U.S Marines; What would you use?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the M16A4 we currently issue is a good rifle. Very accurate with good sights and the configurability for optics - True that it is a bit heavy and too long for busting down doors. I've qualified on the KD range with it once and it really made cleaning the 500yrd line super easy (not that I really found that task difficult in any of my previous 8yrs using the M16A2).

The M4 is light, short and well configured for close in door kicking or urban fighting. I've shot a fam-fire with a real one and have been shooting my personal M4 clone for enjoyment for the past year or so. I really like it.

I really like my old SA M1A as well and my FAL and my SKS's and my AK's. All of them great rifles that will do the job. Likewise my Garands and M1903 are superb weapons, that I would have been thrilled to have issued, were I a Marine in a different time.

I've never been one to "WISH" for this or that in the way of what the Corps issued me for gear. I've been issued M16A2's and the M16A4. Both of them did the job when I did mine.

Every rifle has its advantages and drawbacks. IMO the marksman behind the rifle is far more important than the rifle itself. Whatever it is - know your weapon and be proficient with it.

Now that I am a civilian again, I can buy whatever I want for my personal use. I personally keep the CMMG M4 clone loaded in the safe just incase of an emergency... I'm happy and familiar with it, but I've got no plans of going to war again. Were I to - I'd take whatever they issued me and train like my life depended on it. Then and only then I would be confident in the knowlege that I'm capable.

People put far too much emphisis on the gear and not the man.... tools are just that. I guess it's fun for people to play the "what if" game - but there are so many things out of the average Marine/Soldiers grasp that play into the weapons that Military's utilize.....

Maybe some one should start a thread "If You Could Have Any Training". Believe me TRAINING is where it's at.
Will
 
M14 or one of the newer M14 variants.

I have seen extensive battle with both the M14 and the M16. I prefer the M14.

If we had a new and reliable rifle with a better cartridge than the 5.56 NATO I would seriously consider it.

Probably a SCAR with the 6.8 or 6.5 or some caliber of that ilk. Actually I always thought the 243 would make a very good anti personnel round for a CQB rifle, but you are back to the 7.62 NATO cartridge size.

Also I don't want a hacked M16 with a piston, I want a rifle designed to be a piston rifle. HK, FN, Robinson, Remington etc but in a caliber that is "better" than 5.56 NATO.

I believe the M16 was a marginal design & cartridge in it's day, which has been hacked for the last 45 years to do marginal service today.

We have better options available. Both in platforms and cartridge. Until that day, I would stick with what worked for me most effectively. M14.

By the way, I did use my M14 clearing houses, in Hue. (we didn't call it MOUT in those days) So it ain't as compact, much more effective shooting through walls though. When I got back outside and back in the bush, I sure preferred it to the M16. Had a lot of experienced combat troops try to buy, trade, and steal my rifle too. I guess they had not been told how much better the Matty Mattel and caliber was. I also preferred the M14 when ever we got overrun too. (makes a much better baseball bat when the fight gets up close and personal.)

No one I ever met who actually saw combat with the M14 has ever complained to me about the rifle. I wonder why? I have met guys who have actually fought the M16/M4 that have complained.

Go figure.

Fred
 
CC19109M16s.jpg
I took this picture in 07/67 at Dong Ha Vietnam. It's of jammed up M16s from KIA & WIA Marines. They were junk then and they are junk now.
 
They were junk then and they are junk now.
Click to expand...

The military really screwed up the introduction of the M-16 into combat. I don't think anyone has ever disputed that. Improper maintence continues to this day, also.

But the M-16 of yesteryear is not the M-16/M4/AR-15 of today.

I would have never purchased one for my personal use if they were junk.
 
I Know you said "A" rifle but the weapons choice would depend on my mission. A lot of folks that have actual combat infantry experience in the mid east say they would choose the AK if given the choice for that envrioment and mission.
 
We're getting slightly off point here. Let's give our choice, and maybe our reason for it, but why insult or otherwise attack each other? After all, we're all on the same side.:)
 
The FN SCAR looks good. It almost makes me drool a little bit.
If push came to shove, I don't think ya could go wrong with the worlds most popular.
A Kalashnikov.
 
I would have never purchased one for my personal use if they were junk.
Click to expand...

You probably wouldn't have said that if some of your friends were wounded and killed directly because of that rifle. You ain't lived until after the first round, half the platoon now has the newest, lightest, fully automatic, single shot rifle in the world, in the middle of a firefight. But the ammo was lighter. I think these days many of the younger generation call it "xtreme" sports. My pistol and later revolver were used more often by other guys, who's rifle just took a dump. Hint: The rifles that jammed were not M14's.

It appears Clem and I have had similar experiences. I was 3rd Marine Division.

It still has a weak bolt (locking lugs), weak extractor, and all that is exacerbated by the heat dumped into the action. It also must be returned to depot sooner than any other issue rifle I have known or heard of. It frankly wears out quickly. I want our troops to have something better. Not a rifle still with a weak bolt and extractor using a piston. Get an adequately strong bolt/Bolt lugs, and a large strong extractor.

Some one mentioned the FAL too. Good rifle, just in the middle Eastern Desert many years ago it took a dump on the British. They had to modify their Bolts with "Sand" cuts/slots. Otherwise the FAL would fail. Nothing new here either.

So I reiterate, I would stick with the M14. The AK 47 would be a distant second.

Go figure.

Fred
 
M1 Garand and for a reason.
How many old battle rifles are still in use today and still accurate. I know of 2,the Springfield bolt action, 30-06 and the M1 Garand.
The most important requirement would be when you pull the trigger it goes bang and also hits the target.
I'm not against any rifle but the question was "fighting rifle" and the M1 is the one I was issued and carried.
 
How many old battle rifles are still in use today and still accurate. I know of 2,the Springfield bolt action, 30-06 and the M1 Garand.
Click to expand...
Swedish Mauser and the Swiss K31 are the most accurate today (and undoubtedly in their time as well)...Springfield is close, but still falls short, and the Garand isn't even close.

:)
 
I would arm myself with a good matchlock. Them new-fangled automatic self-loading contraptions are the devil! Would you trust the devil with your powder? Also, they are a waste of good ammunition. No one what accounts themself a decent shot would need to put that much lead downrange. 2 or 3 shots per minute is all a real rifleman needs.
 
you have to at least smile when I say this but I would
want to carry one of those SAW belt fed guns.
Man o man, I am not real crazy about the 5.56 but
if I could spray that many I'd be content :)

Otherwise I think the SPC or Grendel is better than both
the M-16 and the AKS round

Somewhat related, as I have always felt that the
WW-II battle rifles all shot bullets that were too big,
(30 cal and 8mm) and with too much recoil,
I thought the JAP 6.5 was just perfect
( but for some reason even they felt the need to bump up to 7.7)
especially considering that most of those guys probably
weighed 115 pounds when wet.
I own a 7.7 Jap and it is real close to a .308 in recoil
and performance.

I've heard that everyone else felt that we raised the
ante with the 30-06 and they had to reciprocate but
I would have thought that with open iron sights
all the distance potential of the -06 was mostly wasted.

I'd like to know how much shooting was really going
on at greater than 600 or 800 yards ?
 
Retired Navy here and I have to get a little OT because of the 'all Marines are combat troops' statement. I rode a sub with two Marine linguists that were about as combat troop-like as my chihuahua. I also worked with some other Marine linguists that were actually in favor of gun control. These were the minority of course, but the same can be said for all people in every service.
as far as the actual topic, I'm pretty new to the rifle thing and need to shoot more different versions to form an opinion on what is best.
 
Member



"Join Date: April 25, 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 518 I would arm myself with a good matchlock. Them new-fangled automatic self-loading contraptions are the devil! Would you trust the devil with your powder? Also, they are a waste of good ammunition. No one what accounts themself a decent shot would need to put that much lead downrange. 2 or 3 shots per minute is all a real rifleman needs. "
Come on, even the Amish have modern guns. (and cell phones) They just don't believe in electricity running in wires.
 
You know I do remember that in Vietnam that the number of shots fired
per kill was around 45,000. That doesnt seem possible but that is what
I read.
 
I've heard that everyone else felt that we raised the
ante with the 30-06 and they had to reciprocate but
I would have thought that with open iron sights
all the distance potential of the -06 was mostly wasted.

I'd like to know how much shooting was really going
on at greater than 600 or 800 yards ?
Click to expand...

Not much combat took places at those ranges, which is why the military developed intermediate cartridges.

Now, soldiers with good eyesight and training could hit out that far, but one of the tactics was "volley fire" or having a group of soldiers fire out that far, aiming best they could, in order to try to hit something. I am not endorsing that tactic, but it was in the playbook at the time. That's why rifles of the time have sights graduated out to those ranges...

You know I do remember that in Vietnam that the number of shots fired
per kill was around 45,000. That doesnt seem possible but that is what
I read.
Click to expand...

It's true. It does not mean that an infantry platoon is going to have to fire 45K rounds to hit a target, but when you take suppressing fire, cover fire, missed shots, etc into account vs. enemy killed, that's where the huge numbers come in to play. Don't forget the crazy obsession with "bodycount" very likely screwed up the statistics greatly.
 
Having fielded the M4 in combat, I have a complete lack of faith in 5.56mm. I would never do that again. I'll take any quality rifle in .308 Winchester or 7.62x39mm over anything in 5.56mm... any day of the week... absolutely.
Click to expand...

Cannot argue with that, personally, having come out the other side with a similar attitude.

I'm currently working up a 7.62x51mm piston driven AR style carbine platform for my next foray.

However, I have no problem with the M16A3 style, 20" barrel, fully automatic for certain situations, and the right kind of ammunition (MK 262 Mod.1 these days). Yeah, I know, I'm going to get flamed for that because "20in barreled M16's are too hard to room clear with". Maybe, maybe not. I'll agree, it is harder, but it is far from impossible.

The real issue at hand, one not taken into account by the OP is that the weapon does not make the soldier/Marine/DH. What makes a combatman effective is his mindset and training. Training with whatever weapon you are issued or have available until the muscle memory is so ingrained that you cannot forget it...that is the key. A service member who has simply qualified with a weapon platform and finds themselves in a combat situation may as well be carrying a club.

Know your weapon, know its' limitations. Remember, "tactical" is a mindset, not an equipment set.
 
M14 ....

But I can't wait until the H&K MR762 is available next year .... I'm gonna git me one of those!

**************

USMC: - 4/1/73 through 4/1/75 (They had 2 year active tours back then.)

PI - 3rd Battalion - Platoon 329

I believe we were the last rotation to fire the M14 on PI .... but I could be wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Marines choose standard-length M-16A4...
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
chieftain
C
5
  • Locked
Big Bullet Blues (5.56 inadequate stopping power)
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
5K
boomstik45
B
T
  • Locked
Retired Marine on "Conscientous Objector/AWOL marine"
Replies
4
Views
671
Carlos
C
M
  • Locked
Whoa! Key Marine commander removed!
Replies
6
Views
896
Boats
B
A
  • Locked
3,000 Marines headed to Afghanistan... and i'm one of them
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
3K
silverlance
S
Back
Top