Good riddance M-16

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

TriggaFingaz Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 8:15:26 AM

Did those M14s resurrected from storage require a lot of restoration work? After all, most were phased out in 1967-68.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 8:41:19 AM

"As far as a full auto, can you explain a situation where you needed a fully automatic rifle?" How about in clearing buildings, woods, trenches, bunkers and on the final stage of an assault?

Quote Reply

shek RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 10:37:11 AM

Trigga, The M14s required no maintenance to fire. They were either condition code A (never been used, still in the original packing) or B (used but restored and repackaged like new when they were turned in). However, we added rail systems, which required about 15-30 minutes per rifle. Yimmy, Please provide specific examples where you either used fully automatic rifle fire or wish you had the capability and/or where fully automatic rifle fire provided better suppression against you than well aimed rifle fire. Room clearing - 30 bullets in a few seconds in a confined space where the bullets will either ricochet and injure/kill friendlies in the room or penetrate the room and potentiallyinjure/kill friendlies in the other rooms. In my book, that's bad. A few well aimed shots into your target will eliminate the threat, conserve your ammunition, and reduce any potential fratricide. Woods - What's your target? You either have a target or you don't. Trenches - If you need full auto fire, put your automatic riflemen with a SAW in the lead. Most armies have two per squad, so you have this capability if you need it. Bunkers - See trenches. If you need this capability, send in your automatic riflemen. However, the TOW bunker buster, SMAW, AT-4, MK-19, JDAM, mortar shell, grenade, and/or 7.62mm or .50 call will probably make clearing the bunker a safe event. If it's an underground bunker complex, then you're using MOUT techniques to clear it, and you're back to room clearing. The bottomline is that you have a full auto capability at the fire team level without having to provide a full auto capability for riflemen. Doing so increases the chance of non-aimed fire, will waste ammunition, and provide no more suppressive effect than well-aimed fire.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Resurrected M14s 9/25/2005 11:00:41 AM

Shek, you make good points, but I really do feel the British army approach is better. I have been taught to clear a room, a grenade goes in, then the first two guys go in, one spraying automatic left-right low and one spraying automatic right-left low, then the next two go in and deal with the next room etc. Obviously this is highly ammunition intensive and not suitbale for a tower block, however it is far more likely to kill the enemy then trying to take in where they are and giving aimed shots. As for woods, I don't really see why you need to see a target - surely watching the direction of their tracer, or partial movement through bushes etc is enough to return with a burst covering said bush? In Vietnam, I don't believe the two sides saw each other often. For trenches, you could have your SAW gunner at the front, but then if he dies you don't have a SAW. I have been taught the LSW gunner goes towards the rear of the patrol. "The bottomline is that you have a full auto capability at the fire team level without having to provide a full auto capability for riflemen. Doing so increases the chance of non-aimed fire, will waste ammunition, and provide no more suppressive effect than well-aimed fire." I do not see the above quote to be correct. I agree that rapid fire is more effective at suppressing than automatic - however suppressing is not really the riflemans job anyway. There will be no issue of soldiers using automatic when it is not suitable and wasting ammunition, as they should be properly disciplined and trained in its useage. The part I find most concerning however at not giving a rifleman an automatic rifle, is what exactly does he do in the final stage of the assault? I have been taught, that when you have advanced close enough for the final assault via fire and maneuver, the IC will order for men, say Delta fire team, to charge through the enemy position, normally after a couple of grenades have been thrown in. They do this by loading a fresh mag, bayonet and all that, running through the position emptying their magazine, and reorg 100m's odd past the enemy position. I am no expert where it comes to infantry maneuvers, but I really can not see semi-automatic as being half as capable at such an important time of the attack.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger RE:Just curious - PowerPointRanger 9/25/2005 1:18:09 PM

M-16A2 (w/M-203). Perhaps my time in Bosnia influenced my opinion of the M-16. I guess it's probably harder to keep an M-16 functional when exposed to "Bosnia dust" than Iraqi sand. "Bosnia dust" is a mixture of normal dust and unfiltered industrial pollutants--think of sand mixed with tar. No only did it blow into all sorts of nooks & crannies, but it stuck! Not exactly the best environment for a gas-operated weapon. As for situations where full auto would be the right thing: any close quarters, target-rich environment.

Quote Reply

PowerPointRanger M14s & auto 9/25/2005 1:33:23 PM

I'm sure the M-14's can still do the job (especially in an Afghanistan-like environment, where a heavier round would be useful). As for full-auto, I know it is something Armies use with caution at the level of a personal weapon. As has been pointed out, it can be wasteful and inaccurate, which is probably the reason most soldiers don't get that option. But that really comes down to a matter of training and doctrine. If you know when to use it, why shouldn't you have the option? As I've said before, it's a simple mod.

Quote Reply

shek RE:Just curious - PowerPointRanger 9/26/2005 6:37:41 AM

PPT Ranger, M16 jams Did your weapon actually jam in Bosnia when you had to fire it? If so, how often were you cleaning it? How far were you breaking the weapon down? What lubricant(s) were you using? What cleaning tools were you using (dental tools, barbers brush, boresnake, Q-tips, pipe cleaners, etc.)? Were you using a dust cap on your muzzle? How often did you download your magazines and let the spring rest overnight? How often did you clean your magazines and the rounds? When was the last time the weapon had been guaged? In all the live fires and weapons densities, the only time I've ever had a jam with live ammunition was due to magazine failure, and that has only been a handful of times. It's important to diagnose what the actual problem was so that you can prevent it in the future. Full auto I'm also perplexed by your insistance on wanting full auto in a CQB scenario. This runs counter to Army doctrine on CQM/CQB training, which originated from the SOCOM side of the house, was passed onto the conventional side during Somalia, and has been official doctrine for several years now. How many times have you completed the RTC 350-1-2 CQM tables to standard? How long have you been trained on the 4 man stack and how many shoothouse live fires have you completed? I don't advocate blind adherence to doctrine, but in this case, this is a time proven training standard. I'm just curious if you were ever fully trained on current CQM/CQB standards and understand them so that you are making a conscious decision to say that you believe the standards are flawed.

Quote Reply

eon RE:My (Amateur) Take 10/2/2005 11:40:21 PM

My use of M-16 (A1), M-14 (standard), etc., was in the law-enforcement area. M-16A1; extremely reliable >when kept clean<- even with ammo loaded with the infamous ball powder as opposed to IMR. (This was in the Seventies, and a lot of our ammo, like the ordanance, was U.S. Army surplus, so to speak). The only jam I ever experienced with an A1 was due to carbonate buildup in the gas tube, resulting in sluggish bolt movement. (The prior user hadn't cleaned it after 500 rounds.) I cleaned the tube. After that, no problem. M-14; The only problems I ever had with the -14 were ammunition-related. Some imported 7.62 NATO, notably the Spanish FMJ we got in the early Eighties, had brass that was a bit too soft, and >sometimes< it would hang up in the chamber. A swift kick to the operating handle of the bolt solved that problem. CQB and room-clearing: I used either a Remington 870 riot (20"), or a 1921A1 Thompson. Never had to fire either one; one >look< at the business end of one of those weapons made everyone become polite, quiet, and respectful very quickly, indeed. P.S. to Yimmy; Does the RA still use 9m/m SMGs for house-clearing, or just the 5.56 rifle? Cheers. eon

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:My (Amateur) Take 10/3/2005 3:32:27 PM

>>P.S. to Yimmy; Does the RA still use 9m/m SMGs for house-clearing, or just the 5.56 rifle? << It's pretty much all M4s and M16s these days, with some exceptions (off the top of my head, I believe the USMC still has some MP5s it uses for certain CQB scenarios, as do US Army MP SRTs, though I think the latter only use them for peacetime/CONUS law enforcement SWAT type operations).

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:My (Amateur) Take 10/3/2005 5:12:04 PM

>>P.S. to Yimmy; Does the RA still use 9m/m SMGs for house-clearing, or just the 5.56 rifle? << Assuming by RA you mean Royal Army, the British army doesn't use Sterling 9mm SMG's any more. The only 9mm weapon used by the army these days is the old Browning HP. SAS, Royal Marines etc may use MP5's sometimes, and the RAF use Glocks, but the army only primarily use the SA-80.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT