Army training with new rifles
- Thread starter H2O MAN
- Start date
- Status
I'd take my 5.45x39 AK to war. 
Victim of my own inability to avoid the bait. Caliber is much less important to me in a war setting than many other things. And no one soldier can have the single tool in his bag that addresses every scenario or eventuality that many point to to back up their argument in these debates. That's why we fight with our fellow soldiers in units of varying sizes with varying tool sets. The average rifleman in any squad is well served carrying any standard issue caliber. 
Thus goes my version of events. Bask in the glory of me...
ok that last part might be a little over the top?
Byte
EDIT Oh heck! I forgot to comment on the more than awesome M14's pictured! Pretty sexy metal if I may say so. I have contemplated ripping my SOCOMII apart and slapping the meat and potatoes into a Troy or Sage stock system. I am kinda partial to the traditional stock design, however. At least I tell myself I do...much much cheaper that way!
Victim of my own inability to avoid the bait. Caliber is much less important to me in a war setting than many other things. And no one soldier can have the single tool in his bag that addresses every scenario or eventuality that many point to to back up their argument in these debates. That's why we fight with our fellow soldiers in units of varying sizes with varying tool sets. The average rifleman in any squad is well served carrying any standard issue caliber. Thus goes my version of events. Bask in the glory of me...
ok that last part might be a little over the top?Byte
EDIT Oh heck! I forgot to comment on the more than awesome M14's pictured! Pretty sexy metal if I may say so. I have contemplated ripping my SOCOMII apart and slapping the meat and potatoes into a Troy or Sage stock system. I am kinda partial to the traditional stock design, however. At least I tell myself I do...much much cheaper that way!
GarandOwner
Member
Not really "new" in any way shape or form, the M14 has been in continuous service since it was introduced as the main battle rifle in 1957.....just because it is no longer the MBR doesnt mean that they havent still been in service. (Side note, the M14 has been in service longer than any other US rifle, except for the M1903 and its variants which was in service for 54 years, so if the military doesnt drop the M14 completely within the next 4 years, it will hold the record for longest in service as well as shortest as MBR )
" I dont need no teenage queen, I just want my M-14!"
) " I dont need no teenage queen, I just want my M-14!"
Kind of Blued
Member
Did anybody tell the military that CMP has really cheap Garands for sale?
sarduy
Member
i think H2O is happy to see he's rifle in the military hands for offen
great looking pic.
great looking pic.
stiletto raggio
Member
The 5.56 is fine for anything inside 500m. What is not fine are the crap bullets we use. If they issues the Black Hills BTHP loads being used by SF (fact, not rumor) we would have a lot less complaints aobut the perceived lack of stopping power.
For all you battle rifle lovers out there, please explain to me how a 22" barreled 7.62 NATO rifle is at all advantageous for the average Soldier. Except in very open terrain (which I grant describes much of Afghanistan) the extra length, weight and recoil make the rifle far less effective in close quarters. I used to have a standard weight M1A. I sold it after two trips to the range when I reliazed that I couldn't shoot it effectively while standing, and transitioning form one target to another was downright sluggish. Shorter barrels? Muzzle blast like mad. Lighter guns? More recoil.
Bottom line: the Russkies beat us on designing and adopting assault rifles, and the M14 and its battle rifle contemporaries were designed to fight WWII, not Vietnam or modern urban warfare. Recognize that the 7.62 repeater has a place: as a marksman's weapon that can be used for CQC in a pinch. It is not something you want to be lugging through Iraqi buildings.
For all you battle rifle lovers out there, please explain to me how a 22" barreled 7.62 NATO rifle is at all advantageous for the average Soldier. Except in very open terrain (which I grant describes much of Afghanistan) the extra length, weight and recoil make the rifle far less effective in close quarters. I used to have a standard weight M1A. I sold it after two trips to the range when I reliazed that I couldn't shoot it effectively while standing, and transitioning form one target to another was downright sluggish. Shorter barrels? Muzzle blast like mad. Lighter guns? More recoil.
Bottom line: the Russkies beat us on designing and adopting assault rifles, and the M14 and its battle rifle contemporaries were designed to fight WWII, not Vietnam or modern urban warfare. Recognize that the 7.62 repeater has a place: as a marksman's weapon that can be used for CQC in a pinch. It is not something you want to be lugging through Iraqi buildings.
In this situation it's all about wide open spaces and long range targets
Really? You couldn't swing a 9 pound rifle at the range?
I have two M14s with 18.0" barrels, they don't produce "muzzle blast
like mad" and the slight weight reduction does not increase felt recoil.
I am currently working on a 16.0" build and expect the same good results.
Here is the new SAGE Detachable Cantilevered Sight Base used on the M14 EBRs (P/N M14DCSB).
I'll be using SEI's Wire Electro Discharge Machine (EDM) 30mm Rings,* MIL STD 1913, Low, NSN 1005-01-535-4374 (P/N 7008).
I have not chosen a scope yet...
I'll be using SEI's Wire Electro Discharge Machine (EDM) 30mm Rings,* MIL STD 1913, Low, NSN 1005-01-535-4374 (P/N 7008).
I have not chosen a scope yet...
DMR
Member
H2O,
How much will that base set you back? I priced out my build of a EBR yeasterday w/o the base:
Base Rifle: M-1A (Pre-Ban)
$1599
I have a Polytech in a local shop I may use after a trip to Warbirds.
Additional Modifications:
Sage EBR Stock
$749
Leupold Mark 4 Rifle Scope
3.5-10x40 Illuminated Tactical Milling Reticle TMR
30mm Tube Matte
Price: $1,259.99
Mark 4 Mounting Rings (Steel, Medium)
Price: $142.99
Total: $3750.98
now I just have to sell it to the boss, I mean wife
How much will that base set you back? I priced out my build of a EBR yeasterday w/o the base:
Base Rifle: M-1A (Pre-Ban)
$1599
I have a Polytech in a local shop I may use after a trip to Warbirds.
Additional Modifications:
Sage EBR Stock
$749
Leupold Mark 4 Rifle Scope
3.5-10x40 Illuminated Tactical Milling Reticle TMR
30mm Tube Matte
Price: $1,259.99
Mark 4 Mounting Rings (Steel, Medium)
Price: $142.99
Total: $3750.98
now I just have to sell it to the boss, I mean wifeShe who must be obeyed
Pass on the M1A and use the Poly!!
The mounting kit is $220.00 plus shipping direct from SAGE International.
Look for a pre-owned SAGE stock - they don't wear out... Contact Josh @ Clyde Armory if you must have a new one.
I know Leupold has a few scopes that will work and I'm also going to look at what Pride-Fowler has to offer.
I hope that helps.
Pass on the M1A and use the Poly!!
The mounting kit is $220.00 plus shipping direct from SAGE International.
Look for a pre-owned SAGE stock - they don't wear out... Contact Josh @ Clyde Armory if you must have a new one.
I know Leupold has a few scopes that will work and I'm also going to look at what Pride-Fowler has to offer.
I hope that helps.
twofourthree73
Member
That's why the navy uses MK18 versions with short barrels.
DMR
Member
Great, I made it to the brink of 4K. $3970.98.
MHBushmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 175
Aside from long range shooting in open areas, the M14 is Dead on the coroners slab for US Military doctrine.
notice how M80 ball (which is what the M14 would be issued with if it were to be "mainstreamed") has terrible terminal ballistics. It doesn't fragment, no expansion, just a 180 flip and thats it.
notice how both M855 and Mk262 bullets perform in their terminal ballistics performance. You can carry significantly more M855/Mk262 as you can M80 Ball, nothing to say of the overall lighter weight of the M16 series of rilfes compared to the M14 versiosn, and inside the common engagement ranges that modern combat occurs in, the 5.56 ammo performs better than M80 ball in every category except barrier penetration, and the military has options that are much better at barrier penetration than M80 ball ammo. Try M203, .50cal, grenades, etc.
In summary, outside a very limited role as a SDMR, the M14 rifle is obsolete on the modern battlefield. It will stay in the arsenal until either the .308 SCAR or another new generation of rifle system (6.8spc or other) is adopted to replace the M14 in the role of SDMR in the US Army arsenal.
Hint: bigger bullet does not always equal bigger/better terminal ballistics. Example:Think of D.U. (sabots) that are shot out of cannons Vs H.E. shells shot out of cannons and how they stack up for destroying tanks/armor. The smaller depleted uranium sabots work better for knocking out tanks/armor even though they are smaller in size as compared to other "projecticles" that could be utilized.
notice how M80 ball (which is what the M14 would be issued with if it were to be "mainstreamed") has terrible terminal ballistics. It doesn't fragment, no expansion, just a 180 flip and thats it.
notice how both M855 and Mk262 bullets perform in their terminal ballistics performance. You can carry significantly more M855/Mk262 as you can M80 Ball, nothing to say of the overall lighter weight of the M16 series of rilfes compared to the M14 versiosn, and inside the common engagement ranges that modern combat occurs in, the 5.56 ammo performs better than M80 ball in every category except barrier penetration, and the military has options that are much better at barrier penetration than M80 ball ammo. Try M203, .50cal, grenades, etc.
In summary, outside a very limited role as a SDMR, the M14 rifle is obsolete on the modern battlefield. It will stay in the arsenal until either the .308 SCAR or another new generation of rifle system (6.8spc or other) is adopted to replace the M14 in the role of SDMR in the US Army arsenal.
Hint: bigger bullet does not always equal bigger/better terminal ballistics. Example:Think of D.U. (sabots) that are shot out of cannons Vs H.E. shells shot out of cannons and how they stack up for destroying tanks/armor. The smaller depleted uranium sabots work better for knocking out tanks/armor even though they are smaller in size as compared to other "projecticles" that could be utilized.
Maybe, but we are talking about long range shooting in open areas and in that arena the M14 is alive and well.
You do realize that the 7.62x51 AR type and FAL rifles use the same ammo don't you?
I guess they are also Dead on the coroners slab for US Military doctrine.
.
You do realize that the 7.62x51 AR type and FAL rifles use the same ammo don't you?
I guess they are also Dead on the coroners slab for US Military doctrine.
.
Last edited:
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
I hate that chart.
Bullet construction plagues the M80 round.
Plus Gel =/= flesh.
Bullet construction plagues the M80 round.
Plus Gel =/= flesh.
jordan1948
Member
Hoppy590, guy on the left looks like he's goin' over the edge guy in the center just has a blank stare and guy on the right seems to be shooting at seaguls lol ans they're all using blank firing M16s
I don't see any mini-guns in 5.56 in use anywhere, if they even make them. They are usually 7.62 or larger in caliber.
I'm no fan of the AR platform or it's caliber. I'm not qualified to say what may be better or worse for use as a primary infantry weapon. I merely have my own opinion based on internet drivel and history books. I don't and won't pay for an AR or anything in 5.56.
Apparently the Army has realized a real-world application for the M-14 series of rifle and it's caliber and is training some of their troops in it's use. Is it better for Army wide adoption or use? I'm not "qualified" to say according to anyone.
But apparently it still has some attributes the Army has found to be useful enough to start training some of their troops with.
I totally disregard the excuse that the military doesn't want to spend the money to re-equip it's troops with another rifle or caliber. They buy what they want when it suits them.
But as a fan of the M1 Garand and M-14 pattern rifles, I'm glad to see, that as much bashing as they get when compared to the M-16 pattern rifles, they are still sought after to make up for the "other" rifles' shortcomings.
I'm no fan of the AR platform or it's caliber. I'm not qualified to say what may be better or worse for use as a primary infantry weapon. I merely have my own opinion based on internet drivel and history books. I don't and won't pay for an AR or anything in 5.56.
Apparently the Army has realized a real-world application for the M-14 series of rifle and it's caliber and is training some of their troops in it's use. Is it better for Army wide adoption or use? I'm not "qualified" to say according to anyone.
But apparently it still has some attributes the Army has found to be useful enough to start training some of their troops with.
I totally disregard the excuse that the military doesn't want to spend the money to re-equip it's troops with another rifle or caliber. They buy what they want when it suits them.
But as a fan of the M1 Garand and M-14 pattern rifles, I'm glad to see, that as much bashing as they get when compared to the M-16 pattern rifles, they are still sought after to make up for the "other" rifles' shortcomings.
MHBushmaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 175
H2O,
you wrote: "You do realize that the 7.62x51 AR type and FAL rifles use the same ammo don't you? I guess they are also Dead on the coroners slab for US Military doctrine."
The 7.62x51 AR-10 and the FAL were never nor will they ever be used in US Military Doctrine. So yes, they are dead on the slab/never were part of US mil doctrine. Personal note: we should have gone with the FAL over the M14 way back when IMO.
Fact: The M14 is only being used until a suitable replacement can be found.
Fact: The M14 is not ideal for the SDMR role, nor is the 7.62x51mm caliber. It just happens to be that we have both (M80 ball and M14's) in some quantity already on hand, thus they are being used/pressed into service with alot of modifications.
It would be like the veterans of San Jaun Hill lamenting/praising the .30-40 Krag when it was pressed into service training new recruits in WWI. Its not the highest accolades of the Krag rifle, just the mere fact that we had them and were short on 1903 Springfields...
you wrote: "You do realize that the 7.62x51 AR type and FAL rifles use the same ammo don't you? I guess they are also Dead on the coroners slab for US Military doctrine."
The 7.62x51 AR-10 and the FAL were never nor will they ever be used in US Military Doctrine. So yes, they are dead on the slab/never were part of US mil doctrine. Personal note: we should have gone with the FAL over the M14 way back when IMO.
Fact: The M14 is only being used until a suitable replacement can be found.
Fact: The M14 is not ideal for the SDMR role, nor is the 7.62x51mm caliber. It just happens to be that we have both (M80 ball and M14's) in some quantity already on hand, thus they are being used/pressed into service with alot of modifications.
It would be like the veterans of San Jaun Hill lamenting/praising the .30-40 Krag when it was pressed into service training new recruits in WWI. Its not the highest accolades of the Krag rifle, just the mere fact that we had them and were short on 1903 Springfields...
- Status
Similar threads
