G-Gordon says it's a "Pop gun"

[BulletFan]

So I was listening to one of my heroes on his radio show today. G Gordon Liddy. Today being Friday, it's gun discussion day....someone called in praising the versatility of the 7.62 NATO and the M1, the M14 and on and on. Now I love listening to G Gordon and I usually agree with just about everything he says. BUT, today his opinion on the new AR-15 and even the M-16's of the past being "cutesy little pop guns" is just a bit harsh.
Granted the M1 and the M14 are wonderful guns, and I'm sure that if I were a ground troop cresting over a hill with enemies all around me at distances of 75-100 yards and I had some cover, I'd probably prefer the 7.62, but you know what, warfare has changed since the days of the M1 and M14. The portability and ease of use of the AR-15 and the like have proved to be vital in combat use of today. If I were climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies etc, I would definately choose a weapon easier manuvured and higher capacity in ammo.
I could just have no idea what I'm talking about, I have no military experience and I'm not about to join up, but am I alone in thinking that overall, for today's combat situations, the AR-15 is just great? Besides, the AR can be converted over to 7.62 NATO in about 1 minute anyway...so why call it a pop gun!?

What are your thoughts. Military opinions appreciated, especially those of you who faught using something other than the AR or M-16.

Thanks.
Matt

 

[armoredman]

I barely qualify - we had M14s on board ship, but I "trained" with the M16 in Amry ROTC...if you can call it that.
I fell in love with the old fence post on board ship.

 

[shecky]

Mistake number 1: Listening to G.Gordon.

It all goes downhill from there.

 

[DF357]

Compared to an M1 or M14 the AR is a popgun. If you ever fired one, you'd know.

That said, it does the job for today's purposes and that's what is important.

 

[BulletFan]

Okay, so it IS a pop gun...

But it still gets the job done...
Two in the chest, one in the head. I tell ya what, I wouldn't get up after that. 75 virgins or not.

 

[Devonai]

Bulletfan, you can't convert a 5.56x45mm AR-15 to 7.62x51mm in any given amount of time. The magazine well is too short to accomodate the cartridge. AR-style rifles in .308 must have a dedicated lower receiver.

I think every squad should have a designated marksman with an M14, but that's just because I'd like to be him. I think the .308 is an excellent combat round but modern Infantry tactics require too much suppressive fire to make widespread use of the M14 practical.

 

[BulletFan]

Aha, I thought the .308 was able to fit in the same lower.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It's a radio show, as in SHOW business.

If he didn't say controversial things no one would listen.

 

[Skofnung]

I always laugh when anyone calls any cartridge gun a "popgun."
They will all kill. .22 short to .50 BMG. Some better than others, but all are lethal.

 

[roscoe]

Liddy is the popgun.

 

[Roudy]

It's not the rifle that is in question here, but the cartridge.

Comparing the .233 to the .308 or 30-06 is like comparing a tack hammer to a 5 pound sledge hammer.

Granted that heavier weapons are more difficult to carry in combat situations, but to arrive at a firefight inadequately armed just because you don't want to be tired is poor tactics.

BTW do 3 rounds of .223 weigh less than 1 round of .308?

 

[KriegHund]

Lets shoot him with this supposed popgun, and see how long it takes him to die w/o immediate medical attention.

 

[Nightdiver]

Someone please help me out here. What war did Liddy fight in?

Oh yeah, he was assigned to an AA battery in New York during the Korean conflict.

So much for his expert opinion.

 

[R.H. Lee]

The level of indignation indicates the statement has some merit. The 5.56/.223 is, after all, a varmint and plinking round.

 

[Roudy]

Lets shoot him with this supposed popgun, and see how long it takes him to die w/o immediate medical attention.

with the .308 or 30-06...medical attention may be a moot point!

 

[Sunray]

"...climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies(sic) etc..." The PBI have always done that. The PBI did it during W. W. I, W. W. II and Korea with a heavy rifle with no fuss. Ok, they don't climb in and out of tanks nor did they always have Hummers, but the running about with a rifle in hand and everything they own on their backs is what they do.
"...with the .308 or 30-06...medical attention is a moot point..." Nonsense.

 

[Roudy]

Me thinks Ya'll are taking this thing to seriously.

 

[mustanger98]

Ya'll remember, this is just the internet.

FWIW, I shoot a Mini-14 and an M1 Garand. I like both. I'd hate to see somebody get hit with a round from either. But if I were going into harm's way, I'd rather have the Garand because .308 or .30-06 does have more power.

BTW, fired from a bolt gun, in my experience M193 ball ain't all that great, accuracy-wise.

 

[kaferhaus]

I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Some of you guys need to actually do some ballistics/wound cavity research before you prove your ignorance to the rest of the world by opining on it.

There's no doubt that putting a big hole in someone is better than putting a small hole in them. The reason is energy transfer and faster "bleed out" NOT lethality.

At normal rifle engagement ranges the 06 and 308 are no more lethal or debilitating than the 5.56.

At 600M the 5.56 M855 round actually has better penetration than the 308..

It is easier to shoot the M16 accurately than any other military firearm ever produced. An off the rack M16 is more accurate than any M14 that was ever a standard issue weapon.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus.

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

Even during WWII the vast majority of rifle engagements was less than 200M, nearly 60% was under 100M.

The 308s only advantage as a military rifle round is it leaves a bigger hole for blood to flow out of and transfers a little more energy to the target. Hit a target in the same spot with either round and the tissue damage will be as near identical as you could possibly imagine.

Now before some genius pulls out a data table and trys to say the muzzle energy of a 308 is "X" vs the 5.56 is such and such, that's nearly a useless statistic in the "real world". The bullet would have to stop instantaneously against an immovable object for that nifty little stat to mean squat.

The 5.56 is an excellent infantry round. Hundreds of thousands of dead enemy soldiers can't be wrong.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

My comments are in red. I don't have a dog in the fight, I just thought some things needed answering. also, the first three lines irritate me.

I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Some of you guys need to actually do some ballistics/wound cavity research before you prove your ignorance to the rest of the world by opining on it.

There's no doubt that putting a big hole in someone is better than putting a small hole in them. The reason is energy transfer and faster "bleed out" NOT lethality.

At normal rifle engagement ranges the 06 and 308 are no more lethal or debilitating than the 5.56.

At 600M the 5.56 M855 round actually has better penetration than the 308.. (Against what barriers? with what .308 ammunition? cite sources, please.)

It is easier to shoot the M16 accurately than any other military firearm ever produced. An off the rack M16 is more accurate than any M14 that was ever a standard issue weapon.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus. (2/3ds as often. 40 round magazines aren't standard.)

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus. (the m-14's OAL is 44.5 inches or thereabouts. the m-16A2's OAL is 39.15 inches, there are few places where you can fit one but not the other, and there are shorter examples of both around.)

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

Even during WWII the vast majority of rifle engagements was less than 200M, nearly 60% was under 100M. (enemies do occasionally pop up at ranges longer than 100 yards. having a man/rifle combination capable of taking enemies at longer range is probably a good idea.)

The 308s only advantage as a military rifle round is it leaves a bigger hole for blood to flow out of and transfers a little more energy to the target. Hit a target in the same spot with either round and the tissue damage will be as near identical as you could possibly imagine. >(.308 puts bigger holes in barracades, and because of its mass, flies truer than .223 after exiting a barracade, like an interior wall.)

Now before some genius pulls out a data table and trys to say the muzzle energy of a 308 is "X" vs the 5.56 is such and such, that's nearly a useless statistic in the "real world". The bullet would have to stop instantaneously against an immovable object for that nifty little stat to mean squat. (This instance occurs when shooting at concrete walls and other hard objects which are damaged more by .308 than .223)

The 5.56 is an excellent infantry round. Hundreds of thousands of dead enemy soldiers can't be wrong.

 

[Infidel]

I like G. Gordon, one of my heroes. "V.D. Only"

The .223 can be a good cartridge, depending on what kind and how big a poodle you're hunting.

I see the keyboard commandos are at it again.

Goedel, Escher, Bach

 

[kaferhaus]

(Against what barriers? with what .308 ammunition? cite sources, please.)

Google it yourself....

If the first three lines of my original post irritated you, they were meant too.

M16 mag = 30rds, M14 mag = 20rds one mag change on a M16 = 2 mag changes on a M14. You can run the math backwards if you want, you'd still be wrong.

I've been in the army 27yrs, fought in 4 different conflicts graduated from the "war college" and will retire next year as an 06.

I'm sure you're much more qualified than I on any subject concerning the effectiveness of our systems, their ammunition and manner in which they are employed.

 

[355sigfan]

So I was listening to one of my heroes on his radio show today. G Gordon Liddy. Today being Friday, it's gun discussion day....someone called in praising the versatility of the 7.62 NATO and the M1, the M14 and on and on. Now I love listening to G Gordon and I usually agree with just about everything he says. BUT, today his opinion on the new AR-15 and even the M-16's of the past being "cutesy little pop guns" is just a bit harsh.
Granted the M1 and the M14 are wonderful guns, and I'm sure that if I were a ground troop cresting over a hill with enemies all around me at distances of 75-100 yards and I had some cover, I'd probably prefer the 7.62, but you know what, warfare has changed since the days of the M1 and M14. The portability and ease of use of the AR-15 and the like have proved to be vital in combat use of today. If I were climbing in and out of Hummers and tanks, jumping in and around barriers, crawling through allies etc, I would definately choose a weapon easier manuvured and higher capacity in ammo.
I could just have no idea what I'm talking about, I have no military experience and I'm not about to join up, but am I alone in thinking that overall, for today's combat situations, the AR-15 is just great? Besides, the AR can be converted over to 7.62 NATO in about 1 minute anyway...so why call it a pop gun!?

What are your thoughts. Military opinions appreciated, especially those of you who faught using something other than the AR or M-16.

Thanks.
Matt

I don't put too much faith in the words of convicted felons like G Gordon.
Pat

 

[mustanger98]

From what I understand, all the speed any projectile (from the size of a BB up to the size of a semi-truck) needs to be potentially lethal is 300fps. If it's a matter of me facing someone wanting to kill me, what's the biggest stick I can hit 'em with? I've already said I favor .308 and .30-06. I've also read M2 ball will penetrate 3' of oak at 500yds. Anybody want to shoot at me with an M16 from 500 and then hide behind an oak tree? I didn't think so.

Then there's this business of "normal rifle engagement ranges"... yeah, whatever. That's like trying to make the other side "play nice", but it comes down to what's fair in a gunfight. Nothing is fair and you use every tactic you know to come home alive. One of those tactics can be engaging a 300yd-capable enemy from 500-600yds with a more powerful round. It also helps if you see them before they see you and take a position where it takes them a few minutes to figure out your location by your collective firing signature. This isn't a question of added lethality, although it may or may not come into play, so much as it is a question of distance and mentally effecting the enemy.

Not having to carry a 10lb rifle all day is a plus

My Grandpa was a truck driver and was issued a .45 and a M1 Carbine back in WW2. He carried all the ammo he could get for them too, but the load of ammo rode around in the truck with him instead of him having to carry it. But his experience on Omaha Beach had its own set of problems are far as weight of gear and not enough ammo to suit him.

Not having to carry a "fence post" all day is a plus

We're talking rifles; not fence posts. Of course not carrying a fence post is a plus. That's why I like my M1 Garand. Instead of having to get within swinging radius, I can get some reach on it.

Being able to carry twice the ammo is a plus

Not when it takes 2X or 3X the number of rounds of smaller ammo to engage and destroy the same number or less of enemy.

Having to change magazines half as often is a plus

If we didn't have so many ninjas braggin' about how fast and slick they can waste ammo, we wouldn't need to do so many hypothetical mag changes, now, would we?

Being able to move through tight spaces while still having your rifle at the ready is a plus.

Somebody already explained that one quite satisfactorily, I thought.

Having a more accurate rifle is a plus

Are we talking match accuracy or combat accuracy? It's hard to tell sometimes because a thread will start about a combat accurate popgun and then somebody'll start up like their the Pope of Chilitown about accurized AR's at Camp Perry. I figure it has more to do with the shooter than the rifle. FWIW, two of my 2nd cousins are Vietnam Vets (USMC) and one of them was issued the M16 in '68 and '69. He said the M16 was accurate if the shooter was accurate, but it wouldn't be his first choice of weapons. His older brother was there before him with an M14 and said the M14 was and is a superb weapon and better suited to the job.

Even when "accurized" for DCM competition, the AR is kicking the M14s tail even at 600M

And this takes place on a square range from four positions. IIRC, it also includes, in some matches, use of bullet weights better suited to distance and windy conditions. For example, what I've read of some people using 75gr bullets (single-loaded because they're too long to load through the magazine) for the longer distances so they'll buck the wind better.

Being able to shoot that rifle accurately for a sustained period of time is a plus (recoil)

As I've said, I shoot a Mini-14 (.223) and an M1 Garand (.30-06). From standing, I don't notice the .30-06 recoiling nearly so hard as some people claim it does.

That's my $.02.

 

[Art Eatman]

Aw, c'mon, 355sigfan, I really doubt one's criminal status determines one's level of knowledge on a subject.

G. Gordon is amusing, although his callers tend to come from the strange-creature pool. There's nothing wrong with his being opinionated, but he does tend toward undue excitement on some things.

I'd like to see a bit more Oomph in our military cartridge, but as long as the users know the limitations, the .223 works.

As far as bullets and wounds and penetration, I don't have the proper military attitude. I like max-load expanding bullets from an '06, myself. Red Mist Is Good, anyoldtime.

Art