The US Military Has Been Using Substandard Firearms For Over A Century

[Double Naught Spy]

You know, Cosmoline, by your evaluation, the US military uses just about everything substandard.

The rifle we give our troops must be able to withstand several weeks or months of use without being stripped down and cleaned. We should accept nothing less than perfection.

Well, short of break open single or double barreled rifles (like shotguns), I can't imagine you will have a gun last all that long without stripping and cleaning. If you want perfection from a gun you don't clean for weeks or months at a time, accuracy will suck since you will undoubted have an oversized bore to compensate for the buildup of fouling over time. It won't be perfection in all areas. There is no battle gun that is perfection in all areas.

 

[Colt46]

A book titled "Misfire"

It takes you through the evolution of the american battle rifle and how springfield armory has screwed things up time and time again. Interesting read. I'd recommend it. It really shows how red tape and pigheaded officials can derail any train.
It seems to back Cosmoline's stand. The Krag was crap. The 1903 was an inferior copy of the 98 Mauser(Mauser sued the US and got an award for our flagrant copy of his design), The Garand was pure genius brought to us by the superhuman efforts of John Garand. The M-14 was a miserable failure as a combat weapon and there were legions of problems with producing them at the armory. The M-16 had the potential of genius but was so badly mishandled by the armory that it's overall reputation was hurt when it entered service.

 

[MechAg94]

I can't believe I saw someone imply that we should have gone into WWII with a bolt action Mauser instead of the M1. That comment alone pretty much invalidates any shread of credibility I was likely to give him.

My Dad trained with the M-14 and was issued the M-16 over in Vietnam in his maintenance battalion. He was no front line combat guy, but he just said the switch to what felt like pop gun by comparrison didn't feel right. That being said, I don't think he had any problems while he used it. He did like the fact that you could carry a lot more ammo. This from someone who always said he would go hungry rather than run out of ammo on a patrol.

I don't prefer the action of my own AR-15 sometimes, but I can't say I ever had a jam or problem with decent ammo. It is a good gun with a good cartridge for the shorter ranges the army was looking for.

 

[BigG]

how springfield armory has screwed things up time and time again.

The M-16 had the potential of genius but was so badly mishandled by the armory that it's overall reputation was hurt when it entered service.

That is worth repeating

 

[MechAg94]

The M-16 had the potential of genius but was so badly mishandled by the armory that it's overall reputation was hurt when it entered service.

Yes, it does. However, I don't think Springfield Armory can be blamed for all the M-16's problems. The wiz kids certainly had something to do with it.

 

[BigG]

Mechag94: If you haven't read the "Black Rifle," it is chock full of the special tests and hoops they came up with to make the "lil popgun fail." The Springfield Armory entry in the contest was a *surprise* M14 looking thing in 22 centerfire caliber. Not saying SA, in and of itself, but the whole gummit system worked against the M16, which was the first gun in anybody's memory that was first developed as a commercial product rather than in-house. The ammo requirements got all bolloxed up by the geniuses at Frankford or wherever that figured they knew better than Gene Stoner.

Then the Army itself with its "improvements" that made it the beautiful M16 into the fairly good A1 and the freakish imho A2

 

[hillbilly]

I think you are wrong about Sgt. York using the Enfield.

I saw a documentary about Sgt. York that seemed to clear up the confusion over what rifle York used.

Interviewed was none other than York's own son, who was also the park ranger at the Alvin York home historical site in Tennessee.

According to York's son, Alvin's unit was issued the Enfield rifles.

But, Alvin York ditched his Enfield and picked up a Springfield because, according to the son, Alvin preferred the open notch sights of the Springfield to the peep sights of the Enfield, because it was a lot easier to lead moving targets with the open notch sights.

And that was the source of the confusion. Yes, Sgt. York's unit was issued the Enfields. But no, York himself was not carrying an Enfield, but a Springfield on the day he captured all those German troops.


But here are some links wherein what rifle is cussed and discussed.

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=90349




hillbilly

 

[Ash]

The Enfield was originally the Pattern 13 rifle designed by the Brits as a replacement for the SMLE. When war hit, they didn't want to deal with ammo issues so they rechambered it for the .303 and called it the Pattern 14 (and later Number 3 Mk I Rifle). They bought quite a lot of the Pattern 14 rifles, but realized the SMLE was really a fine rifle for trench warfare. The US was not able to produce 1903 rifles fast enough, so they contracted with Remington et al to rechamber the P14's to 30-06 and, calling it the M1917, issued it to troops at a rate of roughtly 2 to 1 to the Springfield. Generally conscripts got Enfields. I cannot argue about whether Alvin York had Enfield, which was official, or Springfield which Hollywood seems to like.

In any case, the M1917 was a fine rifle, equal to anything else in combat in WWI.

The M1 was the best infantry rifle of the war. Soldiers armed with M1's could be considered better armed and provide greater firepower than an equal number of Mausers, Enfields, Carcanos, Mosins, or Arisakas. In WWII, the average GI was better armed than the average soldier in any other army in the world.

Though I do agree about the Krag and 1903.

Ash

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Re: Enblock clips

If you need to continually shoot, is it faster and easier to pop in enblock clips (in which the rounds were issued) or refill your box magazines once you've shot through your pre-loaded issued mags?

 

[30Cal]

The Krag was a little behind the ball.

The 03? What feature on the Mauser gave it more value than the Springfield? Does it shoot faster, longer or give you any significant advantage in combat? I'm not seeing it.

How's the M1 substandard? They were produced at a rate of 2,000 a day. How can you compare that to a rifle that was only built in pitifully insignificant quantities? Ridiculous. En bloc clips? Ammo was issued on them. If there were no clips, there was no ammo. Show me a rifle that will shoot without ammo.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well, short of break open single or double barreled rifles (like shotguns), I can't imagine you will have a gun last all that long without stripping and cleaning.

ALL of my firearms can, and many have. And interestingly enough, many of these same firearms, from Mosin-Nagants to AK-47's, are still in the hands of our enemies around the world. The Sar-1 I bought five years ago spent the last two in the Alaska woods. It was exposed to rain, mud, ice, snow, and the rust-loving wamrth of a cabin. It looks like hell, and I don't believe my roommate has cleaned it for at least ten months. But she's gong through about 300 rounds in that time and it's still functioning fine. Say what you will about Ivan, he knew how to make a rifle for wartime conditions, not just the target range.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the M-16A2 STILL need to be stripped down and cleaned at least ONCE A DAY in Iraq?

 

[Cosmoline]

I can't believe I saw someone imply that we should have gone into WWII with a bolt action Mauser instead of the M1. That comment alone pretty much invalidates any shread of credibility I was likely to give him.

What we really needed was a better machine gun! With that, our troops would have done perfectly fine with bolt action rifles. But ideally they would have had something better than a Garand.

 

[BigG]

What we really needed was a better machine gun! With that, our troops would have done perfectly fine with bolt action rifles. But ideally they would have had something better than a Garand.

Oh - we should have done what the Germans did?

I agree the Browning 30 cal was not up to the German MG34 or 42 but the M1 Rifle was the best of the best at the time. And our fire and maneuver tactics outflanked and outclassed the opposition.

 

[HankB]

Enfield 1917--This is the single exception to the rule. The Eddystone Enfield was an extremely strong rifle with good sights and a solid design.

The Enfield was a good, strong, action, but it had it's flaws. In particular, Eddystone Enfields had a reputation for questionable heat treatment. The ejector was prone to breakage, and the action is that abominable "cock on closing" design.

M-1 Garand--The Garand wasn't the worst rifle we could have given our troops, but it was far from the "The greatest battle implement ever devised". Very far.

Compared to to opposition's Mausers, and Arisakas, not to mention allies' SMLEs - all of which were BOLT ACTION rifles, the semi-automatic M1 Garand was the best generally issued battle rifle of WWII by a considerable margin. ONLY the late-war German STGs could rationally compete for the title with the Garand, but they were too little, too late.

 

[rbernie]

the action is that abominable "cock on closing" design.

One of the greatest concepts ever in the history of bolt-action breechloaders.

 

[Falcontech]

I won't even claim that I know nearly enough about firearms and their history to even make a response here but I will say this though, in Black Hawk Down (the book, not the movie) there were many complaints from our soldiers about the stopping power of the 5.56 round. Our forces had to put many more shots into the attackers to stop them since the 5.56 was passing through the bodies without causing enough damage to take them down. A more substantial round that causes more damage on it's way through the target would make sense tactically.

I will now bow to the collective knowledge of the rest of you....

 

[Ash]

Yeah, cock-on-close bolt designs work very well on combat weapons.

Ash

 

[buzz_knox]

A thoroughly unsatisfactory combat weapon.

Thoroughly unsatisfactory means that no one is happy with it. And that's imply not true. A lot of our troops are quite content with the M16, as are many of our allies who have their choice of weapons and go with the 16 system regardless.

I won't even claim that I know nearly enough about firearms and their history to even make a response here but I will say this though, in Black Hawk Down (the book, not the movie) there were many complaints from our soldiers about the stopping power of the 5.56 round. Our forces had to put many more shots into the attackers to stop them since the 5.56 was passing through the bodies without causing enough damage to take them down. A more substantial round that causes more damage on it's way through the target would make sense tactically.

When reading the book, did you happen to catch the incident where the M60 gunner put multiple 7.62 rounds into an opponent, who kept going?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

What is the military advantage of cock-on-closing?

Not trying to flame here, I'm just curious.

 

[jefnvk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the M-16A2 STILL need to be stripped down and cleaned at least ONCE A DAY in Iraq?

Over on ARFCOM, there is a guy that has put over 5000 rounds of WOLF ammo through his AR, without cleaning.

If you are talking about sand in the gun, the only way to do that is to loosen up tolerances, which will probably lead to complaints about the inaccuracy of the gun.

 

[Old NFO]

I don't know ham many times I've heard armchair engineers say this. Does anyone actually have any real evidence that the .223 is ineffective at killing people? Or is it all just based on some guy picking up a .223 round and thinking "Gee whiz, this here tiny round ain't big enough to kill nothin'...

Yes there is Blackrazor- Whether or not he has the pics to prove it, but 23 hits on an Iraqi at appx 100yds, who then got up and ran... Put down with a .308 and the body recovered and checked. Numerous rounds embedded in harness, webbing, etc., plus extremity hits but none fatal!

This whole thread has yet to address the main issue, which is that the government made the decision, NOT the military or the troops, and they went with the cheapest, most politically correct (the ones that would continue them in office) weapons they could (across the last 100 years and will continue in the future). I KNOW- I spent 20+ years flying airplanes built by the lowest bidder that were accepted by the Navy. They were not the airplane of choice by the military, nor were they the best, but we did make them work and work well.

It is a tribute to each and every man and woman that carried and used these weapons, airplanes, tanks, ships etc. over the last 100 years that the US exists as it does today... No the weapons are not perfect, but they ARE our history, like it or not, and people do collect historic pieces. Same with cars, boats and airplanes, othewise why would any Ford model A still exist- it is an unsafe piece of junk...

 

[AZ Jeff]

Cosmoline stated the following: ".... as I've pointed out elsewhere, it's overlong .30'06 was underloaded."

The credibility of ANY of your statements, no matter how good, was destroyed by the above remark. Either you are ignorant of the .30/06 as compared to it's contemporary cartridges, or you are unable to digest comparative data. Which is it?

 

[Old NFO]

I won't even claim that I know nearly enough about firearms and their history to even make a response here but I will say this though, in Black Hawk Down (the book, not the movie) there were many complaints from our soldiers about the stopping power of the 5.56 round. Our forces had to put many more shots into the attackers to stop them since the 5.56 was passing through the bodies without causing enough damage to take them down. A more substantial round that causes more damage on it's way through the target would make sense tactically.

Falcontech- What you say is correct about the round count, but the rationale for military pistols/rifles is not to kill, but to injure- That's why FMJ instead of Hollow point. IF you only injure the opposing force, you tie up "many" more personnel in care, transport, etc. also it acts as a deterrent to other fighters when they see the injured screaming in pain. if you kill the opposing force, you have only taken ONE person out of action, and they may or may not cart him/her off.

The other thing is hits vs. round count; when you go back and look at this over time, the numbers constantly grow. I don't have exact numbers in front of me, but if memory serves, it was less that 1:100 in WWI, some larger increment in WWII and Korea and over 1:100,000 in Vietnam. It's probably not much better today in Iraq.

 

[Eightball]

I think Cosmoline was referring not the the .30-06 as being underpowered, he said underloaded. Perhaps he was meaning that the size/length of the cartridge was not fully implemented; I have read in other threads his comparisons to the .30-06 and the .308, and he seems quite capable of digesting comparative data. Flame suit on

 

[FNFiveSeven]

Oh, Come ON! Don't tell me you *really* believe that a single .308 is more lethal than being hit with nearly TWO DOZEN .223 rounds! Such a statement is such utter, total horse!@#% that it defies all reason. Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason the uber forces Army Rangers didn't put down some of the Somalis was because they weren't hitting them properly? Could it be that they are trying to blame their incompetence on the ammuntion instead of their substandard training? That's right, you heard me, substandard training. I have a friend who just got back (last Friday) from Ranger school, and halfway through the course they had 3 separate indicents of guys loading 9mm rounds backwards in their Beretta mags. So I ask you, who's to blame, the shooters (some of whom can't load a pistol mag) or the ammunition? Off center hits, either with .22LR or .50 BMG, are not going to take a crazed militant out of a fight. You hit someone in the chest/head with a .223, and they are going to die, no questions, no debates, just a fact. A couple of months ago, I read one of these Ranger guys stating that he hit one Somali 8 times, including 2 HEAD SHOTS, and he still didn't go down. If a statement like that doesn't set off your BS meter, nothing will.

but the rationale for military pistols/rifles is not to kill

This statement has been, and always will be, total BS. I really would like to know how this lie ever started. There is not ONE legit source which can justify this statement.