Posted on 12/30/2014 5:44:13 AM PST by C19fan
The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones?
One afternoon just a month and a half after the Battle of Gettysburg, Christopher Spencer, the creator of a seven-shot repeating rifle, walked Abraham Lincoln out to a grassy field near where the Washington Monument now stands in order to demonstrate the amazing potential of his new gun. Lincoln had heard about the mystical powers of repeating rifles at Gettysburg and other battles where some Union troops already had them. He wanted to test them for the rest of his soldiers. The president quickly put seven rounds inside a small target 40 yards away. He was sold.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
It’s not the weapons that have put our soldiers at risk. It is the rules of engagement.
Nope. The M-4 is a durable and capable weapon. Not my favorite by any stretch but it does the job. The issue with it is that the tolerances are tight and not as forgiving as the AK so it fowled quite often and required constant cleaning. IMHO the M14 should have stayed as the infantry weapon of choice. After that, the FN SCAR.
I remember responding as QRF as a MP 1st LT holding my Beretta M9 and a small paint brush ...cleaning my weapon as responded from sand...hated that sidearm...the Glockm faired better once I went back to Iraq with Blackwater...and saw the SF using 1911 and M14’s with great success...that is what is needed...great weapons and firepower...not col looking gadgets or “lowest bidder” small caliber types...
It is both, actually, with the “rules of engagement” moving out in front farther and farther as they become more suicidal from the point of view of the infantryman or murderous from the point of view of the President.
Fared.
In jungle fighting against 90lb viet cong the 5.56/.223 is serviceable. Against 200lb sand people hiding in solid buildings and in stout vehicles, we must go back to 7.62/.308 or greater power. M14/AR10/FNFAL. These should be the minimum.
M4 size and caliber weapons in close quarter house to house fighting in the hands of a select few, could serve the purpose of a Thompson in the hands of a squad leader of WW 2 boots on the ground.
The short answer is: No, it is not the same crappy weapon we sent to Vietnam.
We can still argue about whether .223 / 5.56mm is the best round for use in combat or whether a heavier cartridge would be better, but the reliability and QA/QC problems of that weapons system have been addressed and it is a reliable and sound firearm.
I once had the great privilege of sharing an Albany,GA bar with a multi tour combat marine vet of the sandbox. His combat experiences have been featured on the history channel in their combat 360 series. He wasnt an ordinary marine, he was attached to a spec ops group for most of his combat tours. He spent time in both Iraq at the Syrian border and Afghanistan.
His name was Bodette.
Being a former USN gunners mate...and a lifetime firearms enthusiast...I asked his opinion of the colt battle rifle platform....thinking I would hear of it’s fragility in the sandbox amongst other shortcomings I had heard about from Vietnam vets.
Suprisingly...He told me for him...and he had several platforms he could of used other than the m-16/m-4...that the colt battle rifle was his favorite.
I asked why? Wasn’t it high maintenance? Wasn’t the 5.56 a weak round for the distance of engagements in Afghanistan?
He said he liked the smoothness and accuracy it delivered which enabled him to put more rounds on target quicker than his enemy could....especially at distances over 200 yards. He said this was the reason he survived his tours.
I wasnt a big fan...till I met him.
The AR-15 is an excellent weapon there are so many vendors out there selling their version of them that the improvements have been astonishing. I have a Colt that was mad in 1978 and it’s OK as far as it goes. I have built better weapons from parts obtained from various manufacturers beginning with the lower receiver at a total cost of around $500.
Start here....if you dare.
https://www.vbd.com//noc/shop/products_detail.asp?CategoryID=29&ProductID=122
No, and it wasn't crappy in 'Nam either. A lot of the criticisms for its performance in Vietnam had to do with using the incorrect powder in the cartridges, and also neglecting to teach the grunts to clean their rifles regularly (pencil pushers at the Pentagon foolishly thought it never needed to be cleaned). Also, the addition of the forward assist on the A1 helped.
Today it is a great assault rifle. Most criticisms of the AR-15 platform are due to the fact that it cannot reliably function in sustained full auto for long periods of time (i.e. several hundred rounds) without jamming. No kidding it can't. It's rifle, not a light machine gun. It isn't made to fire in sustained full auto. The AR-15 is designed to be shot primarily in semi-auto with full auto only intermittently. It is designed this way because of the predominant US combat philosophy since after WWII.
I once had the great privilege of sharing an Albany,GA bar with a multi tour combat marine vet of the sandbox. His combat experiences have been featured on the history channel in their combat 360 series. He wasnt an ordinary marine, he was attached to a spec ops group for most of his combat tours. He spent time in both Iraq at the Syrian border and Afghanistan.
His name was Bodette.
Being a former USN gunners mate...and a lifetime firearms enthusiast...I asked his opinion of the colt battle rifle platform....thinking I would hear of it’s fragility in the sandbox amongst other shortcomings I had heard about from Vietnam vets.
Suprisingly...He told me for him...and he had several platforms he could of used other than the m-16/m-4...that the colt battle rifle was his favorite.
I asked why? Wasn’t it high maintenance? Wasn’t the 5.56 a weak round for the distance of engagements in Afghanistan?
He said he liked the smoothness and accuracy it delivered which enabled him to put more rounds on target quicker than his enemy could....especially at distances over 200 yards. He said this was the reason he survived his tours.
I wasnt a big fan...till I met him.
From what I understand the 5.56 mm was good in Iraq where one saw lots of urban warfare but in the wide open spaces of Afghanistan the heavier cartridge is better.
Bingo.
(What are you all standing around for? Thread is over.)
The problem with the M16 was that the rifle was tested with spherical gun powder. The government bean-counters decided that cylindrical gun powder could be used. That powder caused the rifle to become fouled. This left alot of troops on the battlefield with no weapon.
He was lyin’.
In an urban environment under 300m, I would take my AK-47/AKM (7.62x39mm) over the AR platform. Further than that, a bolt action 7.62x51mm or 7.62x54R would be fine.
There’s nothing wrong with the weapon. When property maintained it will do the job. If there is a problem it’s the crappy bullet. The 62 grain steel core is fine for punching holes in things, especially thin skinned vehicles and the like.
But it sucks at putting bad guys down. A soft point design of the same weight would do a much better job IMO. I use the FMJ and green tip stuff for practice. But for social work my magazines are full of Sierra Game King Spitzers.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.