Army sees urgent need for M14s in Iraq & Afghanistan

[Aka Zero]

A few other good choices for a med-long range rifle.

FN-herstal Scar Heavy, long barrel. also .308 Brand new, lots of rails for people that can't live without a million bolt ons.

Fal, G3, HKs. All in .308, all at one time (or still) a service rifle.

Or why not a Masada. modular caliber. 7.62 for using found ammo, 5.56 for standard roles (requires receiver change though) and the "precision" version has a 24" barrel and shoots .308.

Have people pick parts and assemble their own gun almost.

But... still really like the m-14. great gun in general. It's just some people can't get past "old gun better than new gun". But I have a severe dislike for and m-4, m-16, and generally any rifle in 5.56/ .223.

 

[LongRangeInternational]

Let's see here. A $1100 DPMS will shoot sub MOA out to 1K yards out of the box. My SR25 shot 1MOAish in urban combat and here's a little quote from my award writeup: " At 550 yards, Corporal Shepperson eliminated three of the four insurgents with well-placed shots to the head." So which design is inherently more accurate? The SR25 with minimal maintenance did that in combat. You have to spend $5K (by your own admission on another site) to get an SEI that might shoot as well as an $1100 DPMS. Someone in this very thread posted his experience of pouring money into the M1A platform only to have a far cheaper DPMS outshoot it. So, who's wearing blinders again?

All I did was punch the barrel every few days and add lube. Don't preach to me about how fragile SR25s are in combat and how superior the SEI is, H20 Man. Listen to what I'm saying. It worked for me and my Marines in urban combat in a desert environment.

As far as the "modern" M14, when are you going to start posting facts instead of "remove your blinders." People at M4Carbine.net posted facts and you simply clammed up. Tell us from a technical standpoint exactly how the "modern" M14 is so danged superior.

 

[Deer Hunter]

I think that soldiers should be issued what is best for them, meaning most modular and easy to transition.

The last people I would listen to is the actual soldiers.

The last time I talked to a soldier who was in Iraq, he told me how much he hated the M4. I asked him if he wanted something different. He said, "Hell yeah! They need to give us some f***ing P90s!"

He then went off into some more ramblings about dragonskin, .50 barret (on an individual soldier level) and said how he hated the M60 and M240 because they were so heavy.

Now, I know that this is just one occurance, but it highlights an important issue. Our soldiers in the armed forces today, at least some of them (if not more), grew up with Counter Strike (1.6 and source).

I know there is a place for the .308 platform in the military. I also think that either the M14 or AR10 would easily fill the role. We can prattle all day long about which is better, but in the end we probably wont have changed either side's opinions and most likely will leave the forum with a bad taste in our mouths.

 

[LongRangeInternational]

I wouldn't generalize the entire military by one you heard out of the mouth of one young soldier, Deer Hunter.

Is this well though out enough for you?

 

[LongRangeInternational]

Some of the arguments on this thread define emotional attachment to one's gear.

 

[Art Eatman]

Seven pages is more than enough. Hard to add anything useful after three pages or so...