Things HAVE changed since Vietnam!

[VG]

Both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps have published after-action reports on both the M4/M16 and M9 pistol.

There are some complaints, but most soldiers are satisfied. Keep in mind that the average GI has probably never seen an M14. And that any rifle will eventually malfunction in sand so the fact that one is less sensitive than another isn't so important to professionals who clean their weapons at every opportunity.

You can find a number of these after action reports at www.sftt.org - Soldiers For the Truth, and elsewhere.

 

[macman37]

Don't forget history too...

My dad has no love for the M16 platform, but even he had this to say about the guys saying the M16 wasn't good in the sand...

"When troops stopped in WWII what did they do? They cleaned their rifles"

He and I have both read a lot of books on WWII and many of them are profusely illustrated. Lots of them show men cleaning their rifles during a lull in the action.

The same should apply to the M16 series. If it's still jamming despite cleaning yeah, then it's time to get something new or at least fix what's broke on the platform.

The AARs I've read also say that the M4 is "delivering the mail" as it were. Particularly with the new 77gr ammo.

 

[cheygriz]

Tamara,

Col. North is indeed retired from the Corps. However, he was "embedded" with a Marine unit and travelled all the way to Baghdad in a Bradley with a Marine Infantry unit. He was there, on the scene, getting shot at. UNLIKE David Hatchetworth who was dissing our President, our General Staff, our troops and their equipment from a studio in New York city.

I was in the military from 1961-1965. I still remember the (rear echelon) troops crying that the "New" M-14 wasn't as reliable as the M-1. If you lost the magazine, it became a single shot. The cartridge wasn't as powerful as the .30-06. It was too heavy to carry. It was too light for automatic fire. It was this and that and everything else you can think of.

And just hide and watch folks! When we do eventually replace the M-16 and the .223 round thirty or forty years from now with something better, you'll hear the REMF types whining that "it's not as reliable as the good old M-16. It doesn't have the "stopping power" of the goold old 5.56X45."

That's just the nature of troops. Always has bewen and always will be.

 

[LeonCarr]

There is no Sword Excalibur in small arms. Period. I have not been able to find anybody that bad mouths the 9mm or .223, and says they are puny, wimpy rounds, volunteer to get shot with either one. Fire til the felon, or enemy in combat, falls.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Citadel99]

FWIW, my best friend was with 2-69 AR during 3 IDs charge through Iraq. He had no problems whatsoever with his M-4. If you take care of the weapon, it'll take care of you. If you don't clean your weapon regularly, especially in a desert, when you're life depends on it's functionality then you have no right to complain when it malfunctions. I find these arguments a bit humerous. If the M-4 is such a bad weapon then why do the majority of SF and Delta use it when they can pick what they want? Why has it been picked up by many other nations special operations forces?

Is it the perfect weapon? By no means. Does it do the job? Yes. Am I happy to carry it? Yes. Would I rather have an AK? Hell no.

Just another opinion...

Mark

 

[confed sailor]

Navy rifles

And yet another post on the greatest of debates.

I personally love the M14.

a simple weapon to care for, and a bullet to put a man down with.

i for one am glad the navy retains them. hopefully the pentagon will see the light and get a better round.

Wait i have a idea.... how bout we dig up a WWII relic, the 7.92 kurtz. big bullet with optimal ballistics in the same ranges as the woodchuck bullet.

hmmmmmmmm.....nahhhhhh no one will want it, its evil german technology

and as for soldiers griping, "it's not like the old corps" im sure caesar's legions bitched about getting new swords.

Also who here likes the HK G11?

 

[4v50 Gary]

Impossible to go back to the M-14. We'd have to tool up and if the dies aren't worn out, perhaps the Taiwanese will reverse lend-lease them to us? Better to go with a newer gun with a bigger bullet.

 

[N3rday]

Ok, this may sound stupid but...at what period in time did the world militaries transition from powerful, .30 cal or over rounds (like our .30-06 in wwII, and the germans 7.92) to little sissy .223s? What was the reason behind the switch? The german stg44 and the Russian AK a few years later were both 'assault rifles', and both chambered for .30s. What was the first military assault rifle to make the switch, and for god's sake WHY!?

ahh its good to rant a bit

edited to add: I'm glad the army's gonna switch to the XM8, but even though its an HK and more reliable, its STILL 5.56x45!
Also I have no beef with the 9mm, it has enough stopping power to get the job done. the 5.56, on the other hand, doesn't. If they want an automatic low recoil gun they can have an MP-5, real rifles are big-bore.

 

[JShirley]

Well, it happened first in Japan. They made an anemic little round- actually, probably about ideal for antipersonnel use- 6.5x50mm, I think? This was before 1900. The Russians made the first "assault rifles" for this cartridge before 1920.

You might appreciate those sissy little rounds if using them instead of big manrounds meant you had double the ammo, and didn't have to run out of fodder to make your rifle go bang, as happened at various battles in the Civil War, and to the defenders at the Alamo.

See, the big advantage of using a smaller round is LOGISTICAL. The reason the COMMON SENSE SOLUTION of using a smaller round was not a significant disadvantage, was that engagements typically occur well within the power envelope of the intermediate cartrige. Longer ranging fire is handled by support weapons.

The "sissy little" .223 is a different approach than the 7.62x39mm. The Russians were frantically trying to keep up with German small arms advances. They already had a .311 diameter cartridge, so making an intermediate cartridge in the same caliber just simplified things (which is what the Germans did as well). The US had the luxury of time, and made the decision to go with a smaller diameter, faster round. This smaller, faster round meant about a 50% increase in useful range over the manly, large diameter 7.62x39mm. Terminal effects were just an additional bonus.

The sissy little .223 underwhelmed the Russians so much, they took their parent cartridge for the AK, and necked it down so it could be sissy, too.

Now, again, the obvious solution, is for the US to find a cartridge that is significantly smaller and lighter than the 7.62x51mm, yet heavier and more powerful than the 5.56x45mm. This will enable a single cartridge to replace BOTH ammunition types. A 6mm bullet at about 3000 fps should be close to ideal, giving a round with range comparable to a .308, but with recoil and size closer to a .223.

Just curious- what defines a "big bore" to you? The Garand was originally a .276, and probably would have been a better rifle for it.

John

 

[Gabe]

The sissy little .223 underwhelmed the Russians so much, they took their parent cartridge for the AK, and necked it down so it could be sissy, too.

Minor quib, the 5.45x39 Soviet actually use a smaller case than the original 7.62x39. One reason for not simply necking down is further reduction of weight.

I think most people who complain about sissy assault rifles never took a M-14 or Fal on a run. They are ungodly heavy. Find a 10,000 ft peak in your area and climb it and you'll gain an appreciation for all things light weight. For Chris' sake I think the M-16 is already beastly.

Soldiers are always underwhelmed by the lethality of their weapons. Hollywood is to blame for this. I'll bet the first warrior who had to chop his enemy repeatedly with an axe thought his weapon was a POS too.

 

[JShirley]

I'll bet the first warrior who had to chop his enemy repeatedly with an axe thought his weapon was a POS too.

Thanks for the AM laugh.

I'll confess a fondess for 7.62x39mm, but that's because I'm a deer hunter. When it comes to hunting people, I want to be able to carry as many rounds as possible. 7.62 NATO= less ammo.

 

[Gordon]

Merry Christmas! My thoughts on the matter after 40 years of studying the Art Of War, with 36 months in a combat zone, first with an M=14 and then with an M-16 is thus. For the average infantry man the M-16 is superior, I think the m-4 should be reserved for armor or commando operations because you have a stinking .224" bullet and it really needs a 36" barrel to work well. If the M-16 would have been chambered in 6.5TCU or something of this nature there would be no complaints of the round's performance. I carried an M-14 on a LRRP when I was 22 and 'high and tight' and the 20mags &frags were barely doable (I've always been an ammo junkie). The 16 early and later m16a1 I had in 68-71 never gave me any trouble, but that .224 bullet was not comforting to a 25yearold gun freak who owned a XP-100! Of course when I came home I had to have a Colt CAR in 73 (I think) , and then a HK91(then a 93&94) in late 70's and 80's. I dragged the HK91 in ALOT of dirt and sand playing and training and competing with them during that period. It was the gun I WISHED I had in Nam. In the 90's Ive kinda switched to FN Fal's and now I see why my Aussie and Rhodesian comrades in arms held them in such high esteem! Oh did I mention that my "real" semi m-14 I put together in 70's was accurized to the point of being a 'prima donna'? It DONT like sand for sure! Now I don't like 9mm much especially DA's, but it is adequate for general military purposes and the Berretta 92 system has a LONG track record of eating sand in war and doing and outstanding job. I like Glock 17's better!. Of course my only "confirmed" kill was with a .45 1911 and that was because body stopped in front of brass in the command bunker and I got the medal write up. But from every hit I've seen to the head with an m-16 under 200 yard, suffice it to say one round takes off 1/2 a head!!!!

 

[JShirley]

I like FAL's, and have one now- wanted one since I was about 15- but I'd hate to hump the ammo.

 

[Quartus]

I think most people who complain about sissy assault rifles never took a M-14 or Fal on a run. They are ungodly heavy.

Yup. There are lots of Internet Experts who have never humped a hill with one.

Weight counts. Ammo counts.


Among folks who have actually used in in combat, AND KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS, there's little complaint about the 5.56mm. Even among the old-timers who love the Garand or M-14.

I have no beef with the 9mm, it has enough stopping power to get the job done. the 5.56, on the other hand, doesn't.

I sure don't want to get hit with either one. But if I HAD to, I know which one I'd choose.

 

[MOAMike]

Yup. There are lots of Internet Experts who have never humped a hill with one.

Weight counts. Ammo counts.

Among folks who have actually used in in combat, AND KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT GUNS, there's little complaint about the 5.56mm. Even among the old-timers who love the Garand or M-14..

Amen.



I will add, however, that for certain missions, the LR capability of the 7.62x51 is a must have! Open desert warfare could fall under that caveat.


Cheers,
Mike

 

[Quartus]

I will add, however, that for certain missions, the LR capability of the 7.62x51 is a must have! Open desert warfare could fall under that caveat.

No question that you need different armament for different situations. And as much as I defend the M-16 platform and 5.56 cartridge (the old 5.56!) against the rantings of the ignorant, I'd be the first to say that it's not the be-all and end-all of military armament.

Frankly, I'm glad to see them playing with a round that's somewhere in between the two. I've long thought that we'd be well served with something like the .243.

Don't know how the new round compares to that.

 

[JShirley]

Wider and shorter. Much like the 7.62x39 in many ways, but shoots flatter.

The problem with the .243 Winchester, is that it's the same parent case as the .308. There is some weight savings, but that's about it.

 

[Psssniper]

Byron

May I sincerely say it now, even though it has been many years
since you returned from serving our country.........

Thank You and God bless you.

Paul

 

[mattHP]

to set a couple of points straight:
No Marines that I know of were using M14's in Iraq, and I saw all 3 regiments there, but many of the designated marksman got a 4x scope for their M16. The Marines are not considering changing back to the M14--I wish we were. The only M14's I saw were with the SF guys, along with M79's. Until then, I had no idea anyone was still using M79's.

We've always been told in humid environments, you use more CLP when cleaning, in dry, use less (usually translated--none). This just didn't work, the first round wouldn't even chamber dry. A coat on the surfaces of the bolt carrier group (thicker coat than usually used on the range) was enough. Daily cleaning was imperative, there was just too much airborne dust raised from the convoys to even think otherwise.

I had one of the new Benellis for the duration of the "major combat operations" and it was pretty sweet, but CLP on the locking lugs was definitely a must. There were lots of places for dust to get in on that one, so it was cleaned more frequently.

In the end, it was all just good practice, our positions and convoys were never attacked, and we left soon after the war.

 

[JShirley]

Welcome to THR! Glad you made it unscathed.

(Damn glory hounds, grumble, grumble. The ARMY always does the hard work of holding.)

 

[444]

So did you have any problem with the shotgun malfunctioning ?

 

[Quartus]

The problem with the .243 Winchester, is that it's the same parent case as the .308. There is some weight savings, but that's about it.

Yeah, I was thinking ballistically. Should be possible to get those results with a smaller case.


mattHP, welcome to THR and welcome home, soldier!

 

[mattHP]

My hat's off to the Army "occupiers." I imagine occupying postwar Germany was a hell of a lot more rewarding.

On the Benelli you have to watch what you're doing when you put the bolt carrier group back in, and test it when done. I found the best way was to put the receiver on its left side and wiggle the bolt carrier group until the piece that contacts the buffer spring goes into place with the hammer poking through the correct spot.

If you don't CLP the locking lugs, the action, once dustied up, is so difficult to rack I had to put it butt to the ground and stomp the operating handle. Once we figured out where to lube it, it was fine.

Again, I didn't shoot it in anger. Not the ideal weapon for the open desert, but in convoys I'd hand it and my Beretta to my driver and take his M16.

 

[Quartus]

Not the ideal weapon for the open desert,

Ya think? Buckshot and 200-300 meter shots?

 

[Gordon]

Semper Fi and thanks Sir! Do guys still have shaving brushes(kinda old but great on fine sand if used all the time) or tooth brushes stuck in their hats?