Gravel Belly or otherwise?


PDA






Redlg155
March 18, 2012, 08:21 PM
It seems that for a while shooters, mainly the military, had gotten away from accurate sustained fire to volume fire using high capacity weapons. We went from the M14, even though mags were considered high capacity -the weight of rounds limited the amount of ammo carried, to the small calibrer M16. The 1911 went to the high capacity 9mm.

Just curious, would you go to battle with the M14 and have the limited number of rounds, or choose the M16? How about the 1911 and lower capacity or the M9 and higher capacity?

Are you confident with fewer,but more effective rounds? I seem to be stuck in-between the two. At my side is a Glock 34 with 17rds of 9mm JHP. My bedside rifle is a M1a Scout. Go figure.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gravel Belly or otherwise?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jeepnik
March 18, 2012, 08:31 PM
Hmm, well I know the 1911 works. I've had an AR fail. I really like my Scout/Squad (heck it's what we should have had instead of the M-16). So, I'm, a 1911/M-14 man.

MutinousDoug
March 18, 2012, 08:32 PM
Pick your scenario:
Desert, prairie, tundra, mountains?
Urban, forest, canyon breaks?
Non-combatants, free fire zone?
Makes a difference.

Robbins290
March 18, 2012, 08:32 PM
M14/1911 all the way!!!

Robert
March 18, 2012, 08:34 PM
Ar/ 1911

rcmodel
March 18, 2012, 08:34 PM
I think there is no good answer to the question.

I am an old school, died in the wool M1 30-06, M14 .308, and 45 ACP guy, trained in the old school US Army.

However, if I still had to hump my own ammo supply for days or weeks on end, in addition to todays sandbox heavy body armor & water load?
And depend on aircraft resupply halfway around the world?

I'd opt for more, lighter ammo in both cases.
The aircraft resupply ammo cases, and my body armor mag cases.

I'd rather be armed with a smaller caliber rifle & pistol with plenty of ammo for them, then a larger caliber rifle and pistol with no ammo for them.

rc

Ranger30-06
March 18, 2012, 08:40 PM
I really wouldn't want either; I'd rather something in the middle, like 6.8 SPC or .300 BLK. I like having plenty of ammo, but deep in my heart I'm not keen on having a hyper velocity .22 as my primary caliber...

As far as handguns go, my only purpose for a handgun would be to get to a rifle, in which my .40 S&W or soon to be 9x18 Mak will do just fine.

jeepnik
March 18, 2012, 08:44 PM
I think there is no good answer to the question.

I am an old school, died in the wool M1 30-06, M14 .308, and 45 ACP guy, trained in the old school US Army.

However, if I still had to hump my own ammo supply for days or weeks on end, in addition to todays sandbox heavy body armor & water load?
And depend on aircraft resupply halfway around the world?

I'd opt for more, lighter ammo in both cases.
The aircraft resupply ammo cases, and my body armor mag cases.

I'd rather be armed with a smaller caliber rifle & pistol with plenty of ammo for them, then a larger caliber rifle and pistol with no ammo for them.

rc
My eldest found out that in Iraq, his M-16 was okay. It was a total failure in Afghanistan as the enemy learned to lengthen the engagement range. Some how he "located" an M-14. For him, Afghanistan wasn't the same type of high volume of fire situation that Iraq was.

Redlg155
March 18, 2012, 08:48 PM
I agree that enemy/situation/terrain would somewhat dictate the weapon choice. Our guys shooting 14.5" M4s at a bad guy weighing 130lbs and high on khat found out that it probably wasn't a good choice.

However, I would think that the right caliber would suffice in the majority of situations if you tailor the ammo choice to the situation..

Nushif
March 18, 2012, 09:23 PM
I agree that enemy/situation/terrain would somewhat dictate the weapon choice.

Please tell me you're not really a Redleg. Because when they trained me to be a Redleg they beat into our heads that no situation is ever alike and that MET-TC is *always* your first consideration.

My answer to the notion of an "ideal weapon" for the Armed Forces of the US is an ICBM. Along with twelve satellites so we know where to put the ICBM and the Artillery, ten Paladins, five Artillery batteries (staffed by people with no desire to get up and close) and a BN of Infantry in case anything remains.

This notion of a soldier's worth on battlefield being measured in their ability to deliver a one inch group at 100 yards as if they're on the range is simply unrealistic.

Sorry. I'll stop venting. But I am thoroughly tired of people wanting me to carry thirty pounds more on my fractured shins because of better "terminal ballistics" in my handheld weapons.

Driftertank
March 18, 2012, 09:27 PM
I'll take the bigger bullets, please.

But then, my view is tempered by being a civvie, and a big one with a rather physical job. Lugging a ten-pound rifle and 20 pounds of ammo, with a pack weighing 50 pounds or so ain't so bad when i've spent the last ten years wrestling with engines, stuck bolts and big, stupid-heavy chrome wheels for 8-10 hours a day. Still not my idea of a good time, but were i in a situation where i run the risk of being shot at, i think i'd bear it happily.

But like i said, i'm a civvie, i've never shot full auto at someone trying to kill me, worn body armor, or gotten an airdrop resupply. I'm used to paying for my ammo, and making every round count.

Maybe if i was in the military, i'd learn to love volume fire and lighter ammo.

Redlg155
March 18, 2012, 09:28 PM
To put it on Arty terms...would you rather have DPICM rounds or standard HE?:D

Copperhead or Fire for effect?

JTHunter
March 18, 2012, 11:41 PM
Quality over Quantity, every time!

maskedman504
March 18, 2012, 11:53 PM
AR / 1911

Clip someone with an AR @ 200 yards and they aren't going to bother you anymore.

Up close and personal I would prefer a 1911 (actually would prefer my CZ 97B-wasn't an option though). I kinda like a 'dropkicks' over 'jabs' in wrestling/boxing/mma. :D

doc2rn
March 19, 2012, 01:02 AM
When you are out of beans, bullets, bandaids and surrounded by bad guys you are in combat! Marines will tell ya there is no such thing as enuff ammo! However, long distance engagement is ideal! Unless you are clearing rooms doing MOUNT, you want a heavier bullet!

camar
March 19, 2012, 06:19 AM
I am also old school. I never heard of "double tap" when we had the 30- 06,
.308 or the .45. You really don't expend that many rounds in a fire fight. I feel every comfortable carrying a M-1 Garand, M-14, or a 1911.

The M-16 brought us the spray and pray. With this you would need a lot of ammo. The 5.56 round could not compare with the 30-06 or .308 in one shot kills. And we were up against LBF's (Little Bitty F&&kers) with out heavy clothing on. We had single shot and full auto. I did not allow my Marines to use full auto because it was a waste of ammo. I could go into more detail but its late and I am tired.

Dr.Rob
March 20, 2012, 01:29 AM
As much as I like the 1911 I shoot a BHP better.

If the real deal Colt M-4 is as good as the 6920, sign me up for one.

I didn't have much interest in AR's til I bought one. I grew up shooting buckhorn sights and later scoped hunting rifles. "Military' sights were kind of a mystery to me. Now that I 'get' it to some extent I see why people praise the rifle--if not the cartridge.

Averageman
March 20, 2012, 10:03 AM
If you look at things then M1 and now M4 one of the biggest differences is we had a great group of civilian marksmen to choose from.
More rural and farm boys who hunted in the 30',40's and 50's than in 90's '00's and '10.
Hunters have an eye for movement that is more detail oriented and experianced putting meat on the table that leads to quicker center mass shots.
For the most part the tacitics of fix the enemy with machinegun fire and manuver to the flanks and envelop have changed to Fix them enemy with everybody firing , call in air support and take out the grid square.
This may not be in the books as the proper tactic, but it is what I see happening.
As a retired professional soldier I find this a bit disconcerting to say the least.

X-Rap
March 20, 2012, 10:08 AM
JMO but I will take the M4 and the extra ammo. If the fight is distant 300/500+ then throw on an ACOG. My guess is the guy with that set up will be making pretty solid hits compared to iron sights on a stock M1 or M14. Take the fight in close with an EOtec on the M4 and with its ergonomics it will run circles around the full size rifles.
As far as pistols, I'll leave them in lieu of optics for the M4;)

Black Duck Charlie
March 20, 2012, 11:32 PM
Accuracy over quantity, every time. A miss is a miss, no matter how many times you miss or how "close" the miss is.

Averageman
March 21, 2012, 01:16 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ2SWWDt8Wg
Machine gunners helemt cam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6O2cUXtA-Y0
Another helmet cam video. I was really very surprised these guys didn't hit an IED leapfrogging on that road.

Averageman
March 21, 2012, 05:56 PM
All in all you can see although we have the technical edge, we dont seem to be making use of it in the above two video's.
As we speak about larger caliber rounds the ability to lay in accurate fire with 30 cal or better would have significantly hurt that second patrol. 3 to five riflemen could have really ate their lunch.
Thank goodness the Afghani's hadn't laid in their mortars and IED's and created a true killing zone.

But I'm an old Soldier and at 50+ with my last trip 2 years ago, I sit here in safety with a ham sandwich and a double hernia healing.

CoRoMo
March 21, 2012, 06:00 PM
Are you confident with fewer,but more effective rounds?
...
No handgun [round] is adequate. I want more bullets.
James Yeager

dprice3844444
March 21, 2012, 06:26 PM
well,during vietnam,they had a different mindset during training than korea and ww2.since they had a light fast firing full auto weapon with a light cartridge,the basic training rules went out the window.just spray and pray.ww2/korea had the garand,which they improved to a bigger magazine capacity with the 14.the previous could not do that,no full auto weapons to every man,so they basically spent more time at the range teaching them to shoot,and as one pointed out,the farmers and midwest folks grew up shooting.the only branches that were beating into the soldiers heads aimed fire single shot only was s/f.they had to make their supplies last because of where they operated,resupply may not have been an option.

and as to the point,m4,extra ammo,acog.m9,extra ammo.with the armour etc,more food and water can be carried untill resupply.semi auto aimed fire only
other note,as far as rifles out of the box accuracy,m4 is more accurate.

B!ngo
March 22, 2012, 06:13 PM
So this is probably old news to the informed here on THR, but I find this number astonishing (actually I had heard an even higher number but at some point, it's just amazing):
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread173251/pg1
Assuming this is at all accurate, one has to wonder if it's this high because our folks have the resources and equipment to deliver it? Or do the circumstances require it?
B

Bayou Redd
March 22, 2012, 06:49 PM
My Basic Training was right after Viet Nam; 76 to be exact. It was easy to tell with live fire what folks were comfortable with. We all learned how to pull the trigger for a 3 round burst & some of us did better than others. Folks who grew up hunting & shooting were very comfortable with that technique as well as semi-auto fire. Folks who weren't tended to just start spraying. It's just my opinion, but I think that out brothers who saw the actual battlefield were no different. The military pulls in as diverse a group of people as is out there and yesterday just like today, there is a difference with weapon handling comfort zones. Nothing is 100% when you're dealing with such diversity, but in my case, I fear the sniper more than 10 screaming yahoos coming at me, so I choose the m14.

Prince Yamato
March 22, 2012, 07:49 PM
I think I'd want the lightest in recoil and weight. Maybe an mp7 or p90 and either a Glock 19 or 5.7 pistol.

jerryd
March 22, 2012, 07:58 PM
Was issued both in jan 67 used both till dec 68 and have been carrying a 1911 since!!! They both work why change?????:):)

SwissArmyDad
March 23, 2012, 04:27 PM
9mm and 5.56...

I shoot much better with those two calibers than I do with .45 and 30-06, and really like the handguns/rifles that fire them.

In a world where only hits count, those two would be best for me.

JTHunter
March 23, 2012, 05:33 PM
With the lighter recoil of those two calibers, it is easier to get back on target, if you did lose your sight picture at all. The problem is that you might have to shoot again with those lighter loads.
With the heavier loads available in the higher calibers, even if you did lose your sigh picture, chances are you don't have to worry about it.

Unless you missed! :D

rwilson37643
March 23, 2012, 06:41 PM
I would say that one of the first questions you must ask is how much ammo is enough?
I just weighed some ammo, if 300 rounds are enough I would prefer .308 at 16.11 pounds over .223 at 8.16 pounds, but if I need 1000rounds, I'll take .223 at 27.20 pounds over .308 at 53.7 pounds. the state of the supply line would be a very important consideration.

Eric M
March 23, 2012, 10:04 PM
AR-15 and a Browning Hi Power or CZ-75 is what I would use.

Wildbillz
March 24, 2012, 04:08 PM
Someone once said

"We may never be able to develop a weapon that is both light enough and has the desired firepower that the US Infantryman wants"

I don't know who it was? But more true words have never been spoken.

WB

xfyrfiter
March 24, 2012, 04:39 PM
I read an article a couple of years ago that had the USMC under scrutiny for too many head shots, suspicion of using advanced weaponry or some such. Came out that it was a line soldier with standard M4 and ACOG. these weapons are very accurate and will do the job with the right trigger puller behind them. BTW I think this was a UN directed article.

Redlg155
March 24, 2012, 10:20 PM
I would think it strange as well since head shots should be the exception rather than the norm. A M4 with an ACOG can be very accurate, but it does have its limitations.

SimplyChad
March 25, 2012, 07:09 AM
Im currently boots on ground in afghanistan. Our average firefights are takin place at over 800 yards. Sometimes its 1200 plus with enfiled and mosins. Enemies on higher ground trying to drop rounds on guys. At that distance the M4 is only spray vs spray until the EBR or 240 gets to the area. Just about every solider im my platoon wishes they had the m14. When the EBR gunners go on leave the almost fight over them. Yea they are longer and take more time for accuate movements but having the ability to actually reach that guy a click away. No contect in the war Im fighting now. M14/1911.

Driftertank
March 26, 2012, 11:43 AM
IIRC, the boggle over the high incidence of headshots in Iraq was that somebody somwhere figured that the only way we could get so many headshots was if our guys were executing captured insurgents and claiming it was happening during firefights.

Again, IIRC, what the research found was that many firefights were initiated as an ambush by insurgents behind roof coamings and barriers, and the only target presented to our guys was the head and shoulders. So that's what got shot at.

Yes, despite all the "spray and pray" detractors, our guys are still BY FAR better riflemen than their adversaries, for the most part.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gravel Belly or otherwise?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!