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: LibKill
The 16 will shoot to 1000. The marines use it competitively. I have never had one jam and I have had them pretty dirty. The original AR-15 (Air Force) M-16 (Army) that had no forward assist would jam as you describe and had a well desrved bad reputation (caused in part by ammo). The newer ones are without peer.

I will leave it up to you to carry a M-14 all day!!!!!

51 posted on 08/04/2002 7:30:20 PM PDT by Nov3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
FNFAL BUMP
52 posted on 08/04/2002 8:47:17 PM PDT by semaj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
If only we could have a picture of Ann Coulter holding one of these, that would be awesome.

Yeah, but unfortunately it's more likely that there's a picture of Diane Feinstein holding one ......before a Senate committee.

53 posted on 08/04/2002 8:51:41 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Thorne
Do you mean the G36? That's a very nice rifle.
54 posted on 08/04/2002 8:58:55 PM PDT by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
The one thing about the M16A2 was it had a nice sturdy plastic stock that you could butt stroke someone with. Can you do that with the M4 and how does the M4 hold up if you have to fix bayonets?

When I went through ROTC 'Advanced Camp' many, many years ago, I ruptured a guys spleen with a well placed butt stroke with a pugel stick. I can only imagine that a similar stroke on an enemy soldier would have just about torn out the front part of a rib cage. The bottom corner of the M16 butt stock is pretty pointed and the PSI on a well placed blow must be tremendous.

55 posted on 08/04/2002 9:26:28 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 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...........
56 posted on 08/04/2002 9:39:57 PM PDT by AmericanDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dax zenos
Isn't the Galil an AK action in 7.62 Nato (.308)?
57 posted on 08/04/2002 9:41:59 PM PDT by AmericanDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx
And while were on the subject, the 11 and 14.5in barreled M4s remain statistically somewhat less reliable than 20" rifles, due to reduced gas system length.

Just for clarification, the M4 (14.5" barrel) has the same length of barrel in front of the gas port as the M16A1/A2. I only shoot my M4 for fun, but I have had no reliability issues with it. Of course, my Colt commando upper (11.5" barrel) runs just fine, also.

58 posted on 08/04/2002 9:53:38 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AmericanDave
Isn't the Galil an AK action in 7.62 Nato (.308)?

They're chambered in 5.56, as well. The Isrealis are phasing them out, in favor of the M16-family. Galils are too heavy and difficult to mount optics on. Iron sights are obsolete.

59 posted on 08/04/2002 9:58:10 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mouser
"i would like to see them try a mini 30

Take a Mini-30 and shoot a magazine full of ammo through it. Then try to fire 5 rounds inside a eight inch circle at 100 yards.

60 posted on 08/04/2002 10:03:35 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Sounds like a bad ideal and a waste of money!

One of the things needed when we went from the M16A1 to the A2 was a heavier barrel. Not for more accuracy but because the every day GI Joe used it for a pry-bar. Try flipping the lid off a hidden bunker.

The M4 may look cool for all the want to be Rambo’s Just like sitting in an Indy car. But not useful in the every day real world.

Let’s list some of the “old “ weapons that still do a better job B-52s, .50 cals., 1911.....

Can’t afford bullets. But can waste money on hats & toys.

61 posted on 08/04/2002 11:20:49 PM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Not to mention the metal ring on the butt for the sling- you get caught in the face with that- ouch!
62 posted on 08/05/2002 6:00:43 AM PDT by Prodigal Son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: All
I remember reading something a few years back about how the next weapon selected would be something in a bullpup configuration. Anyone know why this might have changed?
63 posted on 08/05/2002 6:13:36 AM PDT by asformeandformyhouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prodigal Son
"...shotgun in an infantry platoon..."

I carried a shotgun on patrol in Viet Nam. Since we often could not see more than a few yards into the bush, distance was not a problem. Keeping it clean and free of rust was. Even with the maintenance problem, I liked it, especially since I was not much of a marksman. Evenually the shotgun was taken away and I was issued a M79 grenade launcher. Not much good for close work, but in the open, if I could see it, I could hit it.

64 posted on 08/05/2002 6:23:54 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
I disagree. As a Marine, I would say there are situations where the M-4 is warranted. But there is MUCH historical evidence to the conclusion that most battles beyond urban terrain are often fought beyond 200meters. During the battle of Belleau Wood (WWI) the Germans were astonished that Marine Corps infantrymen were picking them off at distances of 600 meters plus. If the Marines then had the M-4, we would literally have gotten slaughtered by the Germans.

As I said, there is a definite place for the M-4. But let us not cut off 300 meters off our infantry's range of engagement.

65 posted on 08/05/2002 6:37:22 AM PDT by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sawsalimb
The 7mm-08 would be a very good choice

I agree - it's a great cartridge. And not a "baby" bullet. I drop deer dead in their tracks, yet it has almost no recoil.

66 posted on 08/05/2002 6:40:24 AM PDT by DETAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I mentioned the mini 30 because it is basically a m-14 design
i feel with a heaver barrel and stiffer receiver to barrel
it would have the acuracy
the cartrige a 6mm ppc has proven itself on benchrest and
other competiton i think a 223 bullet is to small and favor
a 6mm to 7mm

67 posted on 08/05/2002 9:24:24 AM PDT by mouser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: mouser
Take a good look at the gas system. Everything forward of the receiver is designed so poorly that a complete redesign is necessary.
I've been working on this for two years. I think I finally figured it out but I have to wait for cooler weather so I can start with a cold barrel.

68 posted on 08/05/2002 9:30:02 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Yasotay
I personally have their HK91, USC, and SL-8 (and love them).

Megadittos on the SL-8. I've had mine for a couple of months now and am really impressed - it doesn't seem as finicky as the ARs I've shot, is easy to fieldstrip, and shoots a mighty small group. On the downside, it is limited to a 10-round mag, but then it's a sporter, not a military rifle. I hated the skinny nylon sling and replaced it.

For anyone contemplating purchase of this piece I'd recommend looking into the G-36 optical sight system - replaces the pickatinny rail with a military reticle lower sight and a Hensloldt red-dot. It's another 6 Benjamins but oh, my is it sweet...

69 posted on 08/05/2002 9:54:26 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
I agree. If you want a long range weapon with the ability to disable a truck, then you need the M-14...if Slick's assholes haven't torched them all.
70 posted on 08/05/2002 9:58:25 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
There was an M-14 BAR, the M-14E2. I carried one and it was good...almost as good as the BAR.

The more I read and remember, the more I think we ought to reactivate the M-14.

One dirty little secret. The M-16 was adopted over the M-14, not so much for the reasons reported, but for the main reason that in the mid-60s, we had ceased being a "Nation of Riflemen" and the kiddies drafted from the big cities couldn't handle the recoil (kick) of the M-14 and were boloing on the range. The M-16, nothing but a .22 Long Rifle on steroids, didn't kick the kiddies so much and they were qualifying with it...but not becoming riflemen.

End of rant.

71 posted on 08/05/2002 10:04:54 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: section9
During the previous administration, they spent millions of dollars to build a machine whose sole function was to destroy M-14s at Anniston Army Depot.

Answer, probably not many.

72 posted on 08/05/2002 10:06:21 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Yes, Armalite has the M-10 in 7.62 Nato and it is one sweet machine.
73 posted on 08/05/2002 10:07:30 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
I agree with your post.

A shorter barrel means reduced velocity and accuracy at long ranges. But it’s unlikely, the Marine review said, that battles would be waged at more than 200 meters.

I don't get it...

All the buzz in the military world is that our forces can be lighter and faster because 'Meeting Engagements' will be a thing of the past as better intell and maneuverability give us stand-off, stand-off, stand-off.

OK, now we've got light and maneuverable stuff and great intell and all that crap and we can't engage anything beyond 200m?!

74 posted on 08/05/2002 10:09:11 AM PDT by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
AR-10. And it's also chambered for .243.
75 posted on 08/05/2002 10:10:42 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
They did. Its called .243 Winchester. A high performance cartridge--100grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2900fps. It is a necked down .308/7.62 case with a 6mm bullet. Short maximum length of 2.7-in.--ideal for automatic weapons. Light recoil. Women and children have been knocking off white tail deer with this for years.

And the Navy tried several M14s in .243 for SEAL team used, and came back unimpressed, largely due to problems with the rifling twist of the barrels, as those suitable for long-range work are less suitable for up-close work with more lethal projectiles. Neither were barrel luives of 10,000 rounds considered sufficient in weapons meant for fully-automatic fire.

The British .280/30, originally meant for their experimental EM-2 rifle of the 1950s, might have been another step in the right direction. But I suspect we'll be stuck with the M16/5,56mm cartridge combination for so long as conventional mettallic-cased cartridge ammunition remains state-of-the-art.

But when caseless or plastic-cased ammo comes along....

-archy-/-

76 posted on 08/05/2002 11:31:03 AM PDT by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I was in the Old ? Older ? Corps. Put it this way: we used the Garand M1 : 8 shots,super reliable, kicked a mite, but was dangerous at 1000 yards.

The BAR ( really a WWI weapon !) was good at the same range,and an excellent "light" machine gun : heavy and awkward to carry, but a LOT lighter than the air-cooled .30 machine gun.

One person in each 4 man fire team carried a BAR ( for some reason, it was generally the smallest member of the team. )

During the Korean war, a lot of the shooting was at longer ranges. People who were there said the 7.62 Russian rounds would "fall short" at those ranges, but the Garand and the BAR - in capable hands - would make life interesting for the Koreans and Chinese.

77 posted on 08/05/2002 1:04:21 PM PDT by genefromjersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
Politics be damned. Give them something reliable. Wars are fought with rifles, not politcal correctness.

Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
--Karl von Clausewitz

78 posted on 08/05/2002 1:21:59 PM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: genefromjersey
Great points. I still maintain that high bolo rates in the Army in the mid-60s led to the adoption of the M-16. I initially trained on the M-1 and love it...I have a DCM one in fact. Used the M-14 in Basic, AIT and OCS and think it was a fine replacement for the M-1. I have never liked the M-16.
79 posted on 08/05/2002 1:30:49 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
I am afraid you missed the point, andy. Wars may be prosecuted as extensions of a country's political goals and ambitions, but it is fought with rifles and spirit.

If you read "On Strategy" by the late Col Harry Summers, you will see the difference.

80 posted on 08/05/2002 1:32:50 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I am afraid you missed the point, andy.

Since I don't understand the argument, that would appear to be the case.

Wars may be prosecuted as extensions of a country's political goals and ambitions, but it is fought with rifles and spirit.

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. If you have any doubts about that, ask the French how far they got on elan alone, or the Germans Fourth Army, for that matter.

If you read "On Strategy" by the late Col Harry Summers, you will see the difference.

I read Summers' book about 20 years ago, and I remember liking it, but disagreeing with most of its conclusions regarding Vietnam. If I remember correctly, Summers argued that defeat was largely the result of errors in strategy by Westmoreland's people. I think it goes beyond that. I don't believe any war in Indochina was winnable, in the sense that we could have permanently suppressed insurgency without enormous costs, both in economic terms and in manpower. Invading Laos and North Vietnam could have escaped the underlying political mistakes at the heart of US entry.

81 posted on 08/05/2002 1:57:17 PM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
"I have a DCM one in fact."

Did you get a chance to notice the scores that the competitiors were getting between the Garands, M1A's and the Ar-15's?

82 posted on 08/05/2002 2:07:51 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
I agree totally with your comments about the SL-8 with the G-36 sights.
83 posted on 08/05/2002 2:14:31 PM PDT by Yasotay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
No I haven't. Actually, when I shot my match to qualify for an M-1, I was using a Mexican Mauser (short action) barreled for .308 (7.62 NATO).

Care to share?

84 posted on 08/05/2002 2:22:17 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
The more I read and remember, the more I think we ought to reactivate the M-14.

The single biggest determining factor in ditching the M-14 was that it was ungodly expensive to manufacture. Far and away one of the most expensive combat rifles ever produced by any country. The M-16 was something like half the cost per unit (and more accurate off-the-rack, not that it matters).

As for the ballistics of the .223, your are badly mistaken. If you've ever looked at physical models of terminal ballistics, there is a crossover velocity (2500-2700 fps, depending on the bullet) where terminal lethality takes on a new dimension due to reaching critical rotational energy densities. The .22LR has the terminal ballistics of a pistol bullet. The .308 sits on the edge of this envelope at the muzzle. The .223 is in it for about 100-200 yards out of an M16. I've never met an operator that wasn't quite pleased with the performance of the .223 when it mattered and even many old-timers prefer it.

And for those interested, the critical rotational energy density has to do with fragmentation behavior. Below the critical threshold, fragmentation adds little or no value to the terminal characteristics of a bullet. Above the critical threshold, the energy density is so high that the bullet literally explodes quite violently with the fragments travelling perpendicular to the center axis of the bullet at velocities around 250-300 fps depending on the specifics as a simple consequence of physics. At those velocities, bullet fragments are quite capable of perforating tissue, particularly in distressed tissue (like a temporary cavity). Hence why a good hit at relatively close range with a .223 can turn the insides of a person into hamburger that substantially exceeds the expected damage. The tumbling bullet causing damage bit is something of a myth -- ALL bullets tumble when they hit tissue. When it happens to bullets that exceed the critical rotational energy density, this frequently triggers the very energetic radial fragmentation.

And no this was not a design consideration when the .223 was originally selected. It was a fortunate coincidence.

85 posted on 08/05/2002 2:27:34 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
Suggest you reread the book. His point was that the NCA failed to follow the principles of war. They oriented on defeating in the field while the North Vietamese oriented on the political victory, fighting a holding action in the South while the real battle took place in the US, in the media and on the college campuses.

As the LTC Summers stated to his NVA LTC counter-part..."You know we defeated you on the battlefield every time." to which his counterpart stated, "Yes, but that is irrelevent."

Again, to quote you, "Since I don't understand the argument, that would appear to be the case."

86 posted on 08/05/2002 2:27:53 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
A casual shooter can expect to shoot around 400 or less with a Garand. Around 430 or less with a M1A. An out of the box Colt HBar can let someone who hardly shoots but knows the basics get a 450 score.
Did you ever use that Garand in a regular High Power match? If so, what was your score?
My experience told me that accurizing a Garand is a waste of time and money. Shooting a Match Grade M1A is a lot of fun but after a while, they need a lot of expensive re-work done.
There will never be a good book on accurizing the AR that isn't filled with reloading data. Except for buying a trigger and making sure the front sight isn't loose, there isn't anything that needs to be done.
87 posted on 08/05/2002 2:31:13 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
In comparing the 5.56mm to the .22 cal LR, I was referring to the recoil, not the ballistics. I agree that the high speed, combined with the tumble at impact was devestating on humands, but useless on materiale.

As to accuracy, I would disagree.

As for a general purpose weapon, I would prefer a 7.62 NATO rather than a 5.56mm in fire hose mode.

88 posted on 08/05/2002 2:31:14 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Nope, I haven't. Fatherhood stepped in the way. I belong to a club up here in NH and plan to start this next year. I will never be as accurate a shooter as the weapon I am holding, though. :-) It is just great to be able to do it and not have to walk past picketers to do it!
89 posted on 08/05/2002 2:33:49 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Beenliedto
Bravo. I love my Garand, Old Reliable. Keep it as is and add a 20- or 30-round magazine. Modern rifles don't have the character (or stacking swivel) of the Garand...
90 posted on 08/05/2002 2:33:51 PM PDT by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Suggest you reread the book. His point was that the NCA failed to follow the principles of war. They oriented on defeating in the field while the North Vietamese oriented on the political victory, fighting a holding action in the South while the real battle took place in the US, in the media and on the college campuses. As the LTC Summers stated to his NVA LTC counter-part..."You know we defeated you on the battlefield every time." to which his counterpart stated, "Yes, but that is irrelevent."

Of course I agree that winning the most pitched battles is irrelevent, most especially in a guerilla war. But Summers argued (and again, this is to the best of my memory) that Vietnam was the fault of political and conceptual strategic errors and not, as you seem to claim, moral turpitude on the part of the American public. The public would have turned against the massive casualties in the war no matter what, for American goals were nebulous, casualties were high, and there was no way we could "win" without paying a heavy cost.

91 posted on 08/05/2002 2:38:51 PM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
You really haven't been paying attention, have you?
92 posted on 08/05/2002 2:47:06 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
What? It *does* have a stacking swivel... ;-)

93 posted on 08/05/2002 3:05:59 PM PDT by Charles Martel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
"But Summers argued (and again, this is to the best of my memory) that Vietnam was the fault of political and conceptual strategic errors and not, as you seem to claim, moral turpitude on the part of the American public."

Man you love to twist statements! You just admitted to what I pointed out to you and tried to accuse me of something entirely different. The North Vietnamese used the mush-heads on American Campuses for their political and propaganda campaigns. The media was also a willing accomplice. I know. My late Father ran into a stone wall as a PIO in Nam trying to post articles about volunteer civic action work National Guard and Reserve troops were accomplishing. The guy to killed the stories...Dan Rather. He admitted to my Dad that he "was probably a Communist, but as long as he was in charge of the bureau in Siagon, the American people were only going to see the war the way he wanted them to see it!"

The primary problem was the failure at the NCA to strategize it. The campus riots and protests and the media lies supported the NVA operation. The field actions by the NVA were only a supporting attack on the US populace.

94 posted on 08/05/2002 3:12:20 PM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
As to accuracy, I would disagree.

As I recall, tests done by the military on early M16s pulled off the rack and fired by a mechanical benchrest showed an average accuracy of 1.1 MOA. It was considered remarkable at the time, and I know the M14 never did that. I don't think I've ever owned an AR15 pattern weapon that couldn't shoot 1-MOA all day with good ammo. Its the only semi-auto military rifle I've owned that could do that routinely. Most non-American species never did better than about 1.5-MOA in the finest specimens (including a couple very nice AK variants that could shoot respectable groups with match ammo). Any competent gunsmith can get an M14 or Garand to routinely shoot 1-MOA, but you don't usually find that accuracy in the stock rack-grade weapon.

I'm not saying that relatively thin differences in accuracy matter in practice, but the AR15 family is technically a more accurate platform in rack or match grade and I don't know too many people who disagree with this. You may have other reasons for disliking the M16, but accuracy isn't a valid one (except at distances where the .308 isn't any better).

95 posted on 08/05/2002 3:26:51 PM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Man you love to twist statements! You just admitted to what I pointed out to you and tried to accuse me of something entirely different.

You give me too much credit. I'm just trying to respond to arguments I disagree with.

The North Vietnamese used the mush-heads on American Campuses for their political and propaganda campaigns. The media was also a willing accomplice.

That's just silly. The rise of the campus leftist loonies was an effect, not a cause of the US defeat in Vietnam. And Summers doesn't disagree.

My late Father ran into a stone wall as a PIO in Nam trying to post articles about volunteer civic action work National Guard and Reserve troops were accomplishing. The guy to killed the stories...Dan Rather.

I'm not going to analyze the validity of the Rather quotation, but I think the numbers of US and Vietnamese casualties speak for themselves. We were fighting without any political or strategic objectives, using tactics that were doomed to failure. Any domestic lunacy was purely coincidental. The costs were enormous, and no gain was possible.

96 posted on 08/05/2002 3:30:58 PM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
At our monthly range competition, I'm not seeing anyone shooting into the 400s (200 yard range) with any 'Service' rifle other than an M-1A or an occasional AR-15. I haven't seen anyone using an M-1 Garand except for the seasoned old loaners we offer for the one-timers who are only there to qualify for their $400 DCM Garands.

I can stay in the 400s with an HK-91A2, but since it's not a US military service rifle I have to shoot in the 'Match' competition against guys with hyper-accurized Tikkas that usually comes down to the winner being who cut the most X's inside the ten ring. I don't think that there are any Hk rifles with iron sights that can do that.

I really wish I would have made the time to get into the Freeper Postal Match.

97 posted on 08/05/2002 3:42:18 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
In comparing the 5.56mm to the .22 cal LR, I was referring to the recoil, not the ballistics. I agree that the high speed, combined with the tumble at impact was devestating on humands, but useless on materiale.
You were correct before, actually the 5.56mm is .22 cal. there is absolutely no difference and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. 5.56 is nothing more than the metric measurement of a .22 cal bullet. The military usually uses 55gn 22 cal bullets in their 5.56mm cartridges. Thats a fact, Jack!

I also want to point out the facts to some of the other posters claiming that the M16 can shoot 1000 yards... well this is a true statement however you are not going to kill anything or anyone taking that shot. 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. Comparativley a 220 swift or 22-250 is a better round, and yes these are both .22 cal cartridges.

Go ahead and ask any hunter if he would take a 500 or 1000 yard shot at a deer with a .22 cal rifle... As far as animals go a deer is about the same size/wt as a man so if you wouldnt take that shot at a deer then why at a man, and definitely why at a man who has a rifle in his hand?

As far as the tumbling comment thats a joke the 5.56m will tumble no more or no less than any other bullet, this is pure nonsense and propaganda. It does NOT tumble, it bounces off of bone because the round is too light to do anything else! There is NO design technique used in this bullet to make it tumble it is nothing more than a jacketed 55gn 22 cal bullet. No magic, nothing, nada!

While we are here lets compare the energy of other rifle rounds that the military has used over the years at 500 yds compared to the 5.56mm
5.56@500yds 207-ft-pds (yes that is 207 what a joke!)
.308@500yds 1239 ft-pds
30.06@500yds1246 ft-pds

Guess which caliber the enemy is using!
Hint: It is NOT the first one...
Want to know what I think. We should go back to the M-14 or M-1

--RebelDawg
USMC
and
Hunter
98 posted on 08/05/2002 4:01:51 PM PDT by RebelDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I routinely shot 406-616 with my stock out of the box CMP rifle and I never practiced. That was with my Garand.
The loaner rifles that belonged to the club were all junk. Front sights would fall off, clips would eject after one round was fired, rear sights would ratchet downward, Short stroking, gas cylinders were loose.
I shot a Master score the first time I used my AR. 471.
We have to write to Cap and see if he would like to host a Garand match. I know, they're eagerly awaiting a blackpowder match but I haven't done that in so long I have to dig my stuff out from the last 15 years.
I really regret not using my stock Garand for the Freeper rifle match instead of the Mauser.
99 posted on 08/05/2002 4:11:49 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: andy_card; Redleg Duke
Fascinating debate guys. Most of your points are opinionated and therefore can not be really proven.

I think the reason we walked away from Vietnam (Notice how I said we did not lose Vietnam.) was a composite of the factors you have named.

I must say that I disagree with you Andy on your opinion that we could NOT have won the war. My opinion on why we walked away is two-fold...

1/ All the branches of the Military were playing "Politics," and the actual Politicians did not help at all. In effect, they became "Armchair Generals.", the actual Pols that is.

2/ (This is the big one for me!) The ENTIRE MORONIC "Escalating Force," doctrine of the US Military at that time. I am not a Vietnam Vet but my CO was one and he sat down and explained this concept to me in length(He did not approve, he said he threw away tagets because of orders.) and it was a laughable strategy. Furthermore, I think all of the propoganda and Anti-US demonstrations actually strengthened the reliance on this foolish doctrine.

Sorry to butt in but I wanted to add my two cents. I realize I am in the minority, I think we could have destroyed them. Dont you think leaving the North relatively unharmed while the South focused on the Guerilla war and we "Escalated," force against the NVA was a tad... moronic?

100 posted on 08/05/2002 4:16:26 PM PDT by Arioch7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | 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