Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marines might replace M-16A2 with M-4
Pacific Edition, Stars and Stripes ^ | Sunday, August 4, 2002 | Mark Oliva

Posted on 08/04/2002 11:34:22 AM PDT by demlosers

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-160 next last
To: RebelDawg
My Hornady book lists 434 Foot pounds at 500 yards.
I shoot a welding tank at 375 and it punches through one side of the tank.
I'm not sure where you had this idea that it bounces off of bone because at the short ranges 75-100 yards, it was cratering the steel plates that we use for our .45's.
Are you sure you're not writing about deflection? I have a video that was showing .223, .308, 7.62x39, and .50 BMG and they were all deflected by one inch tree branches.
101 posted on 08/05/2002 4:29:37 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: RebelDawg
"... The measely little 5.56mm puts out a pthetic 207 ft-pds of energy at 500 yds that means out at 1000 it is hardly breaking the paper target."

I think that you're being a bit misled by your data. Here's what the US Army has to say:

          5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison
                   based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data
       velocity (fps)    trajectory (in.)  drop (inches)  drift (inches)*
 range   M193   M855       M193  M855      M193   M855     M193    M855
(meters)
  0      3,200  3,100     -2.5   -2.5       0.0    0.0      0.0     0.0
100      2,774  2,751     +2.8   +4.4      -2.2   -2.3      1.3     1.1
200      2,374  2,420     +2.7   +5.8      -9.9  -10.2      5.8     4.9
300      2,012  2,115     -4.9    0.0     -25.1  -25.3     14.2    11.8
400      1,680  1,833    -23.0  -15.0     -50.8  -49.5     27.6    22.4
500      1,373  1,569    -56.2  -42.9     -91.6  -86.7     47.5    38.0
600      1,106  1,323   -113.1  -88.2    -156.1 -141.3     76.4    59.5
700        995  1,106   -206.8 -156.1    -257.3 -220.9    113.5    88.4
800        927  1,010   -339.9 -267.7    -398.0 -339.2    156.1   124.9

                                                   * Drift for 10 mph wind.
M193 Ball ammunition fired in M16A1 rifle with 250 meter battle sight zero.
M855 Ball ammunition fired in M16A2 rifle with 300 meter battle sight zero.

The M855 round penetrates a nominal 10 gauge SAE 1010 or 1020 steel test plate at a range of at least 570 meters (623 yards). At 500 yards, the SS109 (M855) would penetrate both sides of a USGI PASGT Kevlar helmet with your head inside it.

At 1000 yards, it would penetrate one side of the helmet, go through your head, and maybe be halted by the other side of the helmet.

102 posted on 08/05/2002 4:54:07 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I just got back from the Camp Perry High Power matches. The Navy teams are still shooting M14's and hitting the target at 600 yards with regular match ammo. The Marines and Army are using M16's but they must all use modified guns with bull barrels to be competitive. Also, they are using modified ammo. At longer ranges they single load cartriges that use long 80 grain bullets. These rounds are so long that they can not be cycled automatically.

In short, the black rifle is not suitable as a sniper rifle in the as issued service condition. It never was. The M16 round will not penetrate light armor or trees. The M16 round richoets off water and sand too easy. The M4 carbine shares these same short commings.

A long range rifle that is less sensitive to dirt than the M16 is required for combat in the Middle East deserts. The carbines will not be useful until a city is invaded and door to door combat ensues. Sounds like the plan ?

103 posted on 08/05/2002 5:15:15 PM PDT by SSN558
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SSN558
Sounds like the plan?

Works for me. Bring back the M-14.

104 posted on 08/05/2002 5:19:28 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I just got back from the Camp Perry High Power matches. The Navy teams are still shooting M14's and hitting the target at 600 yards with regular match ammo. The Marines and Army are using M16's but they must all use modified guns with bull barrels to be competitive. Also, they are using modified ammo. At longer ranges they single load cartriges that use long 80 grain bullets. These rounds are so long that they can not be cycled automatically.

In short, the black rifle is not suitable as a sniper rifle in the as issued service condition. It never was. The M16 round will not penetrate light armor or trees. The M16 round richoets off water and sand too easy. The M4 carbine shares these same short commings.

A long range rifle that is less sensitive to dirt than the M16 is required for combat in the Middle East deserts. The carbines will not be useful until a city is invaded and door to door combat ensues. Sounds like the plan ?

105 posted on 08/05/2002 5:22:10 PM PDT by SSN558
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SSN558
"The Marines and Army are using M16's but they must all use modified guns with bull barrels to be competitive. Also, they are using modified ammo.

The exact same argument can be used against the M-14.

I hope you're not implying that the M-14's are all service grade with military ammo. I'll even mention that the Marines and probably the rest of the teams, weigh all of their Sierra MatchKings.

106 posted on 08/05/2002 5:59:57 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Charles Martel; Shooter 2.5
Yep. The M-1 Garand was the last American Battle rifle to have a stacking swivel, the reference to which is lost on modern Marines and other shooters... It was common to see when I was doing my infantry training at Camp Geiger (part of the Lejeune Complex) trios of Garands stacked neatly outside the mess hall or in a lot of other places where we trained...

WRT Shooter 2.5, yes I DO pay attention... what was the topic again?:-)
107 posted on 08/05/2002 7:15:06 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
M1= Too expensive. The rifle's too heavy. The ammo is too heavy. Can't use a 203. No auto fire. Even with a box mag as a BM59, the Italians don't use them anymore. You need a Kunhausen shop manual to keep them shooting.


And you don't need a swivel to stack an M-16.
108 posted on 08/05/2002 7:26:12 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #109 Removed by Moderator

To: LibKill
Less weight=more ammo. A more versatile platform (it's not even close) has many advantages.

I've got mine and it seems I may have beaten the rush.
110 posted on 08/05/2002 10:00:48 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arioch7
You comments are spot on. I find no conflict with them. Militarily, we beat the crap out of the NVA several times over. Giap came back from Tet 68 with his tail between his legs and said "We failed!" The politbureau was wetting their pants over the political victory because Walter Cronkite was telling every American how it was a defeat and how we couldn't win in Viet Nam.

So you see, we shadow-boxed the wrong opponent while the North Vietnamese went for the knockout punch here in the US.

Yes, we could have defeated them completely, but the ROE as promulgated by Johnson/McNamara and never dumped by Nixon made Cambodia, Laos and N. Vietnam basically off-limits. That gave away the military advantage we had.

111 posted on 08/06/2002 5:42:05 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
"I'm not going to analyze the validity of the Rather quotation..."

Mister, I don't give a shit for your acceptance of my Dad's quotation. My Dad was an honorable man and an honest man. He told the truth. I don't give a damn for you spinners who fall in love with some piece of filth who stood up and debated the meaning of the word "is".

You can question me, but don't ever imply my late Father was a liar! My Dad fought in World War II and Viet Nam for this country, and that includes deluded, self-righteous individuals like you.

If you haven't lived it, then you only know what your liberal professors told you. You are living a lie.

112 posted on 08/06/2002 5:48:04 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Mister, I don't give a shit for your acceptance of my Dad's quotation. My Dad was an honorable man and an honest man. He told the truth.

I didn't call him a liar. I'm just skeptical of all unsourced quotations. Even assuming that you've got the quotation verbatim, I'm not sure what that proves.

I don't give a damn for you spinners who fall in love with some piece of filth who stood up and debated the meaning of the word "is".

Huh? What does Clintigula have to do with any of this?

If you haven't lived it, then you only know what your liberal professors told you. You are living a lie.

While I freely confess to having had more than my fair share of liberal professors, I also took a bullet for my country in Vietnam. What have you done?

113 posted on 08/06/2002 6:23:00 AM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Arioch7
While I have to agree that US localized strategy and battlefield tactics were often pretty moronic, I still don't believe that we could have won in any meaningful sense of the word. The Vietnamese could effectively take infinite casualties, and we couldn't. We could have escalated the war by invading the North and Laos, but what would that have done? We could have bombed the dams and dikes of the North, killing many thousands, but again, that escapes the underlying reality of the situation: we had no clear military objectives. The Vietnamese wanted to fight a war of attrition, and we lacked the political will to fight one. I think, however, that the war symbolized a larger theoretical failure on behalf of our political leaders. All war, at its root, is politics, and the politicians at the top became focused on body counts, not on accomplishing the more important underlying objectives.
114 posted on 08/06/2002 6:42:49 AM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: tortoise; demlosers; RebelDawg; Redleg Duke; The KG9 Kid
Arguments in favor of other calibers (Lesse here, I've seen 6mm PPC, 243, 308, 30-06, 7mm-08, 762x39, blah blah blah) are completely NOT the issue. The transition to 5.56x45 is complete, and we're not going back. Every western nation has adopted 5.56, and guess what -people are killed EVERY DAY at considerable range with this caliber. Russia has abandoned 7.62x39 in favor of an even SMALLER bullet, 5.45mm. Ask the IDF why they haven't "re-adopted" the friggin' M14 - maybe because it's OBSOLETE as an issue individual weapon?

While all the big bullet Bear hunters on this thread can no doubt master all aspects of shooting full power rifles in belted magnum calibers at 800 yards and beyond, the only thing that matters is CAN THE TROOPS HIT WITH THE RIFLE??? The answer, with the M14, was NOT USUALLY. With more training, a few strong and dedicated shooters will emerge as marksman, having mastered the skills necessary to engage small targets at extended range with big recoil and reduced inherent accuracy.

Or, you can start with 5.56mm, and EVERYBODY can shoot reasonably well, even the skinny guys and my goodness, the GIRLS!

Would you rather have 10 Marines that can enage targets to 1000m with the mighty M14, and 490 that can't shoot it past 10ft and hit anything , or 400 Marines that can engage targets to 500m with the M16, and 100 that can shoot it competently to 200m?

The issue surrounding service rifles and calibers are usually NOT related to "which is the best rifle for SGT York" - but which is best for the majority of soldiers, and to paraphrase the pistol shooters, a hit with a 5.56 is a lot better than a loud miss with a 7.62.

"MORE TRAINING" is not the answer, either. Training resources are limited, and the bottom line is you get more hits for your training dollar with 5.56 than with 7.62.

115 posted on 08/06/2002 6:43:57 AM PDT by xsrdx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AmericanDave; Long Cut
Yes, Armalite has the AR-10 .308 for that modern look and good old reach out and touch someone range! I guess someone in DOD has ruled out the .308 caliber period...........

To my thinking, the AR-10 would be just about the perfect battle rifle. Has anyone competed with one at Camp Perry? How do they stack up against the awsome M1-A1?

116 posted on 08/06/2002 6:48:22 AM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Assault Weapon stats and pictures
117 posted on 08/06/2002 6:56:28 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I don't know why you think the M16 isn't reliable. I've put thousands upon thousands of rounds through mine (yes, it's a legally owned full auto M-16) and I've actually had fewer problems than people I know that own AK's.

And yes, I've put my gun through the same kind of environments as the military does. I'm not a benchrest shooter.

Why haven't I had any problems? I take care of my gear. My rifle is kept in good repair and I clean it after shooting.

I've engaged targets out to 600 yards with my rifle (M4 configuration) with no problems. The M4 is a fine rifle and very reliable. It's a good decision on the part of the Marines to move to it.

Mike

118 posted on 08/06/2002 7:03:45 AM PDT by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
I'm sure that if the IDF asked for all of our M-14's and Garands, Uncle Sugar would be happy to oblige.
I wish I had old copies of the NRA magazine. I would like to go back and see if there were any complainers lamenting the loss of their '03's to the Garand. Especially after a few recruits slammed their thumbs in the receiver.
I think the short version of what you wrote is: Only hits count.
119 posted on 08/06/2002 7:10:27 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
G. David Tubb used a Stoner SR-25 for a while but he wasn't happy with it. I tried to find out why but failed.
He did introduce his own design that looks like an AR series but it's a bolt action. He named it the Tubb 2000.
120 posted on 08/06/2002 7:13:38 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
Your response can be distilled into the mantra of the feminazis regarding women as firemen. "Lower the standards and everyone can qualify."

We are no longer a nation of riflemen.

121 posted on 08/06/2002 7:32:43 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
My son and I discussed that a few days ago. How does a military unit use up their ammo allotment for the year if no one shoots during that year. All military personel are supposed to qualify every year and every year, the grunts are told that they can't go to the range because no ammo is available.
122 posted on 08/06/2002 7:52:12 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
"Lower the standards and everyone can qualify."

You missed my point -it has nothing to do with "lowering standards". It has EVERYTHING to do with ensuring the highest probability of hits given a statistically valid population - not the population of Camp Perry on match day.

Forget the "feminization" issue for a minute, and just randomly choose 20 young men attending a local Monster Truck rally. Hand 10 M16's and the other 10 M1A's, give them 4 hours of training, and tally up the scores. The M16 "poodle shooters" will get better hits.

So, as a unit commander, you have a choice - everybody get's M14's, and a few guys can actually hit stuff, or you can have an equal number of guys that can all shoot an M16 reasonably well.

Given a truly valid statistical population, and a fixed level of training - once a week or 18 hours a day - the M16 shooters will outperform the M14 shooters.

At the end of the day, only hits count, and it's more efficient to obtain hits with 5.56mm rifles than 7.62mm rifles.

We could fix the problem if we could just clone the studs on this board that can hit the 10 ring offhand at 1000yds shooting Grandpa's Garand - maybe next year.

123 posted on 08/06/2002 8:06:35 AM PDT by xsrdx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
"... The issue surrounding service rifles and calibers are usually NOT related to "which is the best rifle for SGT York" - but which is best for the majority of soldiers..."

Can't argue with you here. Anyone who's been watching that real-life US Army 'Boot Camp' show on the History channel should know immediately that a 7.62x51 rifle is just too much gun for the dorks and dweebs that the Army is recruiting and calling a 'soldier' after eight weeks. The M-14 is a fine rifle for riflemen, though -- namely, Marines. No, we're not going back; I agree entirely.

I also think that most of these 'what's the proper caliber?' discussions also blur the distinction between the military and civilian riflemen.

Civilian riflemen need accuracy and power at long range first and foremost. That's nearly a bygone in the US military.

124 posted on 08/06/2002 2:37:42 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
"... To my thinking, the AR-10 would be just about the perfect battle rifle."

... Never mind the fact that they blew up all the time during US Army tests in the late 50s and early 60s, unfortunately.

The project was cancelled for good reason.

125 posted on 08/06/2002 2:44:45 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I think you better show me a link on that one. I know that the miltary did everything they could to make sure the M-14 was chosen.
126 posted on 08/06/2002 4:46:38 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: andy_card; Redleg Duke
I think we are on a similiar page here. Redleg Duke, I agree with your assesment.

Andy, I think you may be right but perhaps we could have saved SOME of the Vietnamese population from the Communists. I am sure that even though we could not knock out North Korea that the South Koreans are very happy that we went there to help them out. I would be. :D

127 posted on 08/06/2002 5:33:23 PM PDT by Arioch7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I'd say make it 3 old fashioned tommy guns and one M16
128 posted on 08/06/2002 5:39:40 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
All military personel are supposed to qualify every year and every year, the grunts are told that they can't go to the range because no ammo is available.

Shameful! In the USMC we had to qualify every year.

If you did not qualify you were not up for promotion, repeated failure to qualify could get you administratively discharged.

How can we scrimp on training ammo and then expect the troops to perform?

129 posted on 08/06/2002 5:40:00 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
I'd say make it 3 old fashioned tommy guns and one M16.

Trade that M-16 for an M-1, or a BAR, and you could do well with WWII type weapons.

My basic idea was to have 3 men on each fire team with rapid-fire, solidly reliable weapons for close work (AKs), and one man with a solidly reliable long-range weapon (M-14).

I could be wrong, but I doubt it in this case.

130 posted on 08/06/2002 5:44:31 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I have a book with pics of shattered AR-10s with blown up barrels in them. I'll get you more info on that.

The US Army did want the M-14 and nothing else -- and I know the rest of the story of the rifle boondoggles from pre M-14 through the M16/A2 -- but the Armalite AR-10 failed on it's own. To look at the Fairchild/Armalite video from 1957, you'd think the AR-10 was everything a soldier could ever want, but in reality it had all sorts of problems.

The revolutionary multi-piece muzzle brake that looked like a tubular spaghetti collander was the part responsible for barrel blowups, along with ultra-lightweight Stellite barrels. The huge brake was the part that kept the AR-10 from bucking like a bronco on F/A, but when they removed it and replaced the hi-tech barrel with one made of iron, it experienced all kinds of jams, was front-heavy as sin, weighed more, and bucked worse than an M-14 on F/A.

The AR-10s ultra high-tech design was actually a liability, and the Army officers in charge of selection weren't about to get caught up in the late 1950s 'Space-Age' craze after just so recently fighting off human waves of Communist Chinese in Korea. They wanted a variation on something that they KNEW worked -- an accurized M-1 Garand. There have been grumblings about set-ups and rigged competitions, and though some of it must be true, it's not the whole story about why the AR-10 wasn't chosen.

Only the Dutch, Sudanese, Portuguese, and Tunisians adopted the Armalite AR-10, and I think that every one of those nations got rid of it after only a few years. The Dutch didn't even keep it for one year, I don't think.

I don't know by my own experience, but I hear that even the new Armalite civilian AR-10s are "Bang, Bang, JAM" in operation.

131 posted on 08/06/2002 5:49:11 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
If you're talking about the G3, I'm with you. THe G3 is great. It has an easy to detatch trigger group that makes it easy to switch between single fire only, and auto. All you gotta do to make yours full auto, is find a full auto trigger group and then put it on your rifle.

That rifle also has a really cool collapsable buttstock.
132 posted on 08/06/2002 5:52:00 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
What kind of shotgun was it?
133 posted on 08/06/2002 5:55:13 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
The G3 has a great reputation (in all fairness I have never fired one).

I do not like the fact that the bolt does not stay back when the magazine is empty. The difference felt when the bolt stops in the back position warns you that you have just run your magazine dry.

134 posted on 08/06/2002 5:57:12 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: big ern
223s are three round burst weapons. 308s are single fire weapons.

Which weighs more? One round of 308, or 3 rounds of 223? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but I suspect the three rounds of 223 weighs more. If I am right, then the 308 weapon is more efficient, is it not?

What's wrong with my reasoning here?
135 posted on 08/06/2002 6:10:42 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: LibKill; mamelukesabre
"... I do not like the fact that the (G3's) bolt does not stay back when the magazine is empty."

After you get used to it from firing enough rounds, you are eventually able to hear the bolt closing smoothly over an empty magazine instead of the shearing sound you hear when the bolt strips off another round from the mag. There is a noticeable difference.

mamelukesabre: You also need the F/A bolt carrier in addition to your lawfully NFA-registered F/A sear trigger pack, but you can have a decent gunsmith convert a semi-auto carrier for you.

136 posted on 08/06/2002 6:12:21 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
It sounds like they rushed them into the trials. I'm sorry to hear that they really did have problems.
The AR-10's right now do have a problem with jamming but that's because of the magazines. Sending in a brand new, in the wrapper M-14 mag, then paying an embarrassing ammount of money to have it reworked and finding out it doesn't work can be trying. My son's AR-10 is flawless except for one or two magazines that he still has to tweak.
I have a picture of an M-14 that blew up because of a crystalized barrel.
137 posted on 08/06/2002 6:15:36 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: All

On NOW at RadioFR!

Tonight The Shrew will host William S. Lind of the Free Congress Foundation on Radio Free Republic! Tune in to hear one of the foremost military writers discuss the article he has co-written with Paul Weyrich!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!


138 posted on 08/06/2002 6:15:51 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I forgot to mention that the reason that so few countries adopted the AR-10 was because the rest of the world was caught up in the Cold War. It was hard for a gun manufacturer to offer countries a firearm while NATO, and on the side, Russia and China, were offering freebies.
139 posted on 08/06/2002 6:24:01 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
I understand your concept here, and I like it. But I don't care for either the AK or the BAR. The AK is a jack-of-all-trades, and master of none weapon that has nothing going for it except for it ability to fire no matter how much abuse it takes...and it's really really cheap to produce. The BAR is too slow and too big and too heavy and although I too have a soft spot for the 30-06 round, it really is inferior to the 308. The tommy gun is a beautiful weapon. great up close and can be fitted with a silencer very effectively. But there are probably others that are better nowdays. maybe a mac10 or a scorpion. But the tommy gun can take drum mags. You can't put a drum mag on a weapon that takes stick mags inside the pistol grip.
140 posted on 08/06/2002 6:28:01 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
What's wrong with my reasoning here?

Marksmen don't fire three-round bursts.

141 posted on 08/06/2002 6:30:39 PM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
There are other weapons.

The primary criteria must be reliability. If it ain't reliable it is a crime to make a trooper carry it.

142 posted on 08/06/2002 6:31:27 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I guess I was misled then. I didn't realize you had to do anything to the bolt carrier.

I've been told there is also an attatchment available (for around $1000) that allows you to fire linked belts through a G3 full auto just like a big time machine guns. I suppose now you are going to tell me that you need a bolt carrier mod for that too, eh?
143 posted on 08/06/2002 6:34:16 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
No. Wars must be prosecuted as political means to an end. And while rifles help win wars, "spirit" doesn't count for much at all.

How much have you actually DONE -vs- "read about"??

Stay safe; stay armed.

Artillery brings dignity to an otherwise vulgar brawl; and a good rifle helps too.

144 posted on 08/06/2002 8:06:08 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
You can be accused of a lot of things, but poor taste in weapons ain't one of them my friend.

Regards,

L

145 posted on 08/06/2002 8:14:30 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: andy_card; Redleg Duke
I also took a bullet for my country in Vietnam.

Reading your posts I simply cannot believe this statement is true.

Please send the scar, along with your Field Service Record to me with a SASE and I will return them after evaluation.

Stay safe; stay armed.

Artillery brings dignity to an otherwise vulgar brawl.

146 posted on 08/06/2002 8:28:00 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Your reasoning is flawed because the .223 M16s or M4s don't have to be on 3 round burst. They went from full auto/single round fire to a 3 round burst/single round fire option during Vietnam because the ground pounders were spraying all their ammo in one blaze of glory.

At least that's what I've been told.
147 posted on 08/06/2002 8:44:04 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
They did. Its called .243 Winchester. A high performance cartridge--100grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2900fps

Armalite is producing a AR-10T model in .243 ... you might be interested.

148 posted on 08/06/2002 8:51:58 PM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
Armalite makes a .243 AR-10. I'd like one!
149 posted on 08/06/2002 8:57:55 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
"The only advantage that the M-16 has is range, however battles are never fought at distances where that range matters."

If so, then why not just issue every guy a Benelli M1 Super 90 semiauto riot gun?

150 posted on 08/06/2002 9:02:13 PM PDT by glc1173@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson