firearms in military... - Page 4


Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > firearms in military...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-02-2007, 12:19 PM   #31
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tony Soprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 120
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

I think the M-16(AR-15 Colt) gets bad reviews,I myself would perfer a 7.62mm over 5.56 mm any day,since I am a Dersert storm vet I had a M16A3 rifle and loved it,never jameed and trust me if you could of seen at times sand caked inside it from sandstorms and I never had a jam or misfire,There again I kept my bolt and chamber area soaked with breakfree,I had more problems with jamming and misfire with the M16A1 and A2,A3 is would love to own today,our M60's used 7.62mm rounds,but that was back in 1990 and 91,is it still the same and do they still use the M16A3?



__________________
"It's best to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it!" quote by Don Davis of Don's Guns
Tony Soprano is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 05:24 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Soprano View Post
I think the M-16(AR-15 Colt) gets bad reviews,I myself would perfer a 7.62mm over 5.56 mm any day,since I am a Dersert storm vet I had a M16A3 rifle and loved it,never jameed and trust me if you could of seen at times sand caked inside it from sandstorms and I never had a jam or misfire,There again I kept my bolt and chamber area soaked with breakfree,I had more problems with jamming and misfire with the M16A1 and A2,A3 is would love to own today,our M60's used 7.62mm rounds,but that was back in 1990 and 91,is it still the same and do they still use the M16A3?
No, and they never did.


__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2007, 05:47 PM   #33
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
would say that the armorer is incompetent. If they are screwing up that badly, the armorer should have picked it up on the inspection.
Yeah the parts that are breaking are a level 3 inspection...im level 2...see the issue here. I can take the trigger well apart at my level and thats where the problem is.

The HK 416 and FN SCAR use a piston type operation. The M4 has a gas tube operation. There must be some reason SF unit have stopped using the M4 and are now useing the SCAR and the 416.

these are all from the Armytimes on the M4 and the 416 and SCAR.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_rifle_070715/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
__________________
Quigs is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2007, 07:36 AM   #34
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quigs View Post
Yeah the parts that are breaking are a level 3 inspection...im level 2...see the issue here. I can take the trigger well apart at my level and thats where the problem is.

The HK 416 and FN SCAR use a piston type operation. The M4 has a gas tube operation. There must be some reason SF unit have stopped using the M4 and are now useing the SCAR and the 416.

these are all from the Armytimes on the M4 and the 416 and SCAR.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_rifle_070715/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_carbine_lubrication_070716/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
Unless you are getting them directly from Colt/FN, then someone above you in the supply channel is asleep at the switch. Find the bastard, have your CSM call his 1SG and bitch him out.

I know how the HK 416 and the SCAR work. They won't fix the problems that you claim to have seen. I know that the 416 uses the same trigger group and magazines. And I'm pretty sure that the SCAR uses the same trigger group, and it uses the same magazines.
__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 11:28 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pioneer461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 938
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

The idea of a 5.56mm M-16/M-4 rifle made sense in jungle warfare, such as Vietnam, and a case can be made for using them for urban fighting. For open desert or mountain combat, a longer range, harder hitting weapon makes better sense. The Marines and Navy are dusting off a number of M-14s for use in the current conflict. ( An article on that subject is in the current American Rifleman magazine.)

__________________
Sui Juris
Cogito, ergo armatum sum
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
Retired Police Detective '71-'01 / LEOSA Certified
Naval Aviation Veteran '65-'69

United States Constitution (c) 1791
All Rights Reserved
pioneer461 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2007, 05:39 PM   #36
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer461 View Post
The idea of a 5.56mm M-16/M-4 rifle made sense in jungle warfare, such as Vietnam, and a case can be made for using them for urban fighting. For open desert or mountain combat, a longer range, harder hitting weapon makes better sense. The Marines and Navy are dusting off a number of M-14s for use in the current conflict. ( An article on that subject is in the current American Rifleman magazine.)
Were, dusting them off, as a stop-gap measure, until they can get enough M-16A4s fielded.
__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2007, 04:44 AM   #37
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Splatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Falkland,BC
Posts: 108
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

My personal opinion is that we need to return to something like the .280 Enfield, or the mid-sized 7mm the the FAL was originally designed around. Somethng quite like the 6.5 Grendel or the Remington mid-sized .270 thing.

The 7.62 NATO is too much for the average soldier's assault rifle, and the M14 is a great designated marksman's rifle; but to return to equiping everyone with them would be a major mistake.

As much as I believe the FAL to be a better battle rifle than the M14 (but not a better DMR), and as much as I believe the FN-C1A1 to be the best of the FAL variants, even equiping everyone with C1A1's would be a mistake. It's just too much gun firing too much cartridge for modern fourth-gen warfare.

__________________

"Those who have long enjoyed privileges as we enjoy, forget, in time, that men have died to win them."

Franklin D. Roosvelt

Splatter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2007, 02:24 AM   #38
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

I absolutely loved my FN made SAW.

__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 10:05 PM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jismail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 234
Liked 35 Times on 17 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer461 View Post
The idea of a 5.56mm M-16/M-4 rifle made sense in jungle warfare, such as Vietnam, and a case can be made for using them for urban fighting. For open desert or mountain combat, a longer range, harder hitting weapon makes better sense. The Marines and Navy are dusting off a number of M-14s for use in the current conflict. ( An article on that subject is in the current American Rifleman magazine.)
I believe the school of thought is that the 5.56mm round is lethal within specified ranges where the FPS alows for adequate penetration/expansion, and is much lighter so a soldier can carry much more ammo into combat.

In addtion, It has arguably been shown in multiple conflicts that a lighter round that still disables the enemy, forcing him off the field of battle and into an expensive and resource consuming field care facility is sometimes better then dropping him cold. (of course the people who say that are not the ones looking down the barrel at the enemy )
__________________
jismail is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2011, 10:50 PM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,152
Liked 22 Times on 7 Posts

Default

You quoted a post from over 3 years ago - this must be a new record for a "raised from the dead" thread...



__________________
NGIB is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Obama cutting military and the Russian military is parading! Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 05-10-2009 03:58 AM
Jokes about the Military McNabb11b The Club House 13 03-03-2009 02:31 AM
Military Firearms websites Slickrick214 The Club House 9 11-08-2008 03:13 AM
Who in here is ex-military or currently in? Tony Soprano The Club House 37 01-15-2008 02:31 AM
military .22? jo_nathan1980 .22 Rifle/Rimfire Discussion 4 10-03-2007 01:56 AM