firearms in military...

I am an old guy, so I know that no one liked the M16

initially for combat. The US army had the M14 ( 7.62 NATO ) and were very impressed with the performance. When they introduced the M 16 in quantity, lots of problems with jams, stovepipes, failure to fire.

Some of the bodies of GI's collected after fire fights had a useless black toy rifle lying nearby that had experienced some sort of failure.

I know that the black rifles have had multiple improvements since the 60's and 70's, but the overly complicated gas system makes less sense to me than a direct gas piston, such as the AK or the Mini 14 or the famous M 14.

If I absolutely had to go to combat at my advanced age, I would have to choose the AK platform for sheer reliability.

 

The AK and AR pattern rifles are the two most common rifle in military service today. The AK has the most widespread use. I prefer the AR for the accuracy, weight, ergonomics, and faster magazine changes myself.

 

That is a "fact". I also prefer the AR platform for the reasons given. The early M16 issues were do to design changes and powder changes set by the Ordnance Division of the day. Had they left the design intact, many soldiers would have come home. It was a pissing contest between the Military brass and Kennedy's wizz kids.

 

Indeed, the .223 has proven itself a good combat

round for most uses, and the AR platform has been improved ( or perhaps returned to Eugene Stoner's original concept ).

My active military friends in Iraq like the AR platform, but would like an arm that would engage a target at a greater distance. Not sure I understand that thought, as they have the SAW and the snipers still shoot .308 ( or bigger)
ammunition.

All I can give you is my limited military experience, and I found the M16 hard to keep clean in a dirty environment. I lost a lot of confidence in the Colt made military firearm I carried. My Sergeant did remind us - often - that all our equipment came from the lowest bidder!

 

During the Vietnam war the Australian infantry were initially armed with the GPMG M60, the Australian designed and manufactured 9mm Owen gun (SMG) and the L1A1 SLR, semi-auto rifle in 7.62 Nato - a slightly modiifed semi-auto only version of the Belgium FN-FAL produced in Australia utilising a 20rd mag.

The Owen gun later gave way to the M16 but the SLR remained our main battle rifle throughout the conflict. It was cherished by the troops and gave an honest account of itself. Accurate, reliable, hard-hitting, easy to maintain and shoot.

I daresay many US veterans feel the same way about the M14. Old flames are never forgotten.

The SLR eventually gave way to the tupperware Steyr AUG in 5.56 Nato and is currently issued to all troops, with the exception of the SAS who always appear to be carrying M4s (says a lot). The standard sidearm was, and is today, the Browning Hi- power in 9mm.

IMHO the SLR was one of the best main battle rifles of my military era (69/70) and I would gladly use it again today - but this time with an optical sight and the heavy barrel usually fitted to the L2A2 (unsuccessful full Auto, 30rd heavy barrel, Bipod model).

 

The AUG never seems to get any respect. I have never had the chance to handle one. Can anybody tell me why they have such a negative reputation?

 

Handles nicely, integral optic sight and easy to train new shooters with. However those I have spoken with in the military claim they don't handle sustained fire too well, nor sandy, dusty environments.

I have no personal experience with the Steyr other than handling one, but that's what the troopies tell me.

 

The French call the FAMAS "Le Clarion" french language for the bugle as its profile resembles one somewhat.

 

I've got a similar story to Tango1, I used the Canadian variant of the FAL, we called ours the FN C1-A1, and the heavy barreled version the FN C2-A1. While my personal weapon was usually the C2, and I appreciated the 30 round mags, sometimes, I really thnk the C1 wa the better rifle. I'd toss the heavy barrel in a second, that extra 5 lbs didn't add much to the controlability on full auto, neither were/would have been really effective (our C1 was semi only; but the C2 trigger parts fit, making a C1 fully auto, if we wanted to risk getting our pee-pees spanked for unautorized mods [yes, I also know the 'other' way; but don't think it's appropriate to discuss, nor to detail the excuses I gave my Sgt, about how those little bits of stuff ended-up where they were]).

Though I loved my FN, for all the reasons the Tango1 has, I think the M14 is a better target/designated-marksman rifle. The FN is certainly accurate enough for a battle rifle; but the M14 can be almost as reliable; but way more accurate. The standard 'iron' sights on the M14 are better, though not "pongo proof", they are very adustable (like target rifle sights) but that just makes them more likely to get adjusted by someone that has no real understanding of sight adjustments. The FAL's scope mounting is cobbled together, the M14 was designed, from the outset, for the addition of optical sights.

Though I had only a brief exposure to it, I believe the original AR10 would have made the best battle rifle, especially in the heavy barrel variant. The weight was still reasonable, full auto control was not too bad (considering the full power 7.62 NATO ammo) and accuracy seemed very good.

In an ideal world, a rifle like the original AR10, in a cartridge like the .280 Enfield or 6.5 Grendel would have been the best way to go.

Note, the original AR10 is quite different from the modern AR10, the modern one is really a varient of the AR15, using many of the same components, and has some pretty serious reliability issues (or at least they did, a few years back, maybe they have them well sorted-out now).

 

Being assigned to a VTR while in the 2nd Armor Division, we track crews hated trying to carry the M16 - just try and get it into position from the drivers hatch or TC Cupola... way to long....

I carried the M3A1 .45 sub-cal. Not very accurate, but it was easy to carry, seldom jammed, and could stop a raging bull at a dead run.... Not to mention is looked way cool!!! The infantry units all drooled when they saw it!

 

Firearms in Military?

Hello all

RON L here = SERESURPLUS



I was navy for 24 years, I really enjoyed my 45 1911A1, shaped what I still like and still carry now! I liked and Have owned the M-14, I had the M1A semi auto equivelent! I got used to the Beretta and though not my Fav as the 1911, I did learn to respect it! I Prefer the BHP for a 9MM! Curently I am using the Enemys fav Item, that of an Maddi, an Egypt Clone and Semi of the Russian AK-47! I have used and enjoy the AR series of Rifles and carbines, but still prefer the M1A and AK for personal reasons!

 

Further to my previous comments on the Steyr Aug on this thread , reports are now surfacing in the Australian press claiming 'Diggers are being issued with Defective Weapons'. Soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq as well as those still serving, are said to be complaining of weapons jamming, locking and falling apart.

In response we have senior officers adopting the political line saying that in the harsh environments of Iraq/Afghanistan it is 'normal' for weapons to act up. The opposition political party says that if it gains power in the forthcoming election it will 'conduct an audit'. Meanwhile Diggers are expected to face the possibility of death with tactical tupperware that you can't even get the lid off of.

Now I know (for sure) why the SAS carry M4s.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22320805-601,00.html

 

From an Infantryman who has had the M4 in Iraq, I want a 7.62 to shoot back with. 5.56 doesn't drop people how a 7.62 does. I don't really care for the 9mm Beretta, took an MP at point blank range 2 mags to kill someone (I think it was cause he is 1 a MP and 2 it was a 9mm round). M14's are SDM weapons right now. They have upgraded them with rail systems to fit the lasers and tac lights. I would like to have the SCAR L or SCAR H or HK's 416. Also the mags they give us for the M4/M16 suck. You have to put 27 rounds in them so they still feed after 3 weeks of haveing them loaded. Then if you happen to hit the ground hard, you run the risk of breaking the welds on them. Ive never had my weapon go down due to an issue with the weapon, it was always the mag. (I was happy they gave me the M249 to carry, belt fed weapons = happiness)

 

The Aug can't be shot left-handed, without significant changes to the firearm. While this is OK from a traditional military standpoint, fighting on open ground, the modern battlefield is more urban, and even right-handed shooters will need to shoot from their left side.

 

You are correct, it doesn't. But that's why you practice your controlled pairs. But the ability to carry the more ammunition, at almost 1/2 the weight, is a major advantage.

The shooter is the issue, not the round.

According to the AMU (Army Marksmanship Unit) 3 years ago, they were only a stop-gap measure, until the Army was able to get enough M-16A4s for wide distribution. At this time, the only M-14s being issued should be to National Guard troops.

I understand the SCAR series. With your lack of training in controlled pairs, it makes a lot of sense that you would want a bigger round. But the 416 is still in 5.56. Since you have never had an issue with your rifle, just magazines, it won't solve anything.

I have kept magazines loaded for 3 months at a time, and they run just fine. I'm thinking that you just aren't performing the proper maintenance on your weapon system (cleaning your magazines after a patrol). It's very easy. Go to your S-6 and get a can of compressed air. Unload the magazine and spray it down with the air. Reload the magazine. Problem solved.

Note: I do keep magazines loaded to 28 rounds. But that is to facilitate reloading on a closed bolt. I only do this for firearms that use NATO magazines (AR-15 and my Daewoo). There is no need on most of the former Soviet Bloc firearms (AK pattern rifles), because you rock the magazine in.

Where did the ingenuity in the Infantry go to? I picked up from a crusty 11B Staff Sergeant to put some hundred mile an hour tape on the bottom of the mag to prevent that. And I was Military Intelligence. I stopped doing that a while ago, because I've never had an issue with a magazine breaking due to going down hard on it.

SAW=goodness.

 

The top five rifles, from production numbers, are:

1.) AK pattern (Low-ball number of 80 million)
2.) M16 pattern (About 20 million)
3.) FAL (About 20 million)
4.) H&K G3 (about 20 million)
5.) Uzi (about 18 million)

 

My control pairs aren't an issue. I just like to send 7.62 back at who is sending them at me. We had them taped, just with full kit on (about 80 pounds extra) then a 160 pound guy, you can break them on cement.

 

Since ive been in the Armsroom for my company Ive had 2 brand new M4 have messed up trigger and hammer assemblies. these are what their giving us for combat and their breaking out of the box the first time their fired.