M14 Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,610 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Vangcomper said:
This is a report from a Master Sergent X-Ray tech in a field hospital in Iraq. This is a review of his on how the M16s, M4s, and AKs are preforming in Iraq

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Trust me, I have seen the physical affects of all three the M-16, M-4 and the Ak-47. Throw all those things you read away. THe 7.62 is still the deadlestt round within 200m, trust me it will rip flesh and bone right out of your body,, I have seen it first hand. THe M4 has alot to be said, it is a good weopon within 150m mostly because of it's small size so for close quarters it is perfect but alot of the guy say, and I have seen it, for myself, it does not have the stopping power needed in combat. Especially at distances gereater then 150m. Some of the guys have even picked up[ AK47s to use and just sling thier M4 over thier back. It;s like shooting a .22!!!! As for the regular M16 you get the distance because of the longer barrel, some of the guys here have added Scopes to thier standard M16 and have been hitting guys out at 500m in the head with no problem. And as for how either the M4 and M16 are doing. Well like in every conflict since they were invented! Clean it Clean It Clean it Clean it Clean it! If not it WILL jam at the worse time! It WILL JAM! And dont' leave your magazines loaded with a full 30rds, springs get really weak, especially in these high temps over here. And then they wont feed correctly! The AK47 of course hasnt had this problem. Oh course the enemy has the better WEAPON!"
Nuff Said!

Six
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
I think that says it all. A 22 is no match for knock down power , when matched against a 30 cal. you would think after 40 years of trying to make
a the M16 better they would want to go back to what really works, the M14. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
141 Posts
Yea and that new rifle the Army is supposedly developing, the g36 knock off, is also chambered in 5.56...i mean c'mon! It's obviously not the round of choice for battle effectiveness, though CQC is becoming a more and more real scenario, i suppose being useful out to 150m is about right...


and back to that g36 knock off. Arent pretty much all European made weapons chambered in 7.62? What are they seeing that the US military isnt?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
i sure hope the us military doesn't buy into the HK aura. that xm8 thing is quite fugly. i find it very odd it has an open flash hider on it. when didn't we try that back in the mid-60's? i don't think it worked too great back then in the brush. why would it work now?

5.56mm is looking less and less good to me the more i learn. yeah the fragmentation is great. but if it doesn't fragment, for whatever reason you're screwed. .22 holes in flesh basically seal themselves back up and the bg can fight on.

i'm thinking they are on a better track with the various 6.x mm projects. IIRC there was 100,000 round development order placed with remington, i believe this was 6.8mm. a gas piston upper( get rid of the direct impringement) in a heavier caliber would surely be an improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
On the new rifle I agree with FUBAR it is ugly,but then us Buckeyes always stick together. The rifle reminds me of something out of the movie Starship Troopers,and if you have seen that movie they only killed bugs.
So if we can find some bugs to start a war with it should do just fine.

As far as 5.56 ammo is concerned if they could make a rifle that shot it reliably the old M193 ammo would be a good choice for close quarters.
Unfortunately the powers that be decided that the 5.56 round needed to be able to defeat a steel helmet at 800m so they redesigned the ammo to include a steel penatrator. The new ammo does not fragment and or tumble on impact and unless it hits bone just punches holes.

Just my opinion but the M4 makes a great replacement for the SMG for close quarters especially with M193 ammo. But unless our troops are in an urban fight they would be better served with the longer reach of a rifle shooting 7.62.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
So if we can find some bugs to start a war with it should do just fine.
call orkin???

Just my opinion but the M4 makes a great replacement for the SMG for close quarters especially with M193 ammo. But unless our troops are in an urban fight they would be better served with the longer reach of a rifle shooting 7.62.
If our guys can't get the M-14 back, why not an improved deal of the AR-10? It's a black plastic deal that takes .308/7.62NATO. Oh, and no select fire. Or does the AR-10 have inherent problems too? I haven't heard near as much about it since the US never fielded it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
the AR-10 still poops where it eats. and thus does have some of the same reliability issues as the M16. I've seen a few at the range and they are quite picky about what type of ammo they shoot best. and when they jam it can be a PITA to get it apart. people don't seem to like to slam the buttstock of their $1500 toy on the concrete to free up the bolt carrier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:36 pm Post subject:
From Battlerifles. com

mjmensale wrote:
vanhahner wrote:
There's A Wall with names inscribed with the failure of things forgotten.


No disrespect intended, Van, because I know some of the names on The Wall. But you're making it sound like we lost 58,000 souls to the failure of the M16. And that's not so.

But it is a "tribute" to the failure of looking to a political victory over a military victory. Something we should never let happen again.

Moe


Moe: I never said how many, and I can't tell you the number that have died, because of a one sided fire fight. But I can tell you that a whole co. was wipe out because of jamed weapons. You only need to lose a couple of key positions in your unit before the whole bottom falls out. I was with a different company that had bedded out near the D.M.Z. when they walked in on us at night. Out of the whole Co. that return fire after the first shot, we had only 3 weapons that worked. A M-60, a 1911, and my 700. ( this was covered up by the Military, time and time again because of the political fallout, and unpopular nature of the Viet-Nam War. ( Sixtgunr will tell you the same thing as will JR.)

_________________
U.S.M.C. Scout Sniper Dong Ha 67-68


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I agree with Van. I had a M-14 when i first got there then the M-16 was issued. If you remember the first time the NVA and Commie Chinese used flame tanks near 881. Lots of the 16's malfunctioned that night. I tryed to bend the bbl. on mine one time in the standard hole of a 5 ton bed thinking i would get a 14 back. What i got was in trouble, plus the toy back. "BIRD DOG"
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top