November 13, 2007, 03:07 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
First, every M16 produced for the US military is capable of "full auto" fire. I assume you're talking about the 3 round burst used with the M16A2. Psst, burst is full-auto fire, it's just mechanically controlled full-auto fire. You see, the military never wanted a rifle the troops could hold the trigger back on and dump a 30 round magazine. From the very beginning they taught (and still teach) fire discipline. Troops were taught to fire controlled bursts but many ignored this training in combat so they forced this on the troops mechanically. Second, what in the world could they have done to the M14 to make it a workable assault rifle besides ditch the traditional stock in favor of a pistol grip stock, ditch the 7.62 round in favor of the 5.56, put a burst system in it and redesign the receiver to have a rail system incorporated. But try as they might they would never get the M14 into an in-line design without completely redesigning the rifle. They would have made it into a totally new weapon that would resemble the M16 or any other current military assault rifle. LOL |
|
November 13, 2007, 03:16 PM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
|
Quote:
If accuracy is a consideration with volume of fire, most soldiers are going do better trained in hammer pairs with semi-automatic fire than with automatic fire, regardless of the caliber. The civilian sector has shown us that the M14 can be made smaller and lighter in a carbine for CQB, that chassis systems can eliminate any accuracy/bedding problems that may exist while allowing for the same number of sights, white lights, lasers, and vertical foregrips as the M16, and that compensators can even largely eliminate the "excessive" recoil of the 7.62mm round. And while we are on the subject, it has been shown that 7.62mm belt fed machine guns can be made small and manageable enough to question the validity of 5.56mm systems as well. Quote:
If you say so...
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R. |
||
November 13, 2007, 03:23 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Being a former Infantry Marine, we were taught aimed fire as well. Full-auto was used to suppress the enemy during things like ambushes and during a fighting retreat. Here's a video that came to mind explaining how a military force uses full-auto to overwhelm an enemy and to suppress them using automatic fire.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lsc_X7ls8o But yes, 90% of the time semi-auto aimed fire is what is needed to win a fight. But there are those situations where tactics dictate a heavy volume of fire that can only be delivered through automatic fire. I'm sure you were taught something similar in the Army although I don't know for certain as I never served in the Army. |
November 13, 2007, 03:38 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
Quote:
That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber. If the military simply wanted to switch platforms, they could have adopted the AR-10, but they wanted a smaller caliber that was controllable in full-auto (and as noted, they use mostly 3-shot burst now, which would still make the M14 just as useless). The 7.62x51NATO is not going to be as effective for what the military wants across the board. The recoil is too harsh for select fire weapons like these, and even in semi-auto the 5.56 can be shot far faster and far more accurately at the ranges they were designed for. I realize you have an inherent hatred for the .223 round in combat, but that is what the military wanted at the time.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
|
November 13, 2007, 03:44 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 26, 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 172
|
Quote:
|
|
November 13, 2007, 03:59 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 727
|
Quote:
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog. |
|
November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM | #33 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
At any rate, forcing the 7.62x51 onto NATO wasn't any worse than forcing the 5.56x45 on them, and though of the two I prefer the 7.62mm, I would rather see a happy medium adopted.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R. |
||||
November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
I think the whole debate goes to show that the military always goes with what they want, not what they need.
Everyone who looked into the matter saw that the full power cartridge was obsolete. The Brits had their experimental 7mm round that would have worked very well in that role. The Swedes got it right from the start when they introduced the 6.5x55 back in 1891. The US wanted the impossible and the end result didn't work well for what they needed. We have this modern infatuation with sending bullets downrange as fast as possible. In shorter barrels, that just doesn't work. Short barrels is where rounds like the 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.5 MPC do well where the 5.56 just gives you a fireball. You are going to have to compensate for drop. A heavier slug is not as dependent on velocity.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me. |
November 13, 2007, 04:46 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 727
|
I don't think they always get what they want, either. The procurement process is so wrapped up in politics, it's a wonder that they get anything they can use effectively.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog. |
November 13, 2007, 04:59 PM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
Quote:
You're trying to turn this argument into something else. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
|||
November 13, 2007, 05:16 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Location: God's side of Washington State
Posts: 1,601
|
Good Grief....
The M-14 did have full auto. The idea was to replace the BAR but I don't think we will argue how effective that rifle was. The squad leader decided on who was going to have full auto on the M-14 and gave those people the "switch", normally 2 guys in a squad. The regular GI could not switch to full auto when he wanted to like on a 16. So much for the M-1A is what the M-14 wa supposed to be. I started shooting high power with a tuned M-14. Wore out 3 of them. I gave it up for 12 years and it was not until last year I finally beat my personnel best with my tuned AR using my dime. I found the AR is easier to shoot but I have not shot the AR at a 1,000 yards like I did with a 14. The Army didn't want the 16, it was the Air Force who ordered them first for their Security Police. It went down hill from there. We did knock the Russians on their backside when the 16 and 5.56 came out. The Russians thought we were on to something so they came out with their own version. I believe those who bash the M-14 have not shot or have spent little time on the plateform to understand what a fine rifle it really is. So what if it kicks a little, man up. Could have been shooting a 03.
__________________
God Bless our Troops especially our Snipers. |
November 13, 2007, 05:17 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
|
Quote:
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R. |
|
November 13, 2007, 05:37 PM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
|
Quote:
Wait, that's right, this is the M14. Those enlisted Marines at the sharp end needing reliable kit that does the job, and finding that ain't the M14, must have a political agenda Quote:
|
||
November 13, 2007, 05:43 PM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Quote:
I also believe the 14 bashers don't know anything about how accurate and reliable a modernized M14 can be. Modern technology and good old American ingenuity properly applied to the 50 year old platform yields awesome results. Quote:
It's a modernized M14 in a SAGE stock. They love it!
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
||
November 13, 2007, 06:00 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 543
|
Quote:
Type this into a Google search ”McNamara m14 vs m16” and you will find a plethora of information on this subject and anywhere that the hits are relevant at all they will bare out this “personal agenda” business. Here is one I found to be very informative. http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007...t-for-m16.html But there are a lot more out there and then if you pick out the names mentioned in one of these pieces and revise the search criteria the list of relevant hits just gets longer. Quote:
|
||
November 13, 2007, 06:08 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
I don't think people are bashing the M14 here as much as they are saying that it is not a good weapon in terms of being used by our troops as a whole and/or more specifically as a select fire weapon. Specifically based on the caliber.
The weapon chosen by the military has to be a compromise of something... When they had the M14, they mainly compromised rapid fire capabilities and the amount of ammo a person could carry. Now that they have the M16, they have lost the long distance capabilities and a little bit of shot for shot power. However, it seems that they have a weapon that fits what they need for the majority of our troops right now. As much as someone may prefer the M14 over the M16 as a military rifle, it doesn't fit the military quite as well, obviously...
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
November 13, 2007, 06:10 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 543
|
Hey wait a minute. You real name wouldn’t be McNamara would it or did you ever work for a guy named McNamara?
Hmmmm? |
November 13, 2007, 06:14 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Actually, the M14 meets the mixed needs of todays US Military quite well
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
November 13, 2007, 06:17 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
|
Quote:
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery |
|
November 13, 2007, 06:20 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
Quote:
Oh, not really...
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
|
November 13, 2007, 06:21 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 543
|
Quote:
Several years ago I saw a full auto something or other that could be fired one handed and controlled quite easily. It was because of the way the barrel / receiver was canted into the stock. The recoil drove the weapon straight back into your hand and didn’t cause it to rise. And of course these days we have a lot more and better technology so it really should be possible to come up with a better platform for the 7.62 x 51 |
|
November 13, 2007, 06:25 PM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
|
Quote:
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery |
|
November 13, 2007, 07:19 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
|
|
November 13, 2007, 09:01 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|