Skip to comments.US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
Posted on 05/22/2010 11:58:33 AM PDT by too_cool_for_skool
KABUL, Afghanistan The U.S. military's workhorse rifle used in battle for the last 40 years is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
The m14 was a based upon the Garand and George Patton said the Garand was the greatest battle rifle ever designed.
Troops in Vietnam complained, however, that the 308 round was heavier than the 5.56 and thus couldn't carry as many mags of 308 as they could mags of 5.56. Also, the 308 was more difficult to control in full auto especially when so many troops adopted the spray and pray technique.
Never heard of it... but just checked it out. Looks good. It appears they're replacing it with the Tavor TAR-21.
WOW! it only took 44 years to admit that the Poodle Shooter is nothing more than a top of the line varmit plinker!
How many American lives have been lost since 1966 because of the foolish decision to abandon the .308 M-14 and go with the .223?
If you want to get your blood boiling read the history of the big money, insider influence, and cover ups of operational defects that lead to the adoption of the AR-15/M-16/M-4 Poodle Shooters.
As in everything else related to the Federal Government, if you want the truth just follow the money.
Yep, mine served me well with an EOTech sight attached.
That was before the boating accident...
Ft Know s/b Ft Knox. Lousy keyboard (and typist) and lousy spell check.
I’ve seen the pictures of the FN SCAR - it must be a really nice rifle. I envy your good fortune at actually firing such a fine rifle!
I have a Garand and a MIA national match in my defensive armament. Also a Ruger .223 Ranch Rifle and an SKS. I’m ready no matter what.
We need something in .308.
Why not something in 7.62x39, the preferred caliber of our enemies? I’ve owned one. Mild recoil and utter reliability. 308 is considered mid sized but it still packs large caliber recoil. That’s one of the reasons we got rid of it.
I had a 7.62x39 in a Ruger mini 30, but seriously, with that pencil thin barrel, after the first two shots the groups opened up enormously. I sold it.
Perhaps the action is capable of more rounds per minute, but neither was issued as a full-auto, so that's not really an issue, is it? I'm real sure that I could shoot more rounds with the M-14 in one minute, because of the 20 round magazine vs. the 8 round clip. I think this advantage outweighs any other mechanical cycling advantage the Garand may have.
It's should not be fired in full-auto however...unless to clear a room from a stiff hip-mount.
The USMC used to regularly mix weapons in their rifle teams....30 Carbine, .45 Thompson and the M1 Garand were a common mix.
I see no reason why we wouldn't go about 50-50 with the M4 and M14...it's the same round used to the two machine guns currently in service....308 and .223.
Wahoo! Saw one with a regular rifle scope attached. Got to shoot it. WOW! A real “Christian” maker need in Afgan!
I've an 870, M1A, and an AP4 .308 panther. : )
The italians had a updated version with a 20 round deatachable mag
We need to be able to push bullets with heft (e.g., 150 grain) long distances over open spaces in Afghanistan. A .308, a very accurate round, is up to the task.
The rifles now referred to as “assault rifles” came to be in the latter years of WWll, when the Germans found that the full-house infantry round, the 8x57mm Mauser, was uncontrollable in a rifle-weight shoulder-fired weapon. The devised the MP-44 “Sturmgewhre”, a rifle featuring select fire and firing a less-powerful cartrige, the 8x33mm. Mikhail Kalasnikov applied the concept to his AK-47. The definition of “assault rifle by the military is a select-fire rifle of INTERMEDIATE POWER.
The M-14 was unmanagable in full-auto fire. The old BAR was capable of select fire but tipped the scales at 20 lbs.
I have seen AR-15s used in high power rifle competitions at 600 yards but it requires an 80gr. bullet with a different rate of twist in the barrel rifling. There is a difference between punching a hole in a piece of paper and making certain that SOB 600 yards out is down for the count. The M-4 is a cut-down M-16. In making it more compact for urban warfare, a good deal of velocity was sacrifices, further reducing the effectiveness of a marginally effective round.
It is difficult to build a rifle that will do all things for all people but in the end, ya gotta have enough gun
I would say that you are correct.
But it does give everyone a chance to bash the M16 (and its more modern variants) and its "poodle-shooter" 5.56x39mm round, and to discuss what would be better (bring back the M14, go to a modern rifle which fires the .243 / 6.5mm round, etc.) so it is all good...
> Bring back the M14!
Exactly !!! In Vietnam I was issued an M14, 4 months later they took it away from my and substituted a crappy piece of junk called the M16. (Mine failed me in 2 different firefights). The M14 was a nice weapon. Accurate, long range and with lots of knock down power.