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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Minor points. The M-16 system, in crude language, craps where it eats. I first used them in 1965 courtesy of Uncle S., and last used the CAR-15 about thirty years after. Not exactly a prescription for reliability even before the powder problems as per Ezell, and a PITA to clean it really well. As for power, the old line that a good big man can beat the hell out of a good small man is fairly valid.

I shoot the Garand a fair amount. Cleaning and maintenance on it are just about on a level with a bolt gun, which is to say about 10 minutes for the whole job. The M1A/M14 is about the same.

Clips vs. mags: Chuck Taylor once said that the Garand has about all the firepower that one man can use. Reloading the M1 can be a pretty darn quick proposition; just repeat as necessary. The M14 will fire 20 rounds but then you have to pull the old mag and insert the new one which takes a little time and dexterity. Since old mags aren't expendable, you need to decide where to stash the empty one. Then there is the question of how many loaded mags to carry along. M14 bandoliers carry ammo in 5 round clips and reloads into the mag aren't all that easy after stripping in 10 rounds. Garand bandoliers were just stuffed with 8 round clips ready to load, fire off, and "repeat as necessary", period. Which is most practical? If I knew the answer I probably wouldn't own both.

I had the option of fitting some of my agency's M14s with selector switches. Never bothered as the entire idea of a selective fire M14 never made any sense from day one. No one with any sense ever believed that it did.

SKS? Mine doubled once. Not sure why, but has never repeated it. It is what it is--ugly, unsophisticated, sufficiently accurate and powerful for practical purposes. It lives in my pickup for the same reason a pair of vise-grips do. Not necessarily the ideal tool for everything but good as it needs to be to get me home again. (Being a Toyota the issue doesn't seem to arise--but that's another story.)

Some good thoughts in this thread. It's just that power and reliability matter. I have both had to make do with what was issued and been able to indulge my preferences. I abandoned the 5.56 about 15 years ago and don't miss it, especially in the M16 format. The AR-180B is interesting but the ballistic shortcomings of course remain. About the only thing I missed upon retirement was the M14 I issued myself. Its replacement was of course an M1A which just suits me better every day.

I'm still learning.
 
SKS- I've never had mine misfire, jam or go full auto, but My M1 doubled once- both are very good and excellent rifles respectively.The M1 was the best issue battle rifle of its time, PERIOD.

1903 springfield- My only beef with it is that the bolt isn't as easy to strip as a bolt on a Mauser, other than that, it has better sights than the mausers.

Krag- good rifle, but technologically behind the times.

M14- kind of like a sporterized M1- there were better rifles in its time.

M16- The US could have done better on this one too.


The 92FS is OK. A friend of mine has one. But it will jam up from time to time and I don't like the ergonomics of it.
Click to expand...

The ergonomics aren't the best for everyone, but if your friend can get it to jam up from time to time, he is definately trying to jam it or doing something horribly wrong. I got mine to jam once, that was with a cheap asian magazine, cast lead semiwadcutters with a minimum load, and firing it at -5 degrees F outside with plenty of lube to gum it up. Switched to ball ammo and it ran just fine.
 
My huge beef with the M16/AR15 is the utterly disastrous direct-impingement gas system, and the resultant compromises in bolt and buffer design. When the M16 was tested by South Africa in the 1970's, along with many other designs of modern assault rifle, it was junked after only a few days, because the combination of natural dust and dirt, allied with the gas being blown directly into the action, gummed it up very comprehensively
Click to expand...

Yet Israel dumped their Galils (which is what South Africa went to) in favor of a return to the M16, which they have kept in service for decades. Will wonders never cease?

As for the M16 tests, were these factory fresh weapons going to South Africa? Given the arms embargo, I kind of doubt it.
 
Yet Israel dumped their Galils (which is what South Africa went to) in favor of a return to the M16, which they have kept in service for decades. Will wonders never cease?
Click to expand...
I imagine a big reason for this is that their M16s are being bought with US dollars courtesy of Uncle Sam, not shekels. :rolleyes:
 
As to the 1911 being the Model T is a silly exaggeration. The 1911 might be more like a 1965 Ford F-100 compared with trucks today, but it remains a modern design. The Borshardt, the Mauser C96, the Parabellum, those are the Model T. Any modern hicap da auto has some of the very same features that the 1911 created in the first place, perhaps refinements on the theme, but they're all there. Now, I'm not a big 1911 guy, but I do know pistols and I do know cars. Design-wise, the Model T is vastly inferior both in endurance, construction, method of propulsion, lubrication, suspension, starting, and engine design than anything today. The 1911 is not so inferior to modern handguns as that. There have been giant leaps in technology from the Model T. There have not been giant leaps since the 1911. Indeed, if the 1911 is a Model T, then the Glock or SIG, take your choice, would be a Model A, design-wise.

Ash
 
I imagine a big reason for this is that their M16s are being bought with US dollars courtesy of Uncle Sam, not shekels.
Click to expand...

So, they are using funds to buy M16s, rather than using the Galils that are already in the stockpile, fully paid for, but are now gathering dust? Think they don't have a better use for those funds (i.e. F-16s, F-15s, upgraded tech) than buying "crappy" 16s to replace the Galils? Kind of doesn't make sense when you think it through, does it?
 
There have been giant leaps in technology from the Model T. There have not been giant leaps since the 1911. Indeed, if the 1911 is a Model T, then the Glock or SIG, take your choice, would be a Model A, design-wise.
Click to expand...
You got it. A "modern" pistol is about equivalent technologically to a Model A Ford. You've got to consider the Colt 1911 pistol originated when more people rode horses than drove cars. :what:

It would be nice to be around to see what the next breakthru in pistol design (a la 1911) will be, but judging from the snail's pace it has proceeded at, we may not be able to live so long.

The unreasoning hatred towards the Colt AR15/M16 platform that continually crops up from a few tells me more about them than the supposed deficiencies in the rifle. There is nothing wrong with an M16. It does what it was designed to do. When all sorts of modifications and tweaks have been done to it, they have generally made it a less effective, less handy rifle.

Rather than trying to tweak something that ain't broke, I would prefer to see some new technology appear. That would be as far ahead of the M16 as it was ahead of the M14 (or M1). About a thousand miles, imho. ;)
 
You hit someone in the chest/head with a .223, and they are going to die, no questions, no debates, just a fact.
Click to expand...

Heh. Whenever I hear this, I am reminded of a US grunt shot by German on D-day. His buddies pull him over to the medics. A hole in his forehead, one in the back of his head. The medic shakes his head, and says "He's dead". The grunt with the hole in his head looks up and says "The hell I am!" The bullet hit him in the forehead, slided over the cranium. Only a minor flesh wound, and he lived a full life.

You'd be surprised. People have survived a lot of things that should have killed them. Then again, a lot of people have been killed by being shot by .22's in seemingly not-critical areas.

The odds of a person dying increase if you hit them in or around the CNS. Nothing is ever 100%. A more accurate statement would be "If you hit a person in the brain or heart, you're very likely to kill that person". If you wing a person in the ear with a .223, you technically shot a person in the head.


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?
Click to expand...

Shot placement is everything. Buddy of mine who works the ER room at a local hospital was telling me about a gang member who has been shot 17 times. Yup, 17 times. Has all the details in the guy's medical file. Shot placement, suspected caliber, all the docs that worked on the guy, etc.

If I remember correctly, the Rangers in Somalia were issued AP ammo. AP ammo is designed for armored targets, not soft ones. Think of it as an icepick. Yea, maybe their training was substandard, but the choice of ammo was not ideal.

Personally, I don't think much of the Rangers. Seen their training. Basically, Rangers are straight infantry with parachutes, better equipment and some specialized training. Nothing wrong with that, just don't confuse them for something they are not. Most of my experience with the Rangers was helping them with their radio equipment. Uh, they need more training in some technical aspects, to be kind.


Funny story and very much off-topic. This Ranger just finished the SF course and was on his first OCONUS tour with an SFG. I was in working on a set of communication gear (let's call it Radio A), and another piece of commo gear went down (Radio B). Radio A is a really sensitive piece of equipment, and Radio B is not. I grab said newbie and tell him to secure Radio A, because a contractor was going to work on Radio B. I didn't want the contractor to see Radio A, and especially not touch it. So I told him to "secure it" somewhere.

Later, the contractor comes over looking nervous. Apparently, the newbie covered Radio A with a poncho, got his rifle, locked and loaded, and watched the contractor like a hawk. Finger went near trigger every time the contractor went near Radio A. Sigh...


M16A2 is a decent rifle. I've fired many many better rifles. But if I take care of it, it usually works fine and I generally qual expert. Every time they try to give me an M4, I manage to beg or bribe to get my M16A2 back.

As for Israel and the Galil, the US bought them a ton of M16/M4's. Yes, the Galils were paid for already, but weapons eventually need to be repaired or replaced. Why pay 'maintaince' when you can get an endless supply of rifles and parts for free? I still question the idea of arming a hostile country with a track record of espionage against the US, but it's way above my paygrade.
 
blackrazor
r the sks you see at the range eqipped with the new banana clips, or are they in their original condidtion with the fixed magazines? The after market banana clips made for the sks have been known to malfuntion (tho ive nver heard of it goin full auto) my grandpa's M-1 carbine is the only gun ive seen do that.
and like some1 b4 me mentioned they probably forgot to clean the cosmo outa the bolt.

we could probably argue the 1911 thing all day but i firmly believe its the finest combat pistol in the world. if its high capacity clips you want im sure you could get a bigger magazine for the 1911
it was good 100 years ago and is still good today

-Stauble
 
Thanks for posting the link to that video, Old Wolf! The M16 detractors should really look at that and then try to justify their unreasoning prejudice. Or not. I really don't care whether they like the M16, but wonder at their tiring criticism without apparently much experience.
 
As for Israel and the Galil, the US bought them a ton of M16/M4's. Yes, the Galils were paid for already, but weapons eventually need to be repaired or replaced. Why pay 'maintaince' when you can get an endless supply of rifles and parts for free? I still question the idea of arming a hostile country with a track record of espionage against the US, but it's way above my paygrade.
Click to expand...

Some of the 16s used by the Israelis date back to Vietnam. By contrast, many of the Galils in the warehouses are comparatively new and many have minimal use.

By the way, the 16s and parts are not "free" to the Israelis. While the US gives them funds for military assistance, those funds must be spent on US products.
 
Some of the 16s used by the Israelis date back to Vietnam. By contrast, many of the Galils in the warehouses are comparatively new and many have minimal use.

By the way, the 16s and parts are not "free" to the Israelis. While the US gives them funds for military assistance, those funds must be spent on US products.
Click to expand...

Ah. So the M16's are not free, the US just provides the money to Israel, and Israel buys the weapons from the US. Indeed. Righto. Makes perfect sense.
 
About all I can offer to this thread is this interesting video of the M16 being used in adverse conditions:

http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/

Scroll down to "Full Auto Video Shoot" and open the video.
Click to expand...

That video was pretty impressive. It speaks very clearly to those who say the M16's gas system is crap. They fired what? Close to 1200 rounds with one mag related failure? Not too shabby...
 
Zee Germans had long since figured out that the machine gun should be the centerpiece of every unit, and this novel idea was a key element to their success both on the offensive and defending positions.
Click to expand...

In case you didn't finish the book, "Zee Germans" lost.
 
A good book to read...

on exactly this subject is..."Misfires: The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military" by William H. Hallahan. It covers the period from the Revoltionary War through the 1st Gulf War and explains why our brave soldiers have been short changed by the US War Department and Major Weapons Manufacturers since the creation of this nation and it's military branches. A real eye opener... :scrutiny: ...and a damn shame !

And while on the subject...I love my 30.06 M1 Garand ( SA NOV 1944 ), but I probably would not have wanted to carry it in the jungles of Nam...I would have wanted a lighter weapon with some knock down power...say an M16 firing the 7.62x39...( hey, I can dream, can't I ?! )
 
Stauble,

The SKS's were the orginal design, not the new detachable design. I believe the problem was caused by sear failure, although I'm no expert on the SKS so I'm not sure what the problem was. Full auto (constant slamfiring) was the symptom.

As far as SKS legality in CA, you can still buy an SKS in California, so long as it doesn't have the grenade launcher attachment. The problem comes with having a detachable magazine SKS, which the DOJ in their infinite wisdom, has declared an "assault weapon". The thing is, I am VERY familiar with CA assault weapon laws, and according to the letter of the law, the SKS with a detachable magazine is no more of an assault weapon than the M1A, which is still legal here in Kali. Unfortunately, the DOJ is headed by Bill Lockyler, who is as much of a political gun banning @$%^@$ as Diane Feinstein, Babs Boxer, Schumer, etc. The CA DOJ has taken it upon themselves not only to enforce laws but to dictate them as well. Illegal? yes... but since the DOJ also decides who to prosecute, well... :rolleyes:

The fact is that the CA DOJ is a corrupt, agenda driven, borderline-tyrannical organization, and there is no legal recourse to stop them. The fact that the majority of the people in this state support their actions proves that CA is a terminally diseased growth which the USA must amputate before the infection spreads and kills the entire country.
 
smoke and mirrors?

In that video, why would they find it necessary to splice the film right at the point after he dunks it in the water (the first time) and then is about to load up the next mag and shoot it again, and it was spliced again later on, at the 860 round count??? Just askin..... granted, it wasn't spliced after the 2nd or 3rd dunks, so that's impressive.
 
Our military has done a dang good job over the past 100 years, what with being saddled with these "inferior" weapons.

I guess that it really is a case of the workman, and not his tools.
 
Buzz, I think that others have made my point about Israel's use of M16's - they aren't paying for them. And as for the M16's tested by South Africa: don't let the international arms embargo fool you. New equipment came in all the time for test, and much of it for manufacture locally. The NATO MILAN anti-tank missile was standard issue, despite the embargo, and the M16's that were tested were new production models. Money talks, as always...

That video of the M16 is indeed impressive. If only all M16's ran like that! Regrettably, they don't... A couple of buddies of mine have ultra-reliable M16's, and are in Iraq with them at the moment. However, to get them ultra-reliable, they sent them off for Rogard/NP3 treatment of all the internal parts. This has improved their reliability many times over. Without it, they had problems.

I've personally shot several M16's and AR15's, and I've never yet been able to get one of them to go more than 100 rounds without a malfunction of some kind. When I'm at the range, and see folks with their super-slicked-up AR's, I generally find the same level of reliability. I'm sure there are M16's out there that are more reliable - I just haven't run into any of them in person.

Finally, it's worth noting that not only has no other country in the world adopted a direct-impingement gas system for its assault rifles: not one of the rifles seeking US approval as a replacement for the M16 uses this system either. This says to me, quite conclusively, that the direct-impingement gas system is a one-time aberration that has been clearly demonstrated to be inferior to other systems. If this were not the case, others would be using it. As always, the market doesn't like it and doesn't want it, so manufacturers aren't producing it (except for their bureaucratically-captivated US armed forces market, which is finally looking for something better).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

X
  • Locked
Which M1-A?
Replies
10
Views
841
Gewehr98
G
E
  • Locked
Why did the U.S. Military give up on the M-14 so quickly?
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
205
Views
13K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Float Pilot
  • Locked
Swedes do well (again) in Mauser Match
Replies
17
Views
863
artee
A
C
  • Locked
Why Fewer Choices In Small Arms For Military Today?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Vern Humphrey
V
Y
  • Locked
Florida State Rifle = Krag ?
Replies
14
Views
1K
jhb
jhb
Back
Top