What Would You Choose As the M9's Replacement?

[SharpsDressedMan]

Girls can't handle the M14? Ever been to Camp Perry? They will make a liar out of you. The M14 is not fired on full auto. It can be, but it is a wasted effort. Anyone that does is either wasting ammo, or doesn't know what it is designed for. Except for designated squad gunners, maybe one or two per squad, most units that employed the M14 removed the selectors to disallow the bulk of the soldiers or grunts such use, wasting ammo, etc. It was never quite the full auto rifle that it was intended to be, so training and use pretty much omitted full auto over the time of its service. There will be 100 lb. female soldiers that decide they can't shoot the M14, as will there be 175 lb. males that fail to qualify, because the recoil is just too brutal. I am willing to let them wash out. If you don't agree, and fell you, too, would fail to qualify, don't apply for membership in a military combat role. It might be too demanding. Raise the bar. Deadly combat, infantry readines, etc, is not for everyone.

 

[mljdeckard]

Exactly. If you use an M-14 on full auto, you are wasting ammo.

In my field, what is in their heads is much more expensive and rare than their rifle skills. It cost a half a million to train them, so whether or not they can run a rifle that the U.S. Army loved so much they kept it in service for a grand total of eight years isn't even on the list of criteria of whether or not they are qualified to be soldiers.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

so whether or not they can run a rifle that the U.S. Army loved so much they kept it in service for a grand total of eight years isn't even on the list of criteria of whether or not they are qualified to be soldiers.

You probably already know but I'm just saying this to clear up future confusion The Army still uses the M14 setup as a DMR. It's no longer standard issue or meant to be used on full auto but it's still there.

 

[marksman13]

Sharps, I don't think anybody is claiming that girls can't handle the M14. What's being pointed out is that they don't have to. As much as I like the M14 it and the 1911 have very limited roles in today's modern military. The M14 is great in Afghanistan where longer engagements are more routine and I would not take issue with troops that are stationed in the more remote mountainous areas being issued and trained on the M14. In fact, that makes an awful lot of sense, but to make a blanket statement that all troops should train on weapons that are no longer in the system is a little ridiculous isn't it?

I would rather see troops spend more time, effort and money training in real world scenarios with the weapons they will actually be issued. Wasting time and money on 4 types of firearms and 4 different types of ammo is a monumental waste of tax dollar that we don't have. You and I have generally seen eye to eye, but I just can't wrap my head around the argument you are making here.

What is to be gained from troops using the M14 and 1911 as opposed to using the M16 and M9 besides weapon familiarity? Surely you aren't saying that the use of the less accurate M14 will make a soldier a better rifleman.

What does the 1911 bring to the table that the M9 does not, besides the obvious caliber difference? Diminished magazine capacity? I'm a 45 ACP fan but there are better options in that caliber for modern military use.

 

[GunNut]

Can't you guys take the rifle talk to the rifle section or PM's?

I'm pretty sure this thread is about picking a handgun and some of you have taken it so far off topic.

 

[Justin]

This thread has gone completely off topic.

Sent from my myTouch_4G_Slide using Tapatalk