strangelittleman
Member
Didn't some of the M14s go to the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? I wonder if we could get them back?
Army unit told to turn in their HK 416's
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
R127
Member
Not likely. Right now several of those countries are destroying their own C&R eligible surplus firearms because of a mix of political and foreign aid agreements. I think most of it is coming from UN initiatives, like everything else.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
Interesting statement. Do you care to elaborate???
Ash
Member
Texas, the DCM existed long before FFL's. LONG BEFORE. As in, a generation before. I would have thought you knew that. Could it be creased today? No. But like many government entities, it survived. Though now, it is spun-off and, as a result, will go out of business when suitable parts and non-machine guns are no longer available.
Ash
Ash
No one really knows outside of those who made the decision. I would imagine that the decision has nothing to do with politics or with either the M4's or the 416's capabilities, but instead has to do with the task that the AWG is designed for, but I admit that is just speculation on my part.
As to your piston AR running cleaner than your DI AR, that really does not tell us anything about either rifle's ability to perform a given task. One gets dirtier than the other, that is fine, but does that mean that the DI system is unreliable? The 416 has a use, and that is with short barrels and with suppressors. Other than those applications it offers no real improvement over the standard M4.
Thin Black Line
Member
No problem:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=264210&highlight=magpul+pmag
Don't get me wrong --I'd love to see a reliable AMERICAN made system
and if it's the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR, that would be great.
I just don't want to see a situation where the first shipment of ACRs go
out and have the end-user work out the bugs.
Wouldn't you agree?
The Scout
Member
Didn't something like this happen when the SEAL's were formed? The gov't tried issuing M14s to them that they didn't want, so an officer finally went out and bought CAR-15s (not sure, it could have been another carbine) out of his own pocket because they fit the job description.
The Scout
Member
Yes, thanks for clarifying that, I guess it didn't come out as clearly as I wanted.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Certainly I know that, but it's not really the point is it. When FFLs came out the CMP was not forbidden from continuing to do business because it was enacted with an act of Congress. Congress could easily tell the ATF to drop the "once a machinegun" rule, or to leave law abiding gun dealers alone, or any number of other things.....
But they haven't, and won't.
PeteRR
Member
You know how you can tell when you're winning a war? When the REMF's start enforcing the rules.
In my opinion this is the link. I have no doubt that Colt lobbyists have done what they can to get alternative rifles out of the hands of US troops. Colt knows that a successful alternative puts the M4 monopoly in jeopardy.
All it takes is a few questions from a Congressional staffer, and Government officials will take the path of least resistance and eliminate the problem. HK out, Colt back in.
R127
Member
TexasRifleman, the president has the authority to tell the ATF to drop the "once a machinegun..." nonsense also. In fact he has the authority to tell the ATF to go sit on their hands. Just imagine if we stopped playing good cop/bad cop every election and actually got an honorable man or woman into office. Wouldn't that be something? Imagine how much money this country could make by first taking taxpayer money to buy a whole bunch of guns like Bulgarian AK-47's, M-14's or HK 416's and then sell those same taxpayer bought rifles back to the taxpayers when they are retired for whatever the reason of the moment is. And everybody would be happy.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Oh yes, I know.
Bush I was anti, Clinton destroyed all the M14s, Bush 2 said he'd sign the AWB if it got to him.
Not filling me with hope here man........
Ash
Member
Once a machine gun always a machine gun is not related to FFL transfers. A rifle sold by the CMP can be owned by anyone in America under normal circumstances. But, so can any rifle sold through an FFL. A CMP Garand, 1916 Mosin, 1903, or any other rifle is identical to a Garand, Mosin, 1903, etc. sold at a Pawn shop. Indeed, many CMP Garands are bought and sold by FFL's.
However, a machinegun cannot be owned by just anyone. All the tax requirements must be met. AND, machineguns are not at all related to the CMP/DCM mission, which is to create competent marksmen.
While a semi-auto only M14 would fit the marksmanship bill, it still is a machinegun by ATF standards. Selling a machinegun, then, is not within the purvue of the CMP/DCM nor has it ever been. Machineguns are not carried by average soldiers. The DCM/CMP was created to increase the marksmanship competency of conscripts prior to enlistment. The CMP never had BAR's or 1919 Brownings available for sale - nor did anyone try to make them available that I am aware of.
Besides, when it comes to marksmanship training, the M14 can do nothing better than the Garand. Not to start that whole mess over again, but in marksmanship training, one needs nothing more than a single shot. In training to shoot well, there is nothing at all that an m14 can do better than a Garand. Even if one wishes to argue that an M14 is more accurate, for the purposes of the CMP such accuracy is irrelevant. A man trained on a Garand will be just as competent a marksman as one trained on the M14. As training rifles go, they are the same. You use the sights the same. They have the same triggers. They are, as a general rule, equally accurate.
So, there was never a reason to make M14's special in the eyes of the law regarding machineguns for the CMP. The Garand accomplishes the same mission as established for the CMP. EXACTLY the same mission.
Ash
(By the way, I would have loved to have been able to buy an m14 through the CMP, so I am not happy it never happened. I just understand why.)
However, a machinegun cannot be owned by just anyone. All the tax requirements must be met. AND, machineguns are not at all related to the CMP/DCM mission, which is to create competent marksmen.
While a semi-auto only M14 would fit the marksmanship bill, it still is a machinegun by ATF standards. Selling a machinegun, then, is not within the purvue of the CMP/DCM nor has it ever been. Machineguns are not carried by average soldiers. The DCM/CMP was created to increase the marksmanship competency of conscripts prior to enlistment. The CMP never had BAR's or 1919 Brownings available for sale - nor did anyone try to make them available that I am aware of.
Besides, when it comes to marksmanship training, the M14 can do nothing better than the Garand. Not to start that whole mess over again, but in marksmanship training, one needs nothing more than a single shot. In training to shoot well, there is nothing at all that an m14 can do better than a Garand. Even if one wishes to argue that an M14 is more accurate, for the purposes of the CMP such accuracy is irrelevant. A man trained on a Garand will be just as competent a marksman as one trained on the M14. As training rifles go, they are the same. You use the sights the same. They have the same triggers. They are, as a general rule, equally accurate.
So, there was never a reason to make M14's special in the eyes of the law regarding machineguns for the CMP. The Garand accomplishes the same mission as established for the CMP. EXACTLY the same mission.
Ash
(By the way, I would have loved to have been able to buy an m14 through the CMP, so I am not happy it never happened. I just understand why.)
george29 said:
Why assume a conspiracy? Where in the article does this mention any politicians, or the influence of big business? What you propose is speculation with no evidence to back it up. If the decision were to deal with the stipulations and mission of the AWG, would that mean that the troops are being disserved?
SG Merc said:
I would imagine that the Army will find other uses for them, or give them to units that still use the 416. Why do you assume they will be destroyed?
R127
Member
None of that bears up to scrutiny.
So the CMP was established to increase the marksmanship ability of the average recruit prior to his being joined to the military. Obviously then CMP should be teaching marksmanship on whatever the standard issue rifle is. Every issue M-4 or M-16 I've ever heard of is select fire, no semi auto present and that makes all of them machineguns according to the ATF. Therefore the CMP should be distributing machineguns for marksmanship training. In fact the idea that machineguns of any kind are no good for developing marksmanship is also wrong. You can learn to shoot anything well within its parameters. There is nothing wrong or invalid about learning to shoot any kind of machinegun well unless you really believe the Brady Bunch's "spray and pray" nonsense.
It didn't happen because some politicians are scared of losing their monopoly on force. The same reason they pushed through the NFA in the first place. There is no logical or legal reason M-14's, M-16's or any future standard issue rifle should not be available through the CMP.
So the CMP was established to increase the marksmanship ability of the average recruit prior to his being joined to the military. Obviously then CMP should be teaching marksmanship on whatever the standard issue rifle is. Every issue M-4 or M-16 I've ever heard of is select fire, no semi auto present and that makes all of them machineguns according to the ATF. Therefore the CMP should be distributing machineguns for marksmanship training. In fact the idea that machineguns of any kind are no good for developing marksmanship is also wrong. You can learn to shoot anything well within its parameters. There is nothing wrong or invalid about learning to shoot any kind of machinegun well unless you really believe the Brady Bunch's "spray and pray" nonsense.
It didn't happen because some politicians are scared of losing their monopoly on force. The same reason they pushed through the NFA in the first place. There is no logical or legal reason M-14's, M-16's or any future standard issue rifle should not be available through the CMP.
Ash
Member
You miss the point. It isn't about familiarizing citizens with current hardware. It is about having citizens who are competent marksmen. A Garand does that just fine. So would a single-shot 22. A machinegun, however, would not.
The military has traditionally often trained with weapons that were not standard combat arms of the day. Krags or Mosins in WWI, Mossberg 22's in WWII, and others. In any case, the military will suitably train soldiers in how to use the current service arm. The goal of the CMP is to have them reasonably competent marksmen at that point.
And, the fact is, whether we like it or not, the CMP has failed in its mission as the number of 18 year olds who are CMP shooters is very, very low - no greater a number than those who are already predisposed to hunting/shooting sports. The CMP exists today to enhance the collections of collectors and provide a wholesale source for dishonest dealers (dishonest because they get the rifles not to train with, but to sell at a hefty profit).
Instead of moaning that we can't get Colt M-16A1's (or M14's) from the CMP, we should be glad it hasn't been cancelled.
Ash
The military has traditionally often trained with weapons that were not standard combat arms of the day. Krags or Mosins in WWI, Mossberg 22's in WWII, and others. In any case, the military will suitably train soldiers in how to use the current service arm. The goal of the CMP is to have them reasonably competent marksmen at that point.
And, the fact is, whether we like it or not, the CMP has failed in its mission as the number of 18 year olds who are CMP shooters is very, very low - no greater a number than those who are already predisposed to hunting/shooting sports. The CMP exists today to enhance the collections of collectors and provide a wholesale source for dishonest dealers (dishonest because they get the rifles not to train with, but to sell at a hefty profit).
Instead of moaning that we can't get Colt M-16A1's (or M14's) from the CMP, we should be glad it hasn't been cancelled.
Ash
george29
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,670
And the answer is...
I don't assume conspiracy out of ignorance of history, it's just the first possibility to assume when the REMF's get involved. A once upon a time best friend still works for the Deputy Chief of Staff of an Armed forces (not USA) and his job is to tell the Brigade Commanders / Divisional Commanders how many shells or bullets or god forbid mortars or rockets they may fire for practice. Everything in todays world is viewed as a commodity, including human life. Sorry, its just the way modern armies are run today so yes, IMO, it is all about money, and politics....
.....are the main reason behind what the troops have and how much of it they have. Uf you think I am being anti-patriotic, please feel free to visity your nearest VA and ask the wounded and the ill how they are being treated (Agent Orange, Gulf War syndromes, Walter Reed). I believe that Colt indeed put the pressure on some bigwig that does their bidding for them and these rifles were removed for the exact reason given by SlamFire1. In this case, yeah, I do believe conspiracy.
Eightball
Member
Look, a quick research into the armytimes has shown that they'd rather the military's mainline rifle be the premier melt-o-matic HK XM8, or the "SOCCOM only uses it in short-barrel suppressed versions with very specific roles to fill" HK 416. They're HK fanboys, trying to make this seem more of a crisis than it happens to be--which, to my understanding of why the AWG exists, is no crisis at all.
I fail to see the hype, other than that the HK fanboys over at ArmyTimes are whining again.
EDIT: And oh, for you anti-PMAG guys--they IDed and fixed that problem. Not an issue anymore.
I fail to see the hype, other than that the HK fanboys over at ArmyTimes are whining again.
EDIT: And oh, for you anti-PMAG guys--they IDed and fixed that problem. Not an issue anymore.
jrfoxx
Member
Why is it that EVERY time Americans start talking about the Garand, some Canadian has to spoil our chest thumping ego trip with the truth? Cant y'all just have a Molson, turn on a Leafs game and keep yer mouth shut?
More on topic, inst the biggest fator in the reliability of the M4 really the fact that most have barrels under 14.5" which tends to reduce reliability from the shortening the gas system below what the platform was really designed to work with? When they did the dust tests, was it a 10.5" M4? Wonder how a 16" or 20" m16 would have fared in the same test (maybe it was done and I just dont recall).My guess would be any M4/M16 with a barrel closer to the original design lenght would have done better than a 10.5" barrel.Just my opinion based on lots of reading and heresay, as I have noinfantry experiance, so I have no idea in real life.As to the HK issue.Who knows why they pulled them, and we likely never will know the truth.Could be a politcal/corporate conspiracy, could be money, could be that those in charge felt the group had done what they needed to do with them for now, so they took them back and gave them what everyone else has, etc.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
As far as I know, most of the issues with the PMAG's were short lived and many people had no problems with their original PMAG's. Also, the PMAG's are an excellent product in my opinion. It's not unrealistic to think that the first batch of any particular product may be lagging behind in the quality arena for a short time.
I do not want to be the first person to buy an ACR... I want to know how it is working for people first.
I am not a fan of throwing brand new rifle designs into the hands of our entire military w/o extensive testing and in the middle of a war.
As much as I love the AR15, that was one of the problems with it from the beginning. It was thrown into the fray without extensive testing, problems needed to be diagnosed on the fly and people died because of it.
I have doubts that the first shipment of ACR's will go to the US military.
- Status