does the military need a new service rifle
11-21-2006 | 09:02 AM
#33
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,720
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall, Pa.
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
ORIGINAL: HighDesertWolf
my father who is a vietnam combat veteran and I were discussing this earlier today. he said though he would personally prefer to have his M-14 he explained asfar as the 5.56mm is concerned it is really the best to keep massive amounts of lead in the air becuase a typical infantryman can carry twice as many rounds then that of 7.62 sand because most of your combat situations really just amount to suppresive fire where pin point accuracy just isnt required. he also said if any of your rounds actually hit a person its actually better to wound the enemy where a dead soldier is just left to lay till the fire fight is over but if someone is wounded then it actually takes the person wounded out of the fight plus whoever it takes to tend to the wounded person. In my fathers opinion as a basic infantry rifle he says the M-16 sucks but there really isnt anything wrong with the 5.56. he says there might be a need for better suited calibers for specific types of combat like in urban situations a shotgun or a pistol caliber firing sub machine gun would be best.
Would you rather wound the enemy and have him continue to fire at you or drop his butt in his tracks? In the jungle of Nam the emeny would just get behind a small tree. The M-16 would not penetrate and he was safe. Now he cuts loose with his AK that will go through trees and limbs and you are up sh--ts creek. The FMJ bullets were adopted during WW I to penetrate through as many of the enemy as possible to cause wounds. Todays battles in Iraq are a different deal. You don't have hundreds of enemy charging over open terrian in a line. An expanding bullet would stop the towel heads in their tracks. I want caliber and bullet that drops the enemy in his tracks with one shot. One little hole in the front with a real big one in the back.
ORIGINAL: JagMagMan
I doubt that the 5.56 M-16 will be going away anytime soon! As someone said, the idea in combat is to throw lots of lead, fast! I would think that in some specialized units, we will see new weapons, but again, in combat the M-16 and 5.56 works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Yes, heavier clibers do a better job killing, but with the risk of being un-PC, killing is not always the always best. Wounded soldiers require more man-power and resourses than dead folks do. You also don't need sniper accuracy in field combat, and you can probably carry 3 times the ammo for a 5.56 than you can for an '08 or an Aught-6.
Throughout history, the guys with the fastest weapons are ussually the winners.
Now, for handgun CQC they need to go back to more stopping power of the old .45 ACP.
I doubt that the 5.56 M-16 will be going away anytime soon! As someone said, the idea in combat is to throw lots of lead, fast! I would think that in some specialized units, we will see new weapons, but again, in combat the M-16 and 5.56 works! If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Yes, heavier clibers do a better job killing, but with the risk of being un-PC, killing is not always the always best. Wounded soldiers require more man-power and resourses than dead folks do. You also don't need sniper accuracy in field combat, and you can probably carry 3 times the ammo for a 5.56 than you can for an '08 or an Aught-6.
Throughout history, the guys with the fastest weapons are ussually the winners.
Now, for handgun CQC they need to go back to more stopping power of the old .45 ACP.
Would you rather wound the enemy and have him continue to fire at you or drop his butt in his tracks? In the jungle of Nam the emeny would just get behind a small tree. The M-16 would not penetrate and he was safe. Now he cuts loose with his AK that will go through trees and limbs and you are up sh--ts creek. The FMJ bullets were adopted during WW I to penetrate through as many of the enemy as possible to cause wounds. Todays battles in Iraq are a different deal. You don't have hundreds of enemy charging over open terrian in a line. An expanding bullet would stop the towel heads in their tracks. I want caliber and bullet that drops the enemy in his tracks with one shot. One little hole in the front with a real big one in the back.
11-21-2006 | 09:28 AM
#34
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
ORIGINAL: Sniper151
Would you rather wound the enemy and have him continue to fire at you or drop his butt in his tracks? In the jungle of Nam the emeny would just get behind a small tree. The M-16 would not penetrate and he was safe. Now he cuts loose with his AK that will go through trees and limbs and you are up sh--ts creek. The FMJ bullets were adopted during WW I to penetrate through as many of the enemy as possible to cause wounds. Todays battles in Iraq are a different deal. You don't have hundreds of enemy charging over open terrian in a line. An expanding bullet would stop the towel heads in their tracks. I want caliber and bullet that drops the enemy in his tracks with one shot. One little hole in the front with a real big one in the back.
Would you rather wound the enemy and have him continue to fire at you or drop his butt in his tracks? In the jungle of Nam the emeny would just get behind a small tree. The M-16 would not penetrate and he was safe. Now he cuts loose with his AK that will go through trees and limbs and you are up sh--ts creek. The FMJ bullets were adopted during WW I to penetrate through as many of the enemy as possible to cause wounds. Todays battles in Iraq are a different deal. You don't have hundreds of enemy charging over open terrian in a line. An expanding bullet would stop the towel heads in their tracks. I want caliber and bullet that drops the enemy in his tracks with one shot. One little hole in the front with a real big one in the back.
Check out some ballistic geletin tests and also the box o' truth: http://www.theboxotruth.com/
11-21-2006 | 09:42 AM
#35
Typical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
From: Delaware OH USA
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
I think the 223 M16 does that part of the job well. I think the M203 ggernade launcher should be dropped in favor of a shoulder fired guided missle of some sort. I think they are working on that. I saw one that tthe user could see throught the wall with the optic a set the missle to explode inside. That seemed valuable except the weight was 25lbs in prototype form.
11-21-2006 | 10:23 AM
#36
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 0
From: Rivesville, WV
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
First of all. HighDesertWolf-I thank your father for his service in Vietnam-what he thinks is paramount.
I come from the post Vietnam era-my brothers served. There opinion was throw the M-16 in the garbage, and spend a month's pay for an M-14.
The M-16 is a spray and pray weapon. The M-14 is a shooter's weapon. I realize the amount of ammo carried is an important factor. But I feel the M-16 will never attain the lore of the M-14, it will just fade away while our guys are still using M-14's.
The problem is that America is no longer turning out shooter's. It is now Politically incorrect to train a child to shoot and handle a weapon. I graduated high school in 76. We took our shotguns on the bus so that we could go squirrel hunting with the basketball coach after school. Try that today.
The first thing the military does with a real shooter is take the M-16 out of his hands, and put a real weapon back in those hands(not the M-16). I have a friend whose son is a Marine Corps Sniper-he does not carry an M-16, andbelieve me his job is not toWOUND AN ENEMY COMBATANT. If you want to learn more about these weapons just go to Camp Perry and watch the old timers shoot. Leave your rifles in the trunk, or be prepared to have your clock cleaned-those guys can do it. And by the way-leave your charts, and ballistics, andenergy calculations in the truck. Or be prepared to be laughed at. Tom.
I come from the post Vietnam era-my brothers served. There opinion was throw the M-16 in the garbage, and spend a month's pay for an M-14.
The M-16 is a spray and pray weapon. The M-14 is a shooter's weapon. I realize the amount of ammo carried is an important factor. But I feel the M-16 will never attain the lore of the M-14, it will just fade away while our guys are still using M-14's.
The problem is that America is no longer turning out shooter's. It is now Politically incorrect to train a child to shoot and handle a weapon. I graduated high school in 76. We took our shotguns on the bus so that we could go squirrel hunting with the basketball coach after school. Try that today.
The first thing the military does with a real shooter is take the M-16 out of his hands, and put a real weapon back in those hands(not the M-16). I have a friend whose son is a Marine Corps Sniper-he does not carry an M-16, andbelieve me his job is not toWOUND AN ENEMY COMBATANT. If you want to learn more about these weapons just go to Camp Perry and watch the old timers shoot. Leave your rifles in the trunk, or be prepared to have your clock cleaned-those guys can do it. And by the way-leave your charts, and ballistics, andenergy calculations in the truck. Or be prepared to be laughed at. Tom.
11-21-2006 | 10:29 AM
#37
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
ORIGINAL: HEAD0001
First of all. HighDesertWolf-I thank your father for his service in Vietnam-what he thinks is paramount.
I come from the post Vietnam era-my brothers served. There opinion was throw the M-16 in the garbage, and spend a month's pay for an M-14.
The M-16 is a spray and pray weapon. The M-14 is a shooter's weapon. I realize the amount of ammo carried is an important factor. But I feel the M-16 will never attain the lore of the M-14, it will just fade away while our guys are still using M-14's.
The problem is that America is no longer turning out shooter's. It is now Politically incorrect to train a child to shoot and handle a weapon. I graduated high school in 76. We took our shotguns on the bus so that we could go squirrel hunting with the basketball coach after school. Try that today.
The first thing the military does with a real shooter is take the M-16 out of his hands, and puts are real weapon back in those hands(not the M-16). I have a friend whose son is a Marine Corps Sniper-he does not carry an M-16, andbelieve me his job is not toWOUND AN ENEMY COMBATANT. If you want to learn more about these weapons just go to Camp Perry and watch the old timers shoot. Leave your rifles in the trunk, or be prepared to have your clock cleaned-those guys can do it. And by the way-leave your charts, and ballistics, andenergy calculations in the truck. Or be prepared to be laughed at. Tom.
First of all. HighDesertWolf-I thank your father for his service in Vietnam-what he thinks is paramount.
I come from the post Vietnam era-my brothers served. There opinion was throw the M-16 in the garbage, and spend a month's pay for an M-14.
The M-16 is a spray and pray weapon. The M-14 is a shooter's weapon. I realize the amount of ammo carried is an important factor. But I feel the M-16 will never attain the lore of the M-14, it will just fade away while our guys are still using M-14's.
The problem is that America is no longer turning out shooter's. It is now Politically incorrect to train a child to shoot and handle a weapon. I graduated high school in 76. We took our shotguns on the bus so that we could go squirrel hunting with the basketball coach after school. Try that today.
The first thing the military does with a real shooter is take the M-16 out of his hands, and puts are real weapon back in those hands(not the M-16). I have a friend whose son is a Marine Corps Sniper-he does not carry an M-16, andbelieve me his job is not toWOUND AN ENEMY COMBATANT. If you want to learn more about these weapons just go to Camp Perry and watch the old timers shoot. Leave your rifles in the trunk, or be prepared to have your clock cleaned-those guys can do it. And by the way-leave your charts, and ballistics, andenergy calculations in the truck. Or be prepared to be laughed at. Tom.
You can like the M14 over the M16 all you want, but you can't say the 14 is a more accurate rifle and the 16 is a "spray and pray" piece of junk.
I believe your post reeks of trying to justify whatever biases you have heard or tend to believe...
11-22-2006 | 12:45 AM
#38
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 0
From: Rivesville, WV
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
First of all- nowhere in my post did I call the M-16 junk, or can't you read. Second of all I merely believe that the M-14 is a better battle rifle than the M-16. As do all Vietnan vets-I know this from discussing it with a whole lot of vets. If you talked to any Vietnam vets, then you would know it too. I own a couple of the black rifles, and have owned many. They are a fine rifle, but the M-14 is a better battle rifle. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of real soldiers.
Now if you are going to tell me that the 223 caliber is a better caliber than a 308 at 600 yards then you are nuts. Yes you are correct the M-14 is a more expensive rifle, but that does not make the M-16 a better choice. And by the way "Spray and pray" comment is the comment made for the M-16. I find your reeks comment unjustified. Yes what I wrote is my opinion, but it is based on hundreds of conversations with soldiers and shooters over the years. What is your source of information.
Now if you are going to tell me that the 223 caliber is a better caliber than a 308 at 600 yards then you are nuts. Yes you are correct the M-14 is a more expensive rifle, but that does not make the M-16 a better choice. And by the way "Spray and pray" comment is the comment made for the M-16. I find your reeks comment unjustified. Yes what I wrote is my opinion, but it is based on hundreds of conversations with soldiers and shooters over the years. What is your source of information.
11-22-2006 | 09:55 AM
#39
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,514
Likes: 0
From: Port Neches, Texas
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
I think some may be missing my point! I am not denying that some of our "retired" weapons are superior to the 5.56/M-16!
But look at history, we may call it "spray and pray" but from the Civil War on, faster shooting usually equals victory!
But look at history, we may call it "spray and pray" but from the Civil War on, faster shooting usually equals victory!
11-22-2006 | 10:19 AM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,192
Likes: 0
From: Rivesville, WV
RE: does the military need a new service rifle
I understand what you mean JagMagMan. I am sure you are right, more ordnance down range is a better thing(especially when accuracy can be increased). I also believe that by putting more ordnance down range, our casualty rate should decrease. This decrease along with victory should be the ultimate goal. I was merely making some comparisons. Tom.