Joined
·
53 Posts
found some pretty interesting reading on http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/mvt.htm title: 7.62mm versus5.56mm -does nato really need two standard rifle calibers?
7.62 vs. 5.56
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Joined
·
5,750 Posts
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986
go to where it says 7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two Standard Rifle Calibers?
go to where it says 7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two Standard Rifle Calibers?
Joined
·
65 Posts
HooshierM1A,
Thanks for the info, I tend to agree with the findings that they came up with, and I wonder if any body read the report 18 years ago, and why we still have the "plastic wonder" now entering into the fourth generation. I seem to recall a press release about 12 years ago about a squad of the 101st in Sinia (sp) held up for about 6 hr by a lone Bediun (sp) with a 98 Mauser, laughed about it then not too sure now.
Jumper
Thanks for the info, I tend to agree with the findings that they came up with, and I wonder if any body read the report 18 years ago, and why we still have the "plastic wonder" now entering into the fourth generation. I seem to recall a press release about 12 years ago about a squad of the 101st in Sinia (sp) held up for about 6 hr by a lone Bediun (sp) with a 98 Mauser, laughed about it then not too sure now.
Jumper
The same thing happened to the British in the Faulkland Islands as has happened to us in our last several conficts.
When the British troops arrived there armed with their 5.56 rifles (L85s?), they had to face Argentines armed with FN FALs (and in some cases Garands!) in relatively long range engagements. The first thing they did was call for their L1A1s back.
Now we have "designated marksmen with M14s" and seemingly more and more M14s in pictures from the front all the time.
What could the Clinton administration been thinking, destroying all of those perfectly servicable rifles? When are we going to stop trying to fix things that aren't broken?
When the British troops arrived there armed with their 5.56 rifles (L85s?), they had to face Argentines armed with FN FALs (and in some cases Garands!) in relatively long range engagements. The first thing they did was call for their L1A1s back.
Now we have "designated marksmen with M14s" and seemingly more and more M14s in pictures from the front all the time.
What could the Clinton administration been thinking, destroying all of those perfectly servicable rifles? When are we going to stop trying to fix things that aren't broken?
Joined
·
5,610 Posts
dz86, every refernce I have shows the Brits used the L1A1 (FN FAL in 7.62) in the Falklands - as did the Argies. Only a few of the SAS and SBS had M16's. I even contacted someone who was there. The L1A1 (and GPMG, our M240) were the best of the equipment they had.
Joined
·
53 Posts
trouble?
i pulled it up and went right to it, sorry guys dont know whats up. has anybody seen a recent report on this type discussion?
i pulled it up and went right to it, sorry guys dont know whats up. has anybody seen a recent report on this type discussion?
Joined
·
11 Posts
l1a1
I met a dude @ a gun show when I was selling my L1A1 to buy another M1a. He said he was in the Royal Marines in the Fauklands campain & he loved his L1A1. Said if he ever had to go into battle, that was his prefered rifle. He said he had 16 of them @ home in evey concievable config. I like my M1a's though. WTPIII
I met a dude @ a gun show when I was selling my L1A1 to buy another M1a. He said he was in the Royal Marines in the Fauklands campain & he loved his L1A1. Said if he ever had to go into battle, that was his prefered rifle. He said he had 16 of them @ home in evey concievable config. I like my M1a's though. WTPIII
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Join the discussion
