouths the 9mm or .223, and says they are puny, wimpy rounds, volunteer to get shot with either one. Fire til the felon, or enemy in combat, falls.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Citadel99
December 27, 2003, 09:18 AM
FWIW, my best friend was with 2-69 AR during 3 IDs charge through Iraq. He had no problems whatsoever with his M-4. If you take care of the weapon, it'll take care of you. If you don't clean your weapon regularly, especially in a desert, when you're life depends on it's functionality then you have no right to complain when it malfunctions. I find these arguments a bit humerous. If the M-4 is such a bad weapon then why do the majority of SF and Delta use it when they can pick what they want? Why has it been picked up by many other nations special operations forces?

Is it the perfect weapon? By no means. Does it do the job? Yes. Am I happy to carry it? Yes. Would I rather have an AK? Hell no.

Just another opinion...

Mark

confed sailor
December 27, 2003, 10:13 PM
And yet another post on the greatest of debates.

I personally love the M14.

a simple weapon to care for, and a bullet to put a man down with.

i for one am glad the navy retains them. hopefully the pentagon will see the light and get a better round.

Wait i have a idea.... how bout we dig up a WWII relic, the 7.92 kurtz. big bullet with optimal ballistics in the same ranges as the woodchuck bullet.

hmmmmmmmm.....nahhhhhh no one will want it, its evil german technology:D

and as for soldiers griping, "it's not like the old corps" im sure caesar's legions bitched about getting new swords.

Also who here likes the HK G11?

4v50 Gary
December 27, 2003, 10:16 PM
Impossible to go back to the M-14. We'd have to tool up and if the dies aren't worn out, perhaps the Taiwanese will reverse lend-lease them to us? Better to go with a newer gun with a bigger bullet.

N3rday
December 28, 2003, 01:40 AM
Ok, this may sound stupid but...at what period in time did the world militaries transition from powerful, .30 cal or over rounds (like our .30-06 in wwII, and the germans 7.92) to little sissy .223s? What was the reason behind the switch? The german stg44 and the Russian AK a few years later were both 'assault rifles', and both chambered for .30s. What was the first military assault rifle to make the switch, and for god's sake WHY!?

ahh its good to rant a bit

edited to add: I'm glad the army's gonna switch to the XM8, but even though its an HK and more reliable, its STILL 5.56x45!
Also I have no beef with the 9mm, it has enough stopping power to get the job done. the 5.56, on the other hand, doesn't. If they want an automatic low recoil gun they can have an MP-5, real rifles are big-bore.

JShirley
December 28, 2003, 02:18 AM
Well, it happened first in Japan. They made an anemic little round- actually, probably about ideal for antipersonnel use- 6.5x50mm, I think? This was before 1900. The Russians made the first "assault rifles" for this cartridge before 1920.

You might appreciate those sissy little rounds if using them instead of big manrounds meant you had double the ammo, and didn't have to run out of fodder to make your rifle go bang, as happened at various battles in the Civil War, and to the defenders at the Alamo.

See, the big advantage of using a smaller round is LOGISTICAL. The reason the COMMON SENSE SOLUTION of using a smaller round was not a significant disadvantage, was that engagements typically occur well within the power envelope of the intermediate cartrige. Longer ranging fire is handled by support weapons.

The "sissy little" .223 is a different approach than the 7.62x39mm. The Russians were frantically trying to keep up with German small arms advances. They already had a .311 diameter cartridge, so making an intermediate cartridge in the same caliber just simplified things (which is what the Germans did as well). The US had the luxury of time, and made the decision to go with a smaller diameter, faster round. This smaller, faster round meant about a 50% increase in useful range over the manly, large diameter 7.62x39mm. Terminal effects were just an additional bonus.

The sissy little .223 underwhelmed the Russians so much, they took their parent cartridge for the AK, and necked it down so it could be sissy, too.

Now, again, the obvious solution, is for the US to find a cartridge that is significantly smaller and lighter than the 7.62x51mm, yet heavier and more powerful than the 5.56x45mm. This will enable a single cartridge to replace BOTH ammunition types. A 6mm bullet at about 3000 fps should be close to ideal, giving a round with range comparable to a .308, but with recoil and size closer to a .223.

Just curious- what defines a "big bore" to you? The Garand was originally a .276, and probably would have been a better rifle for it.

John

Gabe
December 28, 2003, 03:01 AM
The sissy little .223 underwhelmed the Russians so much, they took their parent cartridge for the AK, and necked it down so it could be sissy, too.

Minor quib, the 5.45x39 Soviet actually use a smaller case than the original 7.62x39. One reason for not simply necking down is further reduction of weight.

I think most people who complain about sissy assault rifles never took a M-14 or Fal on a run. They are ungodly heavy. Find a 10,000 ft peak in your area and climb it and you'll gain an appreciation for all things light weight. For Chris' sake I think the M-16 is already beastly.

Soldiers are always underwhelmed by the lethality of their weapons. Hollywood is to blame for this. I'll bet the first warrior who had to chop his enemy repeatedly with an axe thought his weapon was a POS too.

JShirley
December 28, 2003, 03:56 AM
I'll bet the first warrior who had to chop his enemy repeatedly with an axe thought his weapon was a POS too.

Thanks for the AM laugh. :)

I'll confess a fondess for 7.62x39mm, but that's because I'm a deer hunter. When it comes to hunting people, I want to be able to carry as many rounds as possible. 7.62 NATO= less ammo.

Gordon
December 28, 2003, 04:06 AM
Merry Christmas! My thoughts on the matter after 40 years of studying the Art Of War, with 36 months in a combat zone, first with an M=14 and then with an M-16 is thus. For the average infantry man the M-16 is superior, I think the m-4 should be reserved for armor or commando operations because you have a stinking .224" bullet and it really needs a 36" barrel to work well. If the M-16 would have been chambered in 6.5TCU or something of this nature there would be no complaints of the round's performance. I carried an M-14 on a LRRP when I was 22 and 'high and tight' and the 20mags &frags were barely doable (I've always been an ammo junkie). The 16 early and later m16a1 I had in 68-71 never gave me any trouble, but that .224 bullet was not comforting to a 25yearold gun freak who owned a XP-100! Of course when I came home I had to have a Colt CAR in 73 (I think) , and then a HK91(then a 93&94) in late 70's and 80's. I dragged the HK91 in ALOT of dirt and sand playing and training and competing with them during that period. It was the gun I WISHED I had in Nam. In the 90's Ive kinda switched to FN Fal's and now I see why my Aussie and Rhodesian comrades in arms held them in such high esteem! Oh did I mention that my "real" semi m-14 I put together in 70's was accurized to the point of being a 'prima donna'? It DONT like sand for sure! Now I don't like 9mm much especially DA's, but it is adequate for general military purposes and the Berretta 92 system has a LONG track record of eating sand in war and doing and outstanding job. I like Glock 17's better!. Of course my only "confirmed" kill was with a .45 1911 and that was because body stopped in front of brass in the command bunker and I got the medal write up. But from every hit I've seen to the head with an m-16 under 200 yard, suffice it to say one round takes off 1/2 a head!!!!:cool:

JShirley
December 28, 2003, 05:11 AM
I like FAL's, and have one now- wanted one since I was about 15- but I'd hate to hump the ammo.

Quartus
December 28, 2003, 09:42 AM
I think most people who complain about sissy assault rifles never took a M-14 or Fal on a run. They are ungodly heavy.


Yup. There are lots of Internet Experts who have never humped a hill with one.

Weight counts. Ammo counts.


Among folks who have actually used in in combat, AND KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS, there's little complaint about the 5.56mm. Even among the old-timers who love the Garand or M-14.



I have no beef with the 9mm, it has enough stopping power to get the job done. the 5.56, on the other hand, doesn't.



http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=688351


I sure don't want to get hit with either one. But if I HAD to, I know which one I'd choose.

MOAMike
December 28, 2003, 02:44 PM
Yup. There are lots of Internet Experts who have never humped a hill with one.

Weight counts. Ammo counts.

Among folks who have actually used in in combat, AND KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS, there's little complaint about the 5.56mm. Even among the old-timers who love the Garand or M-14..


Amen.



I will add, however, that for certain missions, the LR capability of the 7.62x51 is a must have! Open desert warfare could fall under that caveat.


Cheers,
Mike

Quartus
December 28, 2003, 03:07 PM
I will add, however, that for certain missions, the LR capability of the 7.62x51 is a must have! Open desert warfare could fall under that caveat.



No question that you need different armament for different situations. And as much as I defend the M-16 platform and 5.56 cartridge (the old 5.56!) against the rantings of the ignorant, I'd be the first to say that it's not the be-all and end-all of military armament.

Frankly, I'm glad to see them playing with a round that's somewhere in between the two. I've long thought that we'd be well served with something like the .243.

Don't know how the new round compares to that.

JShirley
December 28, 2003, 03:35 PM
Wider and shorter. Much like the 7.62x39 in many ways, but shoots flatter.

The problem with the .243 Winchester, is that it's the same parent case as the .308. There is some weight savings, but that's about it.

Psssniper
December 28, 2003, 05:07 PM
Byron

May I sincerely say it now, even though it has been many years
since you returned from serving our country.........

Thank You and God bless you.

Paul

mattHP
December 28, 2003, 07:46 PM
to set a couple of points straight:
No Marines that I know of were using M14's in Iraq, and I saw all 3 regiments there, but many of the designated marksman got a 4x scope for their M16. The Marines are not considering changing back to the M14--I wish we were. The only M14's I saw were with the SF guys, along with M79's. Until then, I had no idea anyone was still using M79's.

We've always been told in humid environments, you use more CLP when cleaning, in dry, use less (usually translated--none). This just didn't work, the first round wouldn't even chamber dry. A coat on the surfaces of the bolt carrier group (thicker coat than usually used on the range) was enough. Daily cleaning was imperative, there was just too much airborne dust raised from the convoys to even think otherwise.

I had one of the new Benellis for the duration of the "major combat operations" and it was pretty sweet, but CLP on the locking lugs was definitely a must. There were lots of places for dust to get in on that one, so it was cleaned more frequently.

In the end, it was all just good practice, our positions and convoys were never attacked, and we left soon after the war.

JShirley
December 28, 2003, 08:14 PM
Welcome to THR! Glad you made it unscathed.

(Damn glory hounds, grumble, grumble. The ARMY always does the hard work of holding.) ;)

444
December 28, 2003, 09:15 PM
So did you have any problem with the shotgun malfunctioning ?

Quartus
December 28, 2003, 09:36 PM
The problem with the .243 Winchester, is that it's the same parent case as the .308. There is some weight savings, but that's about it.



Yeah, I was thinking ballistically. Should be possible to get those results with a smaller case.


mattHP, welcome to THR and welcome home, soldier!

mattHP
December 28, 2003, 09:50 PM
My hat's off to the Army "occupiers." I imagine occupying postwar Germany was a hell of a lot more rewarding.

On the Benelli you have to watch what you're doing when you put the bolt carrier group back in, and test it when done. I found the best way was to put the receiver on its left side and wiggle the bolt carrier group until the piece that contacts the buffer spring goes into place with the hammer poking through the correct spot.

If you don't CLP the locking lugs, the action, once dustied up, is so difficult to rack I had to put it butt to the ground and stomp the operating handle. Once we figured out where to lube it, it was fine.

Again, I didn't shoot it in anger. Not the ideal weapon for the open desert, but in convoys I'd hand it and my Beretta to my driver and take his M16.

Quartus
December 28, 2003, 10:03 PM
Not the ideal weapon for the open desert,

Ya think? Buckshot and 200-300 meter shots? :D

Gordon
December 28, 2003, 10:22 PM
Semper Fi and thanks Sir! Do guys still have shaving brushes(kinda old but great on fine sand if used all the time) or tooth brushes stuck in their hats? ;)

mattHP
December 29, 2003, 09:27 AM
The armorers have weaseled away all the shaving brushes for the .50's, but everybody had a toothbrush or 2 sticking out somewhere. Forgot to mention - the Beretta magazines got pretty low reviews in general. The bullets would all slide forward in the magazine so the bullet tip contacted the magazine body while being carried, and the combined friction (enhanced by dust) would make the follower stick when unloading the magazine. I found that if you tap the magazine like an M16 mag, it was ok. Also, even when one was sticking, if I manually racked it through the Beretta, it functioned fine. I never heard of one malfunctioning while being fired. I think when you manually unload the magazine, you put more downward pressure on the bullet, which causes the bullets underneath to move forward from increased friction as you unload the top bullet. The cycle of the weapon does not put anymore downward pressure on the bullet being loaded, it just pushes it straight forward, so I don't really see this as an issue.

Ed
December 29, 2003, 10:05 AM
I'd have to agree with the others. If the Military thinks that the M16 is to big for modern Humvee Combat why would they go bigger? I never had a bit of problem with my M-4 besides it going 5 round burst sometimes:D . The M16 round has killed many people in many wars and did not just all of a sudden stop working. Is it the best thing for 600 Meter point targets? No but how many people can hit something that far anyway? Yes I know everyone on here can:rolleyes: but in combat with LOTS of gear and people shooting back and hiding? Not everyone. And to throw in a hello, I was attached to 1/8 Armor as a Fister for a while in 99.

JShirley
December 29, 2003, 10:40 AM
matt,

It's great to hear someone coming back with a clear knowledge of how to use their weapons systems, without a lot of hype. Now, so I don't give you a big head, let me end with an insult.

Ya damn jarhead. :D

Ed, I really doubt I can hit a 500 meter target, much less a 600 meter one, at my current level. I was fairly proud when I could hit the 300 meter, with my irons and M4. Fisters...sheesh. ;) (As an 11C, we shared an office- and a PL-with our CO's fisters.)

John

AZ Quailshooter
December 29, 2003, 10:21 PM
I went through Coast Guard boot camp with the M14. After I graduated A school and got my first shipboard assignment, any time weapons were required...I went to the armory and grabbed a 14....we had M16 available....but I always grabbed a 14. Nothing like 7.62 Nato for human and deer sized targets! We felt a lot safer now....didn't we?

Abominable No-Man
December 30, 2003, 12:44 PM
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone.

Personally, I like the M14 better than the M16, too, but that's due more to my upbringing than anything else. All of my male role-models when I was growing up used wood-stocked .30-caliber or greater rifles, both in the military and in civilian life. I naturally followed that pattern, as I got older.

Of course, that may change, too. My dad, who always sneered at "plastic" furniture recently picked up a FAL with polymer stocks and loves it....guess you can teach an old dog new tricks!

I was over in Iraq and Afghanistan, too, and I saw the M16 and M4 work very well under some bad conditions. Look at it like this, the bugs that the M16 was issued with during Vietnam have long since been ironed out; if they were still there, the Canadians, some of the British Specops guys, some of the Polish (? I think), all those guys over there were carrying M16's or M4's of one type or another. The Brits absolutely love the M16- they're a great bunch of people, but I think they got a raw deal with their SA80 (it's not as bad some some say, but that's not saying much......). The M16 works just fine. It's not perfect, but then again, neither is the M14.

Anyway, Telewinz, without bringing up the BS meter thing again, where was your buddy's AO?

ANM

fix
December 30, 2003, 01:11 PM
Everyone has tapdanced around this, so I'll just come out and say it. Someone has a serious integrity problem.

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 01:50 PM
Could someone explain something to me?

On the one hand, 5.56 NATO ammo is light enough that you can carry twice as much ammo as the same weight in 7.62x51 NATO.....

On the other hand, most live-fire accounts of the M16/M4 in action are of multiple bullet strikes (2, 3, or more) needed to take down an enemy....

QUESTION: What is the advantange? :scrutiny:

Our troops need something w/ more punch. The 5.56 NATO makes a great SMG round, but its not a MBR round. Maybe something in the .243-.260 power range...:D

fix
December 30, 2003, 01:53 PM
On the other hand, most live-fire accounts of the M16/M4 in action are of multiple bullet strikes (2, 3, or more) needed to take down an enemy....

References please.

444
December 30, 2003, 02:03 PM
References both ways: Where does the idea come from that when using a .30 rifle you typically only fire one shot per enemy killed ?

Starpower
December 30, 2003, 07:13 PM
I came home the first time on a heavy cruiser in 67 and that was when the Navy decided it was ok to wear civvies on liberty. We all cheered, but found out later it was for our own protection! Came back again through Travis AFB in Calif in 71 and was told to definitely NOT wear our uniforms as we went out the gate. That was when we saw the buckets of urine. Came back for the final time on a Destroyer after the fall of Saigon in 75, and there was no one on the pier to meet me. I'd say things have changed.

Byron
December 30, 2003, 08:58 PM
Starpower, I understand your comments. In Oct 69, we were told to get our uniforms off as soon as we got home. Hurt,yes. My mother refused to hug me when I got off a plane in Chattanooga at 4 AM. I saw at the Shopping Center, a Soldier and Marine fresh out of Basic (they had that look). I made sure I Thanked them as if they just got back from combat duty. Starpower "Welcome Home". Byron

telewinz
December 30, 2003, 09:50 PM
Everyone has tapdanced around this, so I'll just come out and say it. Someone has a serious integrity problem.
I think you just joined "Everyone".My mother refused to hug me when I got off a plane in Chattanooga at 4 AM
That is the saddest horror story I've heard about the Vietnam experience.

Quartus
December 31, 2003, 08:42 AM
On the one hand, 5.56 NATO ammo is light enough that you can carry twice as much ammo as the same weight in 7.62x51 NATO.....

On the other hand, most live-fire accounts of the M16/M4 in action are of multiple bullet strikes (2, 3, or more) needed to take down an enemy....

QUESTION: What is the advantange?


References both ways: Where does the idea come from that when using a .30 rifle you typically only fire one shot per enemy killed ?

Well, yeah, that's kind of the REAL point. Most rounds fired in combat don't hit the target at all. In fact, most rounds are fired as suppression fire - intended to mess with the enemy and spoil his aim. If you actually hit him, that's a bonus, but the PURPOSE is to suppress HIS ability to shoot YOU.

I'm not saying it SHOULD be that way, but it is. So stopping power does take back seat to amount of ammo. I don't think anyone is going to claim that the 5.56 outperforms the 7.62, but you gotta hit the target before terminal ballistics matter. And the 5.56 takes less training to become proficient. And after a day of combat (read: RECOIL), will you be shooting a 5.56 better or a 7.62?

And let us not forget that the CURRENT loading of the 5.56 is less effective than the old 55 grain round. Especially when fired out of a short barrel.


But getting back to the original point of the thread, yes, things have changed. Welcome back you ALL of you soldiers, and a big THANK YOU.

And that goes for you Viet Nam vets, too!



But I am NOT going to hug you, Byron. :D

BevrFevr
December 31, 2003, 02:52 PM
But a Mighty THANKS to all who served in all our wars and in our peace as well.

The m16/4 is great I'm sure I would love one but being the armchair commando I am I still think a newer better weapons system can be devised just based on the fact that we have much more experience and profuondly newer technology to work with.

But hey what do I know?

-bevr

Byron
December 31, 2003, 03:42 PM
This has been a good thread. Attached is a web site by our Recon Sgt. The pictures are of day to day life of an infantry company,pictures of reunions one set being those of D Co 3/8th INF. Byron

http://members2.clubphoto.com/richard214473/guest-1.phtml

Cosmoline
December 31, 2003, 04:37 PM
I'm amazed at the fierce loyalty the M-16/5.56 combination inspires among some people. Just look at the round. Hold it in your hand. Look at the little wee gopher on the side of the box. Is this a round you would want your servicemen to rely on for their very lives? Come on! It's a sick joke, brought to you by the same pin-striped fools who brought us the failure in Vietnam. If we don't ditch the M-16, we should at least go back to a proper battle round. You don't send your men to war with an anti-gopher round.

Frankly I suspect the main reason we haven't gone to something bigger is because the modern military thinks small arms fighting is moribund. Everything will be fought remotely with guided missles and raptor drones. Obviously, as the current problems in Iraq reveal, this expectation is incorrect. Soldiers still need to be able to engage in exchanges of small arms fire. They should be able to drop their foes with one shot. A 7.62 NATO stands a better chance of doing this than a 5.56

telewinz
January 1, 2004, 03:36 PM
A simple solution is an FAL or Valmet in 7.62X39. Its been over 50 years and we still have not caught on. National pride dies hard sometimes and at GREAT expense.

444
January 1, 2004, 03:50 PM
:D

Or.......................... it could be that after 50 years, you haven't caught on. Think about this, no first world military force is using the 7.62x39 cartridge. No first world military is using the FAL. How many first world militaries are using the 7.62 NATO cartridge as a standard issue rifle ?
There are many reasons why a government decides to choose a particular weapon and cartridge. Some of it is based on logic and performance testing, and some of it is based on politics. But, when every developed country in the world disagrees with your choice, maybe they are on to something.

Ed
January 1, 2004, 05:18 PM
Ok...To settle this once and for all, lets look at the two different weapons that fire these, both have semi, The M-4 has 3 round burst, the M14 has full auto. This tells us that it takes 3 rounds of 5.56 to kill the enemy and the M14 has full auto. This tells us that it takes 20 rounds of 7.62.....Come on Am I the only one that knows this kind of stuff:D


That IS a joke for the less humorously inclined.:neener:

VG
January 1, 2004, 06:10 PM
f we don't ditch the M-16, we should at least go back to a proper battle round. You don't send your men to war with an anti-gopher round.

....Second, it's not what you hit someone with, it's WHERE you hit them that matters....

The only gripe I have about military rounds is I could never get enough of them. The people I hit with ball ammo from a pistol or rifle stayed down, and stayed out of the fight....

I was in Somalia for nine months as the XO of SOCCE for UNOSOM. I have no complaints at all about the efficacy of the 5.56mm or the 9mm.

To parrot again: It's not what you hit them with, it's where you hit them. Over and over; if it's one of those 'days'....

With regards to actual shot placement, there one, and only one, spot that will give you a 'hard' (instantaneous) kill: the medulla oblongotta (sic). It's the organ that sits atop the spinal column at the base of the skull. If you were to draw a horizontal line from the tip of the nose to the ear hole, around the back to the other ear hole and back to the nose; you'd have the shot line to aim for. Whatever part of the line is exposed to you, aim to split the line in two.

Tracy-Paul Warrington
Chief Warrant Officer (Ret)
US Army Special Forces

telewinz
January 1, 2004, 08:21 PM
Or.......................... it could be that after 50 years, you haven't caught on. Think about this, no first world military force is using the 7.62x39 cartridge.

Please list current First World Countries that have been ENGAGED in a prolonged conflict during the last 50 years, and what rifle and caliber did they use? We had the Krag in Cuba but lost it real quick when we ran up against the Mauser. Until it was tested the experts thought it was fine. Something they can't say/agree about with the M16

Russia/USSR 7.62 vs 303 and alot others Afganistan
England FAL vs FAL & AK47, Falklands and Desertstorm
USA .223 vs 7.62X39(&54mm) Vietnam
France bullhorn


The weapons system needs to be proven/tested, not assumed to be affective.

444
January 1, 2004, 08:33 PM
"The weapons system needs to be proven/tested, not assumed to be affective"
Right, that is the beauty of the M16. It has been proven in battle all over the world for the last 30+ years.
You missed the point about my post. You mention a number of first world countries that have used .30 rifles in the last 50 years. My point is that none of them are using them today. They appearently learned a lesson that the US also learned.
Most of those countries made the switch to faster and lighter bullets somewhere within the last 30 years.
None have gone back.

telewinz
January 1, 2004, 08:51 PM
Right, that is the beauty of the M16. It has been proven in battle all over the world for the last 30+ years. Without documented failure/complaint? Why so many changes then? Has the enemy gotten more resistant like a virus?None have gone back.
I'll ask again, of those who have not gone back, how many have used their "new" weapons system in a prolonged conflict and have been battle tested? I know the Brits are having a real problem with there "new" rifle.

444
January 1, 2004, 09:15 PM
The Brits are having all kinds of problems with their rifle. However, it isn't the cartridge that they are having a problem with. In fact the stuff I have read about it (limited), the British soldier doesn't understand why they can't be using a proven rifle like the American M16 instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, or instead of throwing good money after bad trying to polish the turd that they have.

Who said anything about any rifle, any time in history fielded by any country not having documented failures and complaints ? This has all been covered many, many times but did the .30-06 kill every one, every time ? No. Did the 8mm Mauser kill every one, every time ? No. Did the 7.62 x 54R kill everyone, every time ? No. 7.62x39 ? .45 ACP ?, 9mm ?, 5.56 NATO......................... No.

How many prolonged conflicts have there been in the last 50 years ? None on the scale of WWII that is for sure. The Americans have probably seen more combat than most, the Russians would be close. Both are using a roughly .22 caliber bullet at fairly high velocity.

telewinz
January 2, 2004, 06:20 AM
You have more posts than me so you must be right. Thats going to be my deciding factor from now on.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Things HAVE changed since Vietnam!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!