CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   M1A/M14 (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=100)
-   -   Criticisms of the effectiveness of the M4/M16 continues (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=130545)

tttttt 02-20-2014 03:33 PM

Criticisms of the effectiveness of the M4/M16 continues
 
No explicit mention of the M14 in this story but the familiar refrains of jams, underpowered cartridge and lack of range continue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-was-w/?page=1

Quicksilvergoat 02-20-2014 04:36 PM

Just think if the M14 had been kept in production or hadn't been cut to pieces by the thousands. It's the same lame story for years since the adoption of the M16. Sad really.

7.62 Nitro Express 02-20-2014 05:22 PM

Yawn.

Whatever issues the M4/M16 system may have in 2014, going back a 1950s era update of a design from 1936 is not the answer.

The M14 was a total failure as a general issue infantry weapon.

Get over it.

MyTurn 02-20-2014 05:37 PM

The problem will always be that no one 'general issue' weapon will be right for every task. And the military has never been very good at getting everything right the first time (for that matter, few have). Having several different 'special purpose' weapons just complicates procurement and supply issues dramatically and, in some cases, will raise the risk of battlefield accidents.

Quicksilvergoat 02-20-2014 08:19 PM

Hmmm...let's see the 1911 and the madeuce seem to be holding their own. I don't see how the M14 was a total failure. It never had a chance. It was being replaced before it was even fully fielded. It's not some romantic notion that leads me to believe that the US would have been better off keeping it around. The very article in the OP lays out problem after problem the M14 doesn't suffer from. Well sticking with a 1950's era design that still exhibits a multitude of the same problems it has suffered since day one doesn't make much sense now either does it?

GGaskill 02-20-2014 08:33 PM

The M14 was supposed to be an automatic rifle and it never could achieve that status operationally (although I think that is a flawed requirement.) As mentioned above, the one size fits all philosophy doesn't work in this case any better than it does elsewhere.

It would seem to me that a new infantryman could be trained in AIT on both the M14 and M16 platforms and then be issued and receive pre-deployment refresher training on whichever weapon was considered appropriate for the deployment. While there are some supply considerations involved in having multiple calibers deployed, I can't see it would be much different than issuing .30-06 and .30 Carbine during WW II which was spread over a much wider distribution than any of our current/recent conflicts.

nf1e 02-21-2014 05:05 AM

We have always used multiple caliber choices in our fire teams. In my time it was .45,.30,30-06,.30 carbine,M79, laws and then of coarse the biggest goof of all, the .223. The only libturd that would think that one could do it all is one that never had to use any. The M14 would be my choice from any of the above for the ability to get the job done as best as possible with one weapon. It may be, in some opinions, an old design, but there is a reason it is still in service today after many moons. There has not been anything to replace its effectiveness or dependability since it's inception. You may not agree with me, but you would be wrong, no matter how many books you have read. This is my opinion only.

Semper Fi
Art
USMC 66-72 RVN 67 -68

mainsailantiques 02-21-2014 08:47 AM

In 2000 I participated in the Dayton Peace (?) Accords implinintation deal in Bosnia with the IPTF.
The houses and buildings there laughed at the .223 round.
The homes had soilid poured concrete walls in and out.
Most of us, and because we operated outside the military "ROE", were able to discarded our pathetic .223-throwers and moved to the 7.26 x 39 AK, or the 308 M1A.
Much more effective with the jack-bags behind the walls....

M14 02-21-2014 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7.62 Nitro Express (Post 1026321)
Yawn.

Whatever issues the M4/M16 system may have in 2014, going back a 1950s era update of a design from 1936 is not the answer.

The M14 was a total failure as a general issue infantry weapon.

Get over it.

Yawn ?...Really ? Seen much combat have you, with both rifles ? I can assure you the M14 was not a failure. It was the "infantry" that was the failure. Any weapon is only as good as the man using it. Draft all the Joe Blows off the street and that's what you get....failure of character and determination. A man's heart has to be committed to his task, especially in war. He has to believe in what he is doing. That was not the case during the Viet Nam police action. Not a war. It went all the way back to the late 50's and early 60's in Laos and our government had troops and advisors in there telling us it was to stop communism and the catastrophe of the Plane of Jars. There is a big difference to the men actually engaged in those cases. It was not about communism at all, but about sugar and other natural resources, massive plantations left behind by the French, and America's power structure deciding to just go and take it, just like they did to the American Indians here. Real men know a lie when they hear it. Would you fight as hard for a lie, as you would for something like the freedom of a people ?

Our brothers in arms are dying, they are dead, gone, buried, because of this McNamara debacle and corruption from way back in the leadership in Washington. I wish more people would show a little respect to those men and their families, who give their lives for this country so you have the right to say what you wish. We would not object to you changing your username to 2.23 Nitro Express you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat (Post 1026439)
Hmmm...let's see the 1911 and the madeuce seem to be holding their own. I don't see how the M14 was a total failure. It never had a chance. It was being replaced before it was even fully fielded. It's not some romantic notion that leads me to believe that the US would have been better off keeping it around. The very article in the OP lays out problem after problem the M14 doesn't suffer from. Well sticking with a 1950's era design that still exhibits a multitude of the same problems it has suffered since day one doesn't make much sense now either does it?

Plus 1.

I think we will eventually find the 9mm in the new sidearms will be a failure too....maybe not, unless we run out of air cover and missiles and troops start actually firing their sidearms in combat. It's a little late at that point.

The original M14 design is exactly the answer, with some receiver refinements we are working on now for socom. The White, gas cut-off system is all they had to do to the M16 back then, along with a cartridge similar to the 7.62x39, if little guys complained of weight issues with the M14.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nf1e (Post 1026642)
We have always used multiple caliber choices in our fire teams. In my time it was .45,.30,30-06,.30 carbine,M79, laws and then of coarse the biggest goof of all, the .223. The only libturd that would think that one could do it all is one that never had to use any. The M14 would be my choice from any of the above for the ability to get the job done as best as possible with one weapon. It may be, in some opinions, an old design, but there is a reason it is still in service today after many moons. There has not been anything to replace its effectiveness or dependability since it's inception. You may not agree with me, but you would be wrong, no matter how many books you have read. This is my opinion only.

Semper Fi
Art
USMC 66-72 RVN 67 -68

Well said Art !

Roadkingtrax 02-21-2014 10:57 AM

Going forward would certainly make the most sense. Time to design a rifle for the desert, high sierra environment if we plan to be in the Middle East for oil and Israeli flareups for the next 50 years.

Going backward makes as much sense as moonlight acquisitioning all the VFW tanks for spare parts.

tinydata 02-21-2014 11:20 AM

The current M4/M16 reliability problems are exacerbated by poor maintenance planning/policies throughout the DOD. Soldiers and Marines often overclean and fail to properly lubricate their rifles, and many of the rifles are worn out and badly need spring replacement. If you check on the M4 Carbine or ARFCOM forums, you'll read quite a bit about this.

While I've never heard a Vietnam veteran speak ill of the M14, it is not well suited for today's fighting because:

A) Its rather heavy to lug up the mountains of Afghanistan
B) It's not as optics friendly as a M16A4 (note that the RCO is standard issue in the Corps)
C) The length of pull isn't right for someone wearing body armor (then again, neither is that of a M16A4)

Bearing these factors in mind, I think that the best option would be a weapon with AR-like ergonomics while keeping the design principles of the M14 in mind. If I were to choose, it would look like an AR-15 (adjustable stock, integral optics rail, customizable furniture), be equipped with a gas piston, and be chambered for an intermediate-power round like the .280 British (7mm) or the new 6.8mm rounds. You're not going to get the best of everything in one rifle, but the M14 and M16 lie on two opposite extremes.

Here's a good read that I enjoyed:
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331

WoodsCustom 02-21-2014 11:33 AM

There is no one single perfect shoulder fired weapon for each circumstance a Soldier or Marine would encounter on the modern day battlefield.

No matter how sophisticated weapons become, the last 50 yards belong to a Marine with a rifle, and fixed bayonet.

WC

Quicksilvergoat 02-21-2014 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinydata (Post 1026773)
A) Its rather heavy to lug up the mountains of Afghanistan

The weight of the rifle isn't a problem. It's the weight of everything else that is carried. Troops today are over burdened with gear. You get to a certain point where things like body armor go overboard and become more of a liability than a life saving device.

Our grandfathers and great grandfathers who were smaller than us today physically on average had no trouble lugging the likes of the M1 around the world.

Just my .02

Rock 02-21-2014 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 (Post 1026743)
I think we will eventually find the 9mm in the new sidearms will be a failure too....maybe not, unless we run out of air cover and missiles and troops start actually firing their sidearms in combat. It's a little late at that point.

I would think that we would know if the current issue sidearm is a failure by now. There is no point continuing the nebulous 'stopping power' debate. The rest of the world uses the 9mm with little complaint.

The rifle complaints will fade away when we finally bring the troops home. This government will not be spending money on new rifles. They need it for social programs.

Rock 02-21-2014 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat (Post 1026831)
Our grandfathers and great grandfathers who were smaller than us today physically on average had no trouble lugging the likes of the M1 around the world.

Very true and they lugged them a lot further. Merrill's Marauders, for example, lugged them hundreds of miles on foot. There were no helicopters to hitch rides on.

MyTurn 02-21-2014 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGaskill (Post 1026451)
The M14 was supposed to be an automatic rifle and it never could achieve that status operationally (although I think that is a flawed requirement.) As mentioned above, the one size fits all philosophy doesn't work in this case any better than it does elsewhere.

It would seem to me that a new infantryman could be trained in AIT on both the M14 and M16 platforms and then be issued and receive pre-deployment refresher training on whichever weapon was considered appropriate for the deployment. While there are some supply considerations involved in having multiple calibers deployed, I can't see it would be much different than issuing .30-06 and .30 Carbine during WW II which was spread over a much wider distribution than any of our current/recent conflicts.

Pretty hard to confuse .30 Carbine and .30-06 even in the heat of combat, though. The M14 has certainly proven itself to be a good weapon and is better for long range use, although the 5.56 round has seen steady improvement, as seen in Afghanistan, for example. The rationale supporting a weapon that uses lighter weight ammo and thus allows the ordinary rifleman to carry more rounds is still very compelling, however, when you look at the studies that show how many rounds are expended for every enemy kill. A lot of guys think the 7.62x39 is much better as a 'do everything' round than the 5.56 so it is interesting to see that the Russians went to a round more like the 5.56 to use in the AK-74.

Dollar Bill 02-21-2014 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat (Post 1026831)
Our grandfathers and great grandfathers who were smaller than us today physically on average had no trouble lugging the likes of the M1 around the world. Just my .02

Actually, they did. We look at what they had to do and what they did it with and think that today's soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen have it so much easier but it's just not true.

In April 1944, the Marauders killed 400 Japanese soldiers, while suffering 57 killed in action, 302 wounded, and 379 incapacitated due to illness and exhaustion.

Today, even in a deep penetration mission, we would in no way suffer those kinds of losses. We've taken lethality and surviability to a new level and our expeditionary forces are the best in the world.

Do we need a new infantry weapon: Damn straight we do. Are we going back 70 years in time for that weapon, not a chance in hell.

Kestrel4k 02-21-2014 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn (Post 1026874)
[...] A lot of guys think the 7.62x39 is much better as a 'do everything' round than the 5.56 so it is interesting to see that the Russians went to a round more like the 5.56 to use in the AK-74.

My theory on that is that it simply comes down to, 'Troops hate what they're being shot at with'.
  • We're shooting 5.56 but getting hit by 7.62x39, so that seemed more effective.
  • The other side was shooting 7.62 & getting hit by 5.56, same thing.
Just a theory, I haven't been shot at by either and I have every intent for it to stay that way. :o

MyTurn 02-21-2014 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinydata (Post 1026773)
The current M4/M16 reliability problems are exacerbated by poor maintenance planning/policies throughout the DOD. Soldiers and Marines often overclean and fail to properly lubricate their rifles, and many of the rifles are worn out and badly need spring replacement. If you check on the M4 Carbine or ARFCOM forums, you'll read quite a bit about this.

While I've never heard a Vietnam veteran speak ill of the M14, it is not well suited for today's fighting because:

A) Its rather heavy to lug up the mountains of Afghanistan
B) It's not as optics friendly as a M16A4 (note that the RCO is standard issue in the Corps)
C) The length of pull isn't right for someone wearing body armor (then again, neither is that of a M16A4)

Bearing these factors in mind, I think that the best option would be a weapon with AR-like ergonomics while keeping the design principles of the M14 in mind. If I were to choose, it would look like an AR-15 (adjustable stock, integral optics rail, customizable furniture), be equipped with a gas piston, and be chambered for an intermediate-power round like the .280 British (7mm) or the new 6.8mm rounds. You're not going to get the best of everything in one rifle, but the M14 and M16 lie on two opposite extremes.

Here's a good read that I enjoyed:
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA512331

Great article! All M16 and Ar users should read it, especially the parts about lubrication and maintenance. I wonder what has come of the work on the Czechoslovakian round type cartridge?

nf1e 02-21-2014 03:35 PM

My thought is that the rifleman needs more training in the proper application of each round of ammo, rather than carrying more. It is the quality of the shot that counts, not the number. If you want to frighten the bad guys, just supply our troops with firecrackers. We could carry more and be almost as effective. You might as well save your ammo as flinging bullets into the wild. We should have learned a lesson with the M16 and full auto. I remember visiting an e club in Viet Nam and hearing a discussion of some Army guys. They were bragging about how many mags each had expended that day. What the hey? I don't think I ever heard a Marine even talk in terms of how much ammo he had used. It just seems like better training and supervision would end that sort of practice.

MyTurn 02-21-2014 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nf1e (Post 1026946)
My thought is that the rifleman needs more training in the proper application of each round of ammo, rather than carrying more. It is the quality of the shot that counts, not the number. If you want to frighten the bad guys, just supply our troops with firecrackers. We could carry more and be almost as effective. You might as well save your ammo as flinging bullets into the wild. We should have learned a lesson with the M16 and full auto. I remember visiting an e club in Viet Nam and hearing a discussion of some Army guys. They were bragging about how many mags each had expended that day. What the hey? I don't think I ever heard a Marine even talk in terms of how much ammo he had used. It just seems like better training and supervision would end that sort of practice.

I won't argue with the idea of more training. And every one of the guys I have talked to who served in Iraq or the 'stan have told me they never used their rifles on even 3 round burst: semi-auto only. That's a small universe, of course, but would seem to support your position and that 'spray and spray' isn't the rule anymore.

Rock 02-21-2014 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn (Post 1026959)
And every one of the guys I have talked to who served in Iraq or the 'stan have told me they never used their rifles on even 3 round burst: semi-auto only. That's a small universe, of course, but would seem to support your position and that 'spray and spray' isn't the rule anymore.

I noticed that just watching newsclips. I never see troops using full auto.
They finally figured out that full auto from an infantry rifle is not all that effective and in most cases unnecessary.

What would have happened if the M16 was not used in Vietnam? I suspect that the M14 would have done a good job even with full auto locked out. In a way, civilian semi auto M14 type rifles are superior. They don't have the extra full auto parts which saves a little weight and simplifies the design.

PattonWasRight 02-21-2014 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn (Post 1026959)
I won't argue with the idea of more training. And every one of the guys I have talked to who served in Iraq or the 'stan have told me they never used their rifles on even 3 round burst: semi-auto only.

Interesting.

Don't know if you have followed this, but the XM8 the US military was testing has some interesting info / reliability comparisons versus current rifles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8_rifle

Mike308 02-21-2014 05:06 PM

War is a terrible issue to get involved in. If we have to go to war why do we still put troops on the ground? We have the ability to make any spot on earth a waste land and not with nukes. The USG is not spending $600,000,000,000 every year on rifles and ammo! Bomb the snot out of anyone we have to war with and then let them clean up the mess.

Troops on the ground just doesn't make sense except that the USG doesn't give a hoot about ground troops. They use them up in police actions and nation building then when they come home beat up they treat them like less than a inconvenience.

GGaskill 02-21-2014 05:42 PM

Another Army monograph on effectiveness of current marksmanship

Current inadequacy of small arms training for all military occupational specialties in the conventional army.

Roadkingtrax 02-21-2014 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7.62 Nitro Express (Post 1026321)
Yawn.

Whatever issues the M4/M16 system may have in 2014, going back a 1950s era update of a design from 1936 is not the answer.

The M14 was a total failure as a general issue infantry weapon.

Get over it.

It would appear all rifles get a little bad press in their day:o

Whole article here: http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/...un&msg=3520.28

THE U.S. ARMY'S BLUNDERBUSS BUNGLE THAT FATTENED YOUR TAXES - John S. Tompkins, TRUE MAGAZINE, April, 1963 - Washington, D.C.

If you haven't heard about the M14 or its troubled history don't be surprised. The Army has been rather quiet about it lately, and with good reason.

MyTurn 02-21-2014 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGaskill (Post 1027052)

I wonder if the recommendations were ever adopted?

B-3-6 02-22-2014 08:46 AM

M14, this evening I'll tell my drafted WWII vet Joe Blow father-in-law what a failure of character and determination he is.

M14 02-22-2014 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat (Post 1026831)
The weight of the rifle isn't a problem. It's the weight of everything else that is carried. Troops today are over burdened with gear. You get to a certain point where things like body armor go overboard and become more of a liability than a life saving device.

Our grandfathers and great grandfathers who were smaller than us today physically on average had no trouble lugging the likes of the M1 around the world.

Just my .02

Exactly ! ....It's not the ticks that get you, it's all the little fleas. Analogy for weight issues and gear...useless gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock (Post 1026836)
I would think that we would know if the current issue sidearm is a failure by now. There is no point continuing the nebulous 'stopping power' debate. The rest of the world uses the 9mm with little complaint.

The rifle complaints will fade away when we finally bring the troops home. This government will not be spending money on new rifles. They need it for social programs.

Nope, history proves it. The more social programs, the larger the gov., the larger the gov, the more the push for expansionism, ...the larger that is, the more pressure for war. We will never see the end of war in America until it has destroyed itself.....The only ones that have seen the end of war are the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollar Bill (Post 1026881)
Actually, they did. We look at what they had to do and what they did it with and think that today's soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen have it so much easier but it's just not true.

In April 1944, the Marauders killed 400 Japanese soldiers, while suffering 57 killed in action, 302 wounded, and 379 incapacitated due to illness and exhaustion.

Today, even in a deep penetration mission, we would in no way suffer those kinds of losses. We've taken lethality and surviability to a new level and our expeditionary forces are the best in the world.

Do we need a new infantry weapon: Damn straight we do. Are we going back 70 years in time for that weapon, not a chance in hell.

Want to bet on it ?
Here's the thing about weapon design, once a good design is created, it doesn't matter how old it is. Take the revolver for instance. I don't see anyone not making them and selling millions because it is an old design. Colt would roll over in his grave if he heard that we are not going back, looking for design inspiration for the present and future. It's all about research and finding what has worked in the past and what will work, what mistakes were made and learning from those.
Quote:

Originally Posted by nf1e (Post 1026946)
My thought is that the rifleman needs more training in the proper application of each round of ammo, rather than carrying more. It is the quality of the shot that counts, not the number. If you want to frighten the bad guys, just supply our troops with firecrackers. We could carry more and be almost as effective. You might as well save your ammo as flinging bullets into the wild. We should have learned a lesson with the M16 and full auto. I remember visiting an e club in Viet Nam and hearing a discussion of some Army guys. They were bragging about how many mags each had expended that day. What the hey? I don't think I ever heard a Marine even talk in terms of how much ammo he had used. It just seems like better training and supervision would end that sort of practice.

Yep !

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-3-6 (Post 1027400)
M14, this evening I'll tell my drafted WWII vet Joe Blow father-in-law what a failure of character and determination he is.

If you want to take everything I said out of context and not understand what I wrote, then add words to it and tell him, go for it. You know full well I was talking about the Nam era. The WWII vets had belief in their cause and fought like hell because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Never heard of, or saw a WWII vet burn a draft card, or smoke dope on tv.

They were too uninformed in those days to actually doubt that their government might be lying to them. True patriots all, but not critical thinking enough to doubt their countries leadership and it's motives in those times either. You can tell him I said that about him and all of them.

The sinking of the Lusitania comes to mind. Never happened .....yet it drug American into war. Funny how history repeats itself over and over, like all the blasting gel residue found in the twin towers debris. I wish I was critical thinking enough to figure out how that got there.....ahh never mind, I need to go kick some foreigners butt for doing it. My government told me so.

nf1e 02-22-2014 09:41 AM

Remember the " Maine ". There is another that didn't happen , yet we went to war over it.

One well placed bullet will do a better job than a million misses.

missilegeek 02-22-2014 11:28 AM

The Lusitania didn't sink? Where did she go, then? What ship is wrecked on the bottom where she went down?

The Maine was probably the work of the rebels, not Spain, but she did, in fact, sink. I believe there were witnesses.

:confused:

The M16 is not going to be replaced by the M14 no matter how much you wish it. It will eventually be replaced, but the replacement needs to be better and fit current doctrine.

MyTurn 02-22-2014 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missilegeek (Post 1027476)
The Lusitania didn't sink? Where did she go, then? What ship is wrecked on the bottom where she went down?

The Maine was probably the work of the rebels, not Spain, but she did, in fact, sink. I believe there were witnesses.

:confused:

The M16 is not going to be replaced by the M14 no matter how much you wish it. It will eventually be replaced, but the replacement needs to be better and fit current doctrine.

Actually, studies and examination of the wreckage have shown that the likely cause of the sinking of the Maine was a smoldering fire in a coal bunker that ignited a powder magazine, I believe. And the Lusitania was definitely sunk by a German torpedo from the U-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania). I don't know if some people are the victims of a poor education, conspiracy theorists, false info on the internet or what.

Anyway, even well-trained and motivated troops will do better with better weapons and not so well with poorer or less well adapted and functional weapons. I suspect (at the risk of being branded a heretic on this forum) that if you had two platoons facing each other on equivalent terrain, both equally well trained and motivated, the platoon equipped with the M16s might well overcome the one with M1s. And I think that would be especially true in urban combat situations and other combat situations at ranges up to at least 3-400 meters.

missilegeek 02-22-2014 01:34 PM

More recent analysis indicates a black powder mine, not a bunker fire, sank the Maine.

MyTurn 02-22-2014 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missilegeek (Post 1027567)
More recent analysis indicates a black powder mine, not a bunker fire, sank the Maine.

Since I'm a history buff, you inspired me to go back and review the information on this. It looks like the best that can be said is that it is 'inclusive.' It's really interesting to look at the different studies, what they had to look at and how and why they arrived at their conclusions. While Wikipedia isn't always very reliable, they have a pretty good discussion of these studies and their conclusions at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

If you can get a hold of a copy of the National Geographic article, it has some great pics and info. Great for students. Interesting that the older participants in that study came to a generally different conclusion than the younger ones and why.

M14 02-23-2014 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn (Post 1027511)
Actually, studies and examination of the wreckage have shown that the likely cause of the sinking of the Maine was a smoldering fire in a coal bunker that ignited a powder magazine, I believe. And the Lusitania was definitely sunk by a German torpedo from the U-20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania). I don't know if some people are the victims of a poor education, conspiracy theorists, false info on the internet or what. Anyway, even well-trained and motivated troops will do better with better weapons and not so well with poorer or less well adapted and functional weapons. I suspect (at the risk of being branded a heretic on this forum) that if you had two platoons facing each other on equivalent terrain, both equally well trained and motivated, the platoon equipped with the M16s might well overcome the one with M1s. And I think that would be especially true in urban combat situations and other combat situations at ranges up to at least 3-400 meters.

Ahh, well that settles it. Wikipedia said so, it must be true.

Have you heard the McNamara confession about the firing on of another well known ship that finally was the excuse used, that drug us into Viet Nam ?....never happened he confesses...but I have a learning disability...what do I know. I'll leave it up to smarter guys to figure it out.

MyTurn 02-23-2014 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M14 (Post 1028151)
Ahh, well that settles it. Wikipedia said so, it must be true.

Have you heard the McNamara confession about the firing on of another well known ship that finally was the excuse used, that drug us into Viet Nam ?....never happened he confesses...but I have a learning disability...what do I know. I'll leave it up to smarter guys to figure it out.

Are yo talking about the USS Pueblo incident. I never heard that McNamara said that never happened. If you have a source for that information, please let me know because I would like to read about it.

Shomway 02-23-2014 01:34 PM

I believe M14 is refering to the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident"
http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalh...h-about-tonkin

MyTurn 02-23-2014 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shomway (Post 1028294)
I believe M14 is refering to the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident"
http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalh...h-about-tonkin

Thanks! Interesting article, too. I had my ship's names mixed up. Shouldn't do this kind of suff when I have a bad cold and can't sleep!

missilegeek 02-23-2014 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn (Post 1027577)
Since I'm a history buff, you inspired me to go back and review the information on this. It looks like the best that can be said is that it is 'inclusive.' It's really interesting to look at the different studies, what they had to look at and how and why they arrived at their conclusions. While Wikipedia isn't always very reliable, they have a pretty good discussion of these studies and their conclusions at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

If you can get a hold of a copy of the National Geographic article, it has some great pics and info. Great for students. Interesting that the older participants in that study came to a generally different conclusion than the younger ones and why.

Remembering the Maine works through the available theories fairly well.

PattonWasRight 02-24-2014 11:04 AM

I don't have one, so pardon my lack of knowledge. For those that put lots of rounds through theirs, how maintenance intensive is the rifle to help ensure reliable function?

Sometimes I'm torn between these and an AK, and have never move forward to a purchase decision.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:02 AM.