If the SCAR is adopted by the US military for general issue...
- Thread starter ArmedBear
- Start date
- Status
Ignition Override
Member
chauncey:
A co-worker was in Desert Storm with Special Forces.
He told me that they sometimes put down their issue rifles and picked up and used Iraqi AK-47s, in order to have dependable guns.
People claim that Army-issued combat rifles have been improved over the years, but a young veteran of Iraq (Ft. Riley, KS) told me that
"our rifles jam with just one grain of sand". He had been in at least one firefight.
I have no LEO/combat tng. nor experience, and we always hear about the context being different with various situations, but I've never comments that people needed to wrap AKs in plastic, in order to protect them from "field conditions".
My mistaken impressions-as a civilian-were that combat rifles should be built for "field conditions".
A co-worker was in Desert Storm with Special Forces.
He told me that they sometimes put down their issue rifles and picked up and used Iraqi AK-47s, in order to have dependable guns.
People claim that Army-issued combat rifles have been improved over the years, but a young veteran of Iraq (Ft. Riley, KS) told me that
"our rifles jam with just one grain of sand". He had been in at least one firefight.
I have no LEO/combat tng. nor experience, and we always hear about the context being different with various situations, but I've never comments that people needed to wrap AKs in plastic, in order to protect them from "field conditions".
My mistaken impressions-as a civilian-were that combat rifles should be built for "field conditions".
Last edited:
John Parker
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 679
I've done a tour each in Iraq and Afghanistan. My M4 never jammed, and that little girl saw some heavy use.
Aquila
Member
A larger caliber would be GREAT. EVERYONE knows this. A heavier projectile will deny cover better, CAN have better wound ballistics and CAN have better long range performance. It's also more forgiving for badly placed shots.
However, the logistics of doing this is unmanageable.
If I were capable I'd turn every 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridge and components (including magazines) into 6.8 SPC 25 seconds ago but I'm not able to do so. I'm certain everyone would be ecstatic about it, too.
However, the logistics of doing this is unmanageable.
If I were capable I'd turn every 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridge and components (including magazines) into 6.8 SPC 25 seconds ago but I'm not able to do so. I'm certain everyone would be ecstatic about it, too.
mljdeckard
Member
Right. I'll tell my petite little sister (who is planning on enlisting as a veterinary tech) to plan on learning to qualify and carry an M-14.
YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR MIND.
Repeat after me. THE M-16/M-4 IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE ANYTIME SOON. THE M855 ROUND DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO. SOME UNITS WITHIN SOCOM MAY HAVE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS TO USE, ON A VERY LIMITED BASIS, OTHER RIFLES. THE M-16 HAS BEEN THE ISSUE RIFLE FOR LONGER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES. NONE OF THE CURRENT SPECULATED MODELS HAVE YET PROVEN TO BE BETTER.
Keep it clean. Keep the dust cover shut. It will do what it is supposed to. You should do this NO MATTER WHAT RIFLE YOU ARE CARRYING.
YOU'RE OUT OF YOUR MIND.
Repeat after me. THE M-16/M-4 IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE ANYTIME SOON. THE M855 ROUND DOES EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO. SOME UNITS WITHIN SOCOM MAY HAVE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS TO USE, ON A VERY LIMITED BASIS, OTHER RIFLES. THE M-16 HAS BEEN THE ISSUE RIFLE FOR LONGER THAN ANY OTHER IN THE HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMED FORCES. NONE OF THE CURRENT SPECULATED MODELS HAVE YET PROVEN TO BE BETTER.
Keep it clean. Keep the dust cover shut. It will do what it is supposed to. You should do this NO MATTER WHAT RIFLE YOU ARE CARRYING.
ZombiesAhead
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Ignition Override said,
I hear this repeated OVER and OVER again on THR. Does this really happen? I am no soldier but I've known US Army infantry guys and they have categorically denied this ever happening. Maybe special forces do it? But I wouldn't trust a beat up AK next to an M16 that has been properly maintained by my government...
I hear this repeated OVER and OVER again on THR. Does this really happen? I am no soldier but I've known US Army infantry guys and they have categorically denied this ever happening. Maybe special forces do it? But I wouldn't trust a beat up AK next to an M16 that has been properly maintained by my government...
THE DARK KNIGHT
Member
IMO 7.62 is an inadequate manstopper. I heard of an incident from a friend of a friend at work whose brother in law was in a commando unit in '06 and the 7.62 failed to penetrate two sides of a car and the concrete wall of a building the insurgent was hiding in. The USMC needs to adopt a more adequate round such as the .458 SOCOM or .50 BEOWULF. However if they could get the funding a .50 BMG infantry rifle would probably produce the best terminal ballistics at least 50% of the time.
Seriously, I'm seeing a lot of stupid posts here. A lot of airsoft guys who like quadrails and lasers. The M16/M4 are more than adequate with M855. They aren't going anywhere.
I can't help but think that a lot of the caliber discussions stem from penis envy.
Seriously, I'm seeing a lot of stupid posts here. A lot of airsoft guys who like quadrails and lasers. The M16/M4 are more than adequate with M855. They aren't going anywhere.
I can't help but think that a lot of the caliber discussions stem from penis envy.
Polar Express
Member
Right now, our country is facing tough economic times, the policial party that carries the voting majority is not known for supporting massive military spending, and the cost of changing that quanity of rifles is rather large, even in gov't dollar terms.
Here's another thought: I'm a fireman, and I can share with you that the amount of basic mechanical manipulative skills most of our new 'rookies' have is horrible. They may have a great attitude, but when they have grown up playing video games instead of 'playing outside' (building forts, digging, using their hands and bodies to do stuff) doing work with their hands is a forign concept. I grew up in a semi-rural area, and my dad took me to the outdoors. I was shooting high-power rifles by the time I was 7 or 8. I have not shot an older m16. But I do have a newer Bushy built similar to the M4 style. The one I have sure seems very easy to teach a new shooter to shoot on. (I say 'seems' because I will be teaching my wife soon) I suspect that the trend in our country of our youth (the ones joining the military) not being exposed to firearms, would mean that they want a rifle thats 'easy to shoot', to teach the kids in basic how to hold and shoot a rifle. Keep in mind that while we have soldiers that may be 6'5", and 240 lbs in ripped shape, we also have 5'3" small-statured individuals that want to serve our country in the military, and both need to be taught to shoot. A platform that is highly and easily adjustable is a good thing in that case, right?
Of course, smaller groups that are focus trained will always (and should) have access to whatever tools they need to do the job.
On the subject of calibers, I have no idea. There's always an argument to be made from everything from .22 up to .50 calibers, and those debates will continue on forums like this forever. But.... If the people with the purse strings (funny how it comes down to $$) can be convinced to change calibers (regardless if its a better caliber or not), it is cheaper to just change all those uppers than the whole package. And, that would allow an oppertunity to switch from DI to Piston (again, IF the bean counters are convinced). Keep in mind that these decisions are political decisions, not military ones ($$), and the people who influence them may or may not be after the best design, but a design that is manufactured by their constituency.
From my perspective, these all seem like legitimate points that add to the argument that our armed forces will not abandon the AR/M platform anytime soon. Are my thoughts grounded, or have I missunderstood a concept?
PE
Here's another thought: I'm a fireman, and I can share with you that the amount of basic mechanical manipulative skills most of our new 'rookies' have is horrible. They may have a great attitude, but when they have grown up playing video games instead of 'playing outside' (building forts, digging, using their hands and bodies to do stuff) doing work with their hands is a forign concept. I grew up in a semi-rural area, and my dad took me to the outdoors. I was shooting high-power rifles by the time I was 7 or 8. I have not shot an older m16. But I do have a newer Bushy built similar to the M4 style. The one I have sure seems very easy to teach a new shooter to shoot on. (I say 'seems' because I will be teaching my wife soon) I suspect that the trend in our country of our youth (the ones joining the military) not being exposed to firearms, would mean that they want a rifle thats 'easy to shoot', to teach the kids in basic how to hold and shoot a rifle. Keep in mind that while we have soldiers that may be 6'5", and 240 lbs in ripped shape, we also have 5'3" small-statured individuals that want to serve our country in the military, and both need to be taught to shoot. A platform that is highly and easily adjustable is a good thing in that case, right?
Of course, smaller groups that are focus trained will always (and should) have access to whatever tools they need to do the job.
On the subject of calibers, I have no idea. There's always an argument to be made from everything from .22 up to .50 calibers, and those debates will continue on forums like this forever. But.... If the people with the purse strings (funny how it comes down to $$) can be convinced to change calibers (regardless if its a better caliber or not), it is cheaper to just change all those uppers than the whole package. And, that would allow an oppertunity to switch from DI to Piston (again, IF the bean counters are convinced). Keep in mind that these decisions are political decisions, not military ones ($$), and the people who influence them may or may not be after the best design, but a design that is manufactured by their constituency.
From my perspective, these all seem like legitimate points that add to the argument that our armed forces will not abandon the AR/M platform anytime soon. Are my thoughts grounded, or have I missunderstood a concept?
PE
In the real world you cannot carry a weapon you have not qualified with, however in combat I am sure it would be acceptable if your rifle is dead to pick up whatever you can throw bullets at the enemy with. That being said when you get back to base you must turn in your AK and recieve your standard issue wahtever. I have seen some pararescue guys qualify with AKs stateside though.
praharin
Member
That is not true. I have a tiny penis and advocate the 5.56 here and elsewhere.
H2O_MAN:The m14 is seeing reissue, on a limited basis as a DMR. Line troops are not getting them. In the Corps, it is (was, maybe) being used by EOD and MP units to neutralize IED's. Your photo of one (1) M14 being used by a soldier does not make a case that the M14 is seeing extensive use. It really isn't.
praharin: Actually thousands of modernized M14s have been re-issued and more are on the way.
The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need.
The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need.
TheWarhammer
Member
THE DARK KNIGHT said:
LMOA!!! You had me worried there... I thought you were serious at first! I've read far too many posts that really do assert this kind of fourth or fifth party info as if it was documentable proof. Too funny!
mljdeckard
Member
Show evidence that anyone besides SOCOM is getting new M-14s.
TACOM RI has a stash of approximately 80 thousand M14s that they
are converting into M14 EBRs as fast as they can to meet the need.
SEI is building M21A5 Crazy Horse and MK14 SEI rifles as fast as they can.
Do a little research and you will see who's getting these modernized M14s.
Evidence that big Army is getting M14 EBRs has been posted earlier.
are converting into M14 EBRs as fast as they can to meet the need.
SEI is building M21A5 Crazy Horse and MK14 SEI rifles as fast as they can.
Do a little research and you will see who's getting these modernized M14s.
Evidence that big Army is getting M14 EBRs has been posted earlier.
mljdeckard
Member
I said NEW.
HorseSoldier
Member
The only guys in the SFG I used to be assigned to who carried AKs as far as I ever heard were a handful of guys who were did a training mission somewhere besides Afghanistan or Iraq and who were armed with host nation weapons while in country for political reasons (apparently having US troops and their weapons on the ground was too provocative for some local sensibilities). I don't think any of them would have preferred an AK to their M4, though the one guy I knew pretty well on that mission did think the AKSU he was issued was pretty cool as AKs go . . .
Mileage may vary in SEAL teams, MARSOC, or whatever, though I doubt it. The more training guys have as gunfighters with the M4, in my experience, the less and less likely they are to want an AK due to the ergonomic issues, different manual of arms, etc.
Last edited:
mljdeckard: Word games will not win any battles.
The stash of M14 rifles TACOM is pulling from are new or as new.
Most of the M14 rifles SEI modernizes are well used before being totally rebuilt.
The SCAR H is undergoing testing and evaluation while the M14 continues to see active duty.
The stash of M14 rifles TACOM is pulling from are new or as new.
Most of the M14 rifles SEI modernizes are well used before being totally rebuilt.
The SCAR H is undergoing testing and evaluation while the M14 continues to see active duty.
praharin
Member
"Thousands" is still a small percentage of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The key word I used is limited use. The M14 is never going to see as wide spread usage as your seem to think. It's just not the right rifle for some battle fields, without a lot of work.
Don't get me wrong here, I really want to get a SOCOM 16 and have it worked over by one of the good M1A smiths, and have an EBR stock and Short Dot put on it. If I had the $5K or so that that would take, I would have it done already. I wish I had done it when I had the money, but I bought a car instead...
I will stand by that it would be just about the best MOUT weapons out there. CQB would still be ruled by the MK18 (10.5" M4) IMO.
The cost of getting an M14 able to do what the M4 can already do is just not practical for widespread issue. The money would be better spent on training, and making each of those "little" 5.56 bullets count.
The key word I used is limited use. The M14 is never going to see as wide spread usage as your seem to think. It's just not the right rifle for some battle fields, without a lot of work.
Don't get me wrong here, I really want to get a SOCOM 16 and have it worked over by one of the good M1A smiths, and have an EBR stock and Short Dot put on it. If I had the $5K or so that that would take, I would have it done already. I wish I had done it when I had the money, but I bought a car instead...
I will stand by that it would be just about the best MOUT weapons out there. CQB would still be ruled by the MK18 (10.5" M4) IMO.
The cost of getting an M14 able to do what the M4 can already do is just not practical for widespread issue. The money would be better spent on training, and making each of those "little" 5.56 bullets count.
The M14 isn't being used in the role filled by the M4.
The M4 is going head-to head with the SCAR L/MK16.
The SCAR H/MK17 is intended to go head-to-head with the M14 EBR and
then some, but it's experiencing reliability problems much like the KAC SR-25.
The US military is lucky to have a relatively small stash of thousands and
thousands of M14s in which to pull from. The M14 isn't going away anytime soon.
Money invested into modernizing and enhancing the M14 is money well spent.
The M4 is going head-to head with the SCAR L/MK16.
The SCAR H/MK17 is intended to go head-to-head with the M14 EBR and
then some, but it's experiencing reliability problems much like the KAC SR-25.
The US military is lucky to have a relatively small stash of thousands and
thousands of M14s in which to pull from. The M14 isn't going away anytime soon.
Money invested into modernizing and enhancing the M14 is money well spent.
I suspect that your friend was bending your ear. I'm familiar with most of the better known ODA gun fights from that one, and M16A1/A2 reliability was not a problem. There weren't a lot of compromises (and fights) for those who went deep & early. There weren't a whole lot more during the 100 hours after the kickoff. In the ones that happened, reliable M16s and superior marksmanship carried the day (along with crew-served and CAS). Figure the odds.
No, Special Forces do not do it. If you attempted to leave your M4A1 behind and carry an AK on a CONOP, you'd be booted in the ass or fired by your Team Sergeant.
There are reasons that we carry what we do. Personal preference for an AK is not a valid reason to carry one on the job. It's an inferior weapon for the job at hand.
There are rare occasions where someone in SF would carry an AK in combat:
1. Finding yourself out of 5.56 ammo or your 5.56 weapon has just been destroyed (requiring a battlefield pickup of an AK). At that point, you grab whatever is at hand.
2. Deliberate decision to go all-AK (and occasionally native clothing) by the entire ODA to confuse the enemy in the event of making contact on a SR mission.
3. To convince your Jundis that you will fight with the same gear they use (an attempt at building indig morale). I'm aware of this happening oncet or twicet, but it has been an extremely rare occurence. The tangible benefits are few vs. the resultant loss in accuracy, ergonomics, range, suppressive firepower, ammo load, and night capability resulting from going AK.
4. Sometimes folks like to keep an extra rifle or machinegun close at hand (next to a bunk, in a turret, at the blast wall near a cave mouth, in the TOC, on rooftop parapets, hanging on a peg on the wall, etc.). This is a pretty common usage for AKs, pump shotguns, hand grenades, M79s, and PKMs. As Nemo said: "Guns...Lots of guns...". The idea being to always have something within arms reach for when your primary is stacked on your vest (off body). A bunkered PKM and a spare loaded AK or two can dominate a stairwell or hallway if you have to roll out of your hootch in a hurry. A couple of extra AKs are also good for equipping certain attachments or embeds that you may have grown fond of.
I've spent a fair amount (most) of my adult life in the Regiment (including multiple tours to Afghanistan and Iraq) and have yet to see or hear of anyone (USSF, SEAL, 75th Rangers, CAG, OGA, etc.) deliberately carrying an AK on a mission outside the wire. If you were one of my 18s and suggested such a course of action, I might listen to your silly justification for carrying one just to amuse myself. Then I'd tell you to lose it and stick you on radio watch or have you cool your heels as an AST or LNO. You didn't conduct PMT with it, nobody else is carrying ammo for it, you can't properly back up your team with it (optics, lights, or NODs), and the first time someone hears you cut loose, we'll likely have a Blue-on-Blue fratricide incident (resulting in someone having to explain to your next of kin and the chain of command that you stupidly disobeyed orders and SOPs). Ain't gonna happen. Not even.
Why would anyone want to carry an AK in preference to a fully kitted and zeroed M4A1? It boggles my mind that anyone would even consider it.
BTW: We have SCARs now. I'm not yet sold on them, but they show promise. We get to Beta-test them in combat. Great.
Last edited:
praharin
Member
thank you for repeating what I already said. However, your previous statements seem to be contrary to this one...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
