Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by dak0ta, Apr 18, 2013.
We used to play this on a VCR for our range students before class started. Slightly sqewd in favor of the M-14 since that guy only fired semi auto and used a braced sitting position at the same range the other guys fired from standing off-hand. Without Slings.
Very interesting. It shows why many of our military personnel are clambering for the M14
Enjoyed it much. Learned a fair bit.
You don't say...
The Brits did something similar with the SA-80: accuracy results with the SA-80 with its optic were directly compared to the L1A1 and the SA-80 was shown to be easier to learn and have more hits than the L1A1.
Of course, the L1A1s used during the test had iron sights.
Just recently purchased an M1A. He he he he .....
Love the big brother Garand.
That has to be one of the few times I have ever seen a Field Grade Officer doing a live-fire rifle demonstration.
I used an M14 in some of my "government work". The on target performance is significantly greater than either the M 16 or AK 47. Burst fire is irrelevant if one round is good enough and I was in the "one shot per customer" business.
My problem with the assault rifle rounds is that I expect my rifles to be able to do real rifle things. Assault rifles are fine if the situation at hand calls for a rifle dressed up like an SMG. But as soon as you have to turn cover into concealment or reach and touch beyond across the street distances, the assault rifles lose their muster, and their utility. Giving up the hallmarks of the rifle--it's range and power--to achieve greater volume of fire seems rather like shooting one's self in the foot.
One thing the guy in the video forgot or neglected to mention is that the newer versions of the M16 and the M4 aren't even capable of fully automatic fire. Thus you give up the range and power of the rifle without achieving the volume of fire provided by the SMG--you get the worst of both worlds. My mission as an 0311 was defined as engaging individual targets with aimed, semi-automatic rifle fire. The M1A/M14 superior to the M16 in this respect in every way that matters. I would have gladly humped twice the weight to get 3x the effective range and more "oomph" at every range.
Basically, the M16 lacks the range and power to compete with a real rifle and only boast the firepower advantage over the SMGs if it has full auto capability, which it doesn't. It is a self-defeating contridiction of terms--it's like ditching the full-sized Dodge diesel for a sporty little coupe on the basis of speed, then putting a governor on the coupe.
Note also how when it came time to put aimed semi-automatic rifle on point targets at 300 meters or so, with iron sights, the AK didn't seem to have much, if any, more difficulty dropping the targets than the M16. AKs are inaccurate? Riiiight.
Video disabled now.
Just click the watch on YouTube link.
I never felt undergunned with my M16 and found it perfectly effective out to at least 410ish meters.
The M14 is a great rifle. I love them. I wouldn't want to carry one in combat though. Ammo is too heavy.
Why don't we just switch over to the HK-417 or SCAR-H rifles that are lighter, have less recoil in burst/full-auto, are modular, and have better ergonomics? All the benefits of an assault rifle coupled with 7.62 NATO.
Ive shot a full auto Scar-H/Mk17 and its still way uncontrollable. I did really like the rifle though. Outside of few circumstances I think full auto rifle fire is just a waste of ammunition, especially at anything over about 25 yards.
The main problem with 7.62 Nato rifles is more the weight of the ammunition.
The main problem with 5.56 NATO rifles is more how much ammunition is required to accomplish anything. Sure, you can carry 2x the ammo, but it takes 3 rounds of 5.56 to accomplish what one round of 7.62 is capable of. If your mission as a rifleman is aimed rifle fire at specific targets, and we are going to limit, in both function and doctrine, our rifles to semi-auto, then it makes absolutely no sense neutaring our fighting men with a varmint round. That's my opinion, your results may vary, but I find the continued issuing of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 to be absolute clown shoes.
As noted in the video, the primary problem concerning external ballistics of both the x39 and the 5.56 is the poor BC of the rounds. There are intermediate powered rounds out there that offer superb BCs, namely the Grendal, and there are rifles out there that time and time again prove to be as accurate under combat conditions as the M16, but far more reliable and capable of full auto. I am not saying we have to go back to a full size round. But of the options and technology available to us, I feel the US has some of the worst available and our fighting men and women succeed despite the shortcomings of their equipment because of training and the technology used elsewhere, such as coms and air support.
I've humped a lot of gear up and down some pretty steep country my entire adult life. Ounces count. I get that. But nothing sucks worse than sweating and swearing your way to the top of a mountain with half your body weight in gear and then finding yourself unprepared for what you encounter. I'd rather carry an M14 to the top of the mountain and be overgunned when I get to the fight than carry an M16 to the top of the mountain and be undergunned.
I have a feeling if the USMC went into Iraq with M1 Garands, BARs, M1 Carbines, Thompson SMGs from WWII era, they still would have got the job done in places like Fallujah. It's the soldier and his/her training that gets the job done. Outsmart the enemy with tactics and force them into your kill zone. 30-06, .45 ACP would take care of the rest.
You could almost argue that the "AK" and "AR" semi-automatics are superior weapons to their full auto cousins. At least for accuracy and even suppression when some level of accuracy is required. Thanks for posting this - most facts in the video have been discussed at some point singularly or one vs. the other, but this opens the discussion up a bit. He even mentions the AK-74.
There's no one weapon to rule them all.
That's why I want all of them. That would rule.
Compromise - the middle ground..
The XM16-E1 was introduced too quickly, directly into combat and the M14 was cancelled when it shouldn't have been. Both bad decisions by SecDef McNamara. He had some good ideas on paper at least, but they didn't translate to the real world. The M14 and M16A1 should have been used together in tandem. Mayble the M14 for automatic riflemen and squad marksmen and the M16 for general issue. Having one standard for a cartridge does improve logistics, but you pay the price in effectiveness and flexibility of weapons. Oh well, all water under the bridge...
What's the best type of rifle for soldiers?
Worldwide, every army I've aware of issues assault rifles. Nobody that has any choice (like rebels in Lower Bungholistan) uses full power rifles anymore.
Another factor is that soldiers do not operate only as riflemen. A whole lot of a soldier's job is to haul around ammo for the crew served weapons and serve as replacement for any casualties those weapons crews take.
Soldier proficiency can't be over looked. Proficiency comes from good training and ammo put down range. A reality for the vast majority of the units in our services has historically been inadequate quantities of training ordnance. Smaller cartridges cost less, much less.
Whether this savings on ammo has translated to more proficiency is debatable, but it SHOULD have.
This is also why I think the 6.8SPC would be a good choice. More energy, about the same recoil, longer range, larger bullet.....yet the ammo is about as lug-able as 5.56.
I've come to love the AR-10 pattern rifle better than the M14/M1A.
Ergonomics of the M16/AR-15 with the 7.62 firepower.
Separate names with a comma.