Army sees urgent need for M14s in Iraq & Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
My Quote:
Using expanding bullets might make terminal ballistics better in short to medium range fighting, but does nothing to extend the maximum effective range of the 5.56, which is the main reason for needing something like the 7.62x51, .300, .338, .50, etc. In fact, at extended ranges, expansion would probably make it even less effective because penetration would suffer. The need for something more powerful, with extended effective range, is the essence of the debate.

Jason
Click to expand...


bleachcola:
I was under the impression that our infantry assault rifles were mainly use in relatively close quarters, at least within the effective range of a 5.56mm. Don't we already have designated marksmen armed with weapons capable of taking long range shots? And with all the weight that they already have to carry, do the majority of soldiers really wish they had heavier ammo to carry? I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I'm genuinely curious here. I'm not in the military and don't know exactly what those guys are going through.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to some need to have everyone switch to the 7.62, or anything else for that matter. I'm speaking only towards the ends of the OP. In other words, the need for more DMR type rifles to be fielded. I'm not saying everyone should have an M14, SR25, etc., only that there should be at least one in every squad.

Jason
 
bleachcola: So why doesn't the military issue hollow points for all the guys toting M16's? Cost measure perhaps?
Click to expand...

Well, it's already been said. We don't want to piss off the Europeans (not any more than we already do in the first place, anyway). NATO, the UN, etc., would probably not look highly upon us if we broke with international convention, be it official or unspoken. Not saying I agree with it, but there's your answer.

Jason
 
I personally believe that the two platforms show great results when working together. The M16/5.56 is not the answer to EVERY combat situation out there, and neither is the M14/7.62NATO. But together, they can pick up where the other is lacking.
 
In support of LongRangeInternational's point, I put $2500 into a SA M1A loaded, topped it with $1,000 glass. The DPMS LR-308 I just got (24" stainless bull barrel) shoots better out of the box with $300 glass and only cost $1100, less than I paid for the M1A to start. My AR10-A4C shoots better than the M1A for $1200. I am mightily disappointed with the M1A in this regard, but I still keep it around for the nostalgia.

With both the LR-308 and the AR10 I routinely get sub-MOA groups at 300 yds. The M1A prints 1 to 1.5 MOA, but it comes at about 3 times the cost. Not a cost effective trade, if you ask me.
 
My M1a was less accurate than my Garand but was three times the cost. Now, it was plenty accurate for hunting and the like, I won't say it was inaccurate. But given that the Garand was the better of the two rifles, and they have the same sights. it seemed the M1a was redundant.

Ash
 
In Eastern America, one can normally deerhunt with a shotgun, bow, or 7.62x39. In the bushveld of South Africa, 308, .303 and .375 H & H are way more common. The answer: Bigger game and longer ranges. If I was in those mountains in Afghanistan, I would want a rifle where I could reach out and touch somebody. In a squad, have 2 or 3.
 
I like the big old M1 Garand, it is the first rifle I learned to shoot.
I don't own a Garand and have no plans to own one.

I prefer the M14. It can be extremely accurate and I like magazine fed weapons.
I also like to modernize and modify my weapons - I don't see myself doing either to a Garand.
 
I'll have to google up the statistics, but most production DOD M14s were detroyed under paid disposal contracts during the Clinton Era. As I recall, most of the actual inventory (60-80%) were cut (torched) in half and then taken out for dumping in the Atlantic. Several millions of dollars were spent on this project.

A smaller portion were given to certain allies. Estonia has enough M14s to equip most of its military although they never did adopt them as standard issue when I was there.

Though some stocks of M14s are left, it's not the vast numbers many would imagine.

The point which is really being missed by most debaters on this issue is that damn few human beings can hit anything at long range with a rifle anyway. Most US Soldiers are incapable of consistently hitting anything past 400 meters with a rifle. That's against a stationary range target.

Hell, most guys can't even PID a target at that range without using a significant optic. In reality, hitting a manuevering target in combat at 150 yards is damn fine shooting.

As to Afghan or Iraqi marksmanship prowess...echoing what others have said...it ain't there. There are exceptions (there always are), but as a culture of shooters, both our allies and enemies are some of the poorest shots on the planet. I mean abysmally poor shots.

The supposition that handing every Joe a more powerfully recoiling scoped MBR will somehow result in a magic ability to dust folks at 800+ yards is pure fantasy.

Without competent training, M21/M25 vs SR-25 is just a Ford vs Chevy thing...
 
Clinton needs to be tried for treason.....both of them.
Where's their rights?......I do not recall.
 
Posted by Chindo18Z
The point which is really being missed by most debaters on this issue is that damn few human beings can hit anything at long range with a rifle anyway. Most US Soldiers are incapable of consistently hitting anything past 400 meters with a rifle. That's against a stationary range target.

Hell, most guys can't even PID a target at that range without using a significant optic. In reality, hitting a manuevering target in combat at 150 yards is damn fine shooting.

As to Afghan or Iraqi marksmanship prowess...echoing what others have said...it ain't there. There are exceptions (there always are), but as a culture of shooters, both our allies and enemies are some of the poorest shots on the planet. I mean abysmally poor shots.

The supposition that handing every Joe a more powerfully recoiling scoped MBR will somehow result in a magic ability to dust folks at 800+ yards is pure fantasy.

Without competent training, M21/M25 vs SR-25 is just a Ford vs Chevy thing...
Click to expand...

The point YOU missed is that the Army and Marine Corps have NO intention of "handing every Joe" an M14. They have NO intention of replacing the M16 with M14's as the primary issue rifle.

If you had bothered to read the Jane's article the OP posted, the military intends to expand the M14's role as a DESIGNATED MARKSMAN weapon. Designated marksmen are HIGHLY TRAINED at long range shooting, and the M14 is the personal choice of many of them.

"The Designated Marksman (DM) is a military marksman role in a U.S. infantry squad. The term sniper is used in Soviet and Russian doctrine. The analogous role in the Israeli army is "squad sniper."

The DM's role is to supply rapid accurate fire on enemy targets at ranges up to 800 meters (875 yd) with a highly-accurate semiautomatic rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. Like snipers, DM's are trained in quick and precise shooting, but unlike the more specialised "true" sniper, they are also intended to lay down accurate rapid fire."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_marksman
Click to expand...

U.S. Marine Corps Designated Marksman (And you see what he's firing! ;) ) :

300px-Designated_Marksman_Rifle_2.jpg
 
I date back to M1 Grand, carbine, Thompson, and BAR, (loved shooting it but carrying it was a pain in the ...), Seen the M14 come and go way to fast and the M16 come on and hang on like a woodtick ever since. I thought it was a mistake in the 60's and think it is a mistake now. If the desk soldiers wanted to reduce the load they could have done it with a 7 or 6.5 but nope and the spray and pray school was born. I am the first to admit I am not up on modern tactics or strategy, come to think of it neither is the White house or pentagon but I believe as a squad leader I don't see how you could improve on a squad of M14 users, a couple of shot gunners and a sniper. I keep up on all the so called wonder calibers and wonder bullets fired in the wonder guns, I saw the same thing with the gyro jet and the M16. I am to old to swallow the hype as easily today as I was back then. You still can't beat a bigger hole, a heavier bullet and marksmanship. I point to the 45 ACP as a prime example of an obsolete caliber with a fairly low ME that still stomps the booger man to the ground with fewer shots needed than the 9MM can no matter what kind of bullet you put in it.
Click to expand...

What is interesting is during the first Gulf war a number of Marines that were issued 9mm got them swapped with the 1911 .45s. It makes you wonder why.
As for the M1 thru the M16 era I entered the Corp during that transition 1963 to 1970. I would take the M1 or AR10 anything they have today. It also seems the M1 did a pretty good job at clearing buildings, close up shooting, and long range shooting. I think what got lost is ability of the high military leaders to understand battles are won by the grunts with a battle rifle that works whether it's a long range or short range.
I'll take the M1 above all other so called battle rifles.
 
Defensory,

The point you are missing is that Chindo18Z was making a generalized point about those nostalgic for a triumphant return of the M14 against the AR-based rifles/carbines.

I doubt anyone fails to understand in this thread that the direct discussion is about the M14 and where it would work, but also where it would not work very well at all.

The M1 Garand, also, wasn't the greatest room-clearer in WWII. That was up to submachine guns and grenades.

Ash
 
The M1 Garand, also, wasn't the greatest room-clearer in WWII. That was up to submachine guns and grenades.
Click to expand...

And it still is. At least with an M1 clearing a building you don't have to worry about the person getting back up. Especially one who's wearing body armor.
 
Of course, nobody wore body armor in WWII.

Today, 8 rounds before reloading would not be ideal for room-clearing even against guys with body armor.

But, I think the M1 was a superb battle rifle for its day, and am convinced a squad of highly-trained shooters armed with Garands would still be fearsome on a modern open battlefield.

Ash
 
The M14 platform takes more time/money to make it accurate....once you get it up to standard it takes even more money to keep it there. Why do you think the majority of the civilian across the course shooters have transitioned to the ar-15? They just can't afford the cost associated with maintaining an m1a. The ar is simple, install a good barrel, add a free float handguard, replace barrel as needed. Same thing with the ar-10/sr-25.
 
redneckdan The M14 platform takes more time/money to make it accurate....once you get it up to standard it takes even more money to keep it there.
Click to expand...

It may take a little cash to achieve MOA or better from an M14, but there are no problems or additional costs keeping it there.
Maintenance cost are no higher than any other system and the modernized M14 actually exhibit reduced maintenance.
 
What is interesting is during the first Gulf war a number of Marines that were issued 9mm got them swapped with the 1911 .45s. It makes you wonder why.
Click to expand...

Anyone who has handled military issue 1911s as they existed by the early 1990s would, indeed, have to wonder. Having had occasion to take a look at some still issued to National Guardsmen a few years after the Gulf War, I can safely say I've never seen a more run down collection of pistols. They rattled so badly one could almost shake them apart, and, I'm told, accuracy was appalling.

But I'm sure marines (especially those with the benefit of the wholly inadequate pistol training the military gives most issued handguns) read gun magazines like everyone else, and so "knew" the mighty 1911 and 45 ACP were so fearsome even a near miss would drop an Iraqi in his tracks :rolleyes:

As for the M1 thru the M16 era I entered the Corp during that transition 1963 to 1970. I would take the M1 or AR10 anything they have today. It also seems the M1 did a pretty good job at clearing buildings, close up shooting, and long range shooting.
Click to expand...

It bears noting that the "most combat occurs within 300 meters, and almost all successful engagements with individual weapons occurs within 100 meters" number were based on the performance of troops armed with the M1.

So it would appear that the M1 did not do a particularly good job of long range shooting.

Anyone who's handled one realizes it is far from ideal for close up and, especially, CQB work.

I think what got lost is ability of the high military leaders to understand battles are won by the grunts with a battle rifle that works whether it's a long range or short range.
Click to expand...

The milltary rifle, since 1916 or so, has been increasingly adapted and optimized for how infantry combat really occurs. The M1 was a big step forward on that path compared to bolt guns (at least being semi-auto was; the caliber and sights are both ridiculous for a combat gun), but it was certainly not the perfect expression of what the infantryman needs.

I'll take the M1 above all other so called battle rifles.
Click to expand...

I like the design enough that I own two of them, but it's simply and utterly obsolete.
 
It may take a little cash to achieve MOA or better from an M14, but there are no problems or additional costs keeping it there.
Maintenance cost are no higher than any other system and the modernized M14 actually exhibit reduced maintenance.
Click to expand...

Have you ever noticed that most people who've actually seen the sky don't tend to agree when you insist it is red and not blue?

Any number of people who are sufficiently fond of the M14 that they shoot them in competition will disagree with you about the M14 being easy to keep accurate.

Troops who've been issued the things in theater will disagree with you that they're easy to keep accurate.

But, hey, if one squints just right while wearing rose colored glasses, maybe the sky is kind of vaguely red . . .
 
Okay, don't flame me if my comment is completely stupid but what about getting a bunch of AR Uppers in .243?
 
HorseSoldier,

you are stuck on old school NM accuracy modifications that are fragile.

Any number of people who know anything about the modernized M14
will disagree with you about the M14 not being easy to keep accurate
and they will point out that modernized M14s are easier to keep clean.

Remove your blinders and you shall see the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
So what rifles are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
5K
Tezza
T
C
  • Locked
Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
X-Rap
X-Rap
B
  • Locked
Army Times: M4 to be tested against other rifles including XM8
Replies
3
Views
713
Kaylee
K
B
  • Locked
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer: A critique.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
7K
d2wing
d2wing
C
  • Locked
Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top