[river rat]

As reliable a killer as the M14 was -- there were problems.

It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth.
It was too heavy.
The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy.
Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.

The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards.
At that range, Charlie's AK47 was a spray and pray piece.

Semper Fi

[Recon Dad]

When your humping 80 to 100 pounds weight becomes the Major consideration. Is there info on that SOCOM gun? I would think that would be one of its features.

[lentulusgracchus]

The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards.

Which sounds like an argument for the M1903 Springfield.

I read somewhere that the VC typically carried a very low ammo load -- 30 or 60 rounds or so. Any truth to that? And they dropped their packs in a rear area before walking in, which our guys didn't do. Gave them a terrific weight/fatigue advantage.

[Past Your Eyes]

When I was in boot camp, I had an M-14. Loved that rifle and what it could do. Then I got to ITR and they gave us M-16s. How I hated that thing.
Now I have a Chinese SKS. Put some decent sights on it and that is one nifty weapon.

[SBprone]

The M16 put on a lot of weight in recent years. The recent heavy barrel versions weigh about the same as an M14 with fibreglass stock, about nine pounds and change.

[ExSoldier]

It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth. It was too heavy. The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy. Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.

Bad in a jungle war in the 1960's. But a short carbine version in the 21st century where the LAV or Bradley is nearby with lots of spare ammo and water etc, it's sure to make the difference. I loved the old M60,, but it's gone and the belt is a thing of the past, at least carried loose. Belt fed from a box is more compact and dependable.

[School of Rational Thought]

As reliable a killer as the M14 was -- there were problems.

It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth.
It was too heavy.
The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy.
Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.

"The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards.
At that range, Charlie's AK47 was a spray and pray piece."

But the issue at hand is Iraq and Afghanistan.