Posted on 12/30/2016 8:06:14 AM PST by mad_as_he$$
IN MARCH OF 1965, the first U.S. troops landed in Vietnam. They were carrying the M14 rifle, chambered for the 7.62×51mm NATO (M80 Ball) cartridge, which had a detachable 20-round magazine and was capable of semi- and full-automatic fire. The military soon learned the M14 on full auto was extremely difficult to control; most burst fire was ineffective.
As a result, many M14 rifles were issued with the selector levers removed, making the rifle effectively, an M1 Garand with a 20-round magazine. The M14 was accurate but heavy, weighing nearly nine pounds, empty. As U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War escalated, our troops encountered North Vietnamese as well as the Vietcong carrying the Soviet-designed AK47 (Avtomat Kalashnikova model 47), chambered for the 7.62×39mm Soviet cartridge, and had a 30-round magazine. The AK’s light recoil permitted controllable, accurate full-auto bursts and American troops began to feel outgunned. The United States needed it’s own assault rifle — and needed it fast.
During the early 1950s, ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation of Hollywood, California, was working on a new assault rifle. The chief engineer was Eugene M. Stoner (1922–1997), described by many as the most gifted firearms designer since John Browning. His first attempt to create a new assault rifle was designated the AR10 (ArmaLite Rifle model 10).
(Excerpt) Read more at gundigest.com ...
Please correct those that call a 20,30 or larger magazine "high capacity". That is simply a propaganda tool and I hear it even from gun owners.
I didn't post this to get into an endless and pointless argument about AR/AK those arguments are stupid and a waste of time.
There were no US soldier in Vietnam prior to March 1965?
The very purpose of reducing the cartridge size and trying to maintain some sense of performance is what that round is all about. So in that same sense it would make sense that the developers would want to have as much capacity in the number of rounds a soldier could carry and shoot as possible.
My recollection is that there were advisors there long before that.
When did Vietnam start? I know we were there much earlier, but it was known as Indochina then.
Right, that was when it was called Indochina. I think that may have started in the 50’s.
He is clearly referencing tge arrival of Marine units in March 65. These were thr first combat formations deployed to the RoV.
I remember when we left Okinawa in 1962, they tried to send my father directly to Viet Nam.
My mother had had enough of that shit (he was a 1939 enlistee and spent time in the Med, Sicily, Battle of Rome, and occupying Germany. It was a wonder he ever got back to the US and met my mom and had my sister and me. They were in Germany in 1948 right before my sister was born and came home to have me the year after next. Then it was off to Korea and parts elsewhere like Eniwetok before coming home a couple of years. 1959 another deployment to Okinawa and then the attempt for Viet Nam.) My mother got her Congressman by the nads and that was stopped and he never got promoted again.
Anyone who ever thought that ANY man, no matter how big or strong, could hold an M-14 on an area target full auto, was on crack.
The 20rd mag would empty in less than two seconds leaving the shooter dazed and wondering which direction he was now looking. And whether he was still standing.
In a 3rd burst at 100 yds, each round would be separated by 20ft or more.
We did have the M1 Carbine. It was also controllable in full auto. Somehow I doubt the usefulness of full auto in rifles (or pistols).
I know the British had their FALs made in semi only.
I think the M-16 turned out to be a great rifle and glad we fielded it. I still think the M1 Carbine would have been effective against small Vietnamese in light clothing.
Advisors under Eisenhower & Kennedy; combat unit deployments under Johnson beginning in 1965.
The US Army Center of Military History’s web page for Vietnam:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/vw.html
And links to full online editions of its published Vietnam Official Histories:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/usavn.html
The author ought to have read up on his history or made it clearer that March of 1965 was when the commitment of troops went from Green Beret training squads and platoons to full scale Marine, Army, and Air Force units. It’s when the elephant decided to go from a toe in the water to a running jump into the swamp. There are plenty of “what if?” history novels about the Civil War and WWII. I wonder when a novelist will tackle how very different the 1960’s and 70’s to today would have been if LBJ had not decided to unzip and throw down to show what a manly man he was.
“...As the anti-gunners gear up again ...”
Yeah, they’ll never quit. But this time, they don’t have the same muscle with in the WH and congress.
All the same, though. Never relax, never stand down, and never back down.
I can only relate to you what I know of my father’s potential deployment to Viet Nam. I have no reason to disbelieve my mother or him at this point. What I do know is that getting him out of it cost him advancement eventually forcing him to retire because of medical disability. Take it for what it is worth.
Which is still a damn fine rifle. This is what is sold today as an M1A and is quite popular. If you are looking for a good 30 caliber semi-auto rifle it's hard to beat an M1A Scout. And please, I agree an AR-10 is also a fine choice. Not trying to start a debate between those two.
"Accurate" being a relative term.
I was watching something about this last night on Weaponology. They were talking about how the M14 was a great weapon, but too expensive to produce and wasn’t necessary as most firefights happen within 3-400 yards and not 1000+.
But it is a fantastic weapon for hunting and for snipers.
Mariner wrote: “Anyone who ever thought that ANY man, no matter how big or strong, could hold an M-14 on an area target full auto, was on crack.”
As I remember only one or two rifles in a squad were M15’s, ie, full auto capable. The M14s were to replace the M1s and the M15s were to replace the BAR. Why? Well, because we always had a full auto weapon in each squad with the BAR. I suspect the BAR was a bit more controllable in full auto.
When I was at ROTC summer camp, each squad had one, maybe two, guys with a M15. They always picked the biggest guy for that job. My foxhole buddy carried one. He was 270 and played offensive tackle.
The article was condensed from a full book and yes he probably should of added “combat”.
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.