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)

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 PM.