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)

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.