You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
- Thread starter SR420
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Well, I'm skeptical that giving troops modernized M14s and 3-days training is going to have a dramatic impact. It seems more likely to me that having an additional weapon with a completely different manual of arms will probably create as many problems as it solves. I'm also skeptical of the value of a super-accurized M14 when most of the ammo run through it will be delinked M80 ball - or is M118LR more widely issued than I am guessing?
Not to mention that at the end of a year, I'll be surprised if 4,000 of those 5,000 rifles are still running since the units probably don't have the tools, knowledge base or maintenance procedures to maintain them and aren't likely to get it in 3 days.
SWAT Magazine has an article in the April 2010 issue titled "Slaying the Sacred Cow - The Myth of the M14" written by someone who has actually used one in combat. It should be interesting reading.
If you haven't yet, you will. The new Knights SR25 16" carbines have been out long enough that some of them are starting to see good use. From what I've read so far, it is clear that Knight's has been learning its lesson on how to make a .308 AR sing.
Even if the M110 never improved past its original issue, the M110 is still the future of .308 DMR weapons for the reasons I outlined above (manual of arms, more common maintenance procedures and commonality of parts).
Not to mention that at the end of a year, I'll be surprised if 4,000 of those 5,000 rifles are still running since the units probably don't have the tools, knowledge base or maintenance procedures to maintain them and aren't likely to get it in 3 days.
SWAT Magazine has an article in the April 2010 issue titled "Slaying the Sacred Cow - The Myth of the M14" written by someone who has actually used one in combat. It should be interesting reading.
I'm not hearing anything good about the M110, post up some positive press... if can find any.
If you haven't yet, you will. The new Knights SR25 16" carbines have been out long enough that some of them are starting to see good use. From what I've read so far, it is clear that Knight's has been learning its lesson on how to make a .308 AR sing.
Even if the M110 never improved past its original issue, the M110 is still the future of .308 DMR weapons for the reasons I outlined above (manual of arms, more common maintenance procedures and commonality of parts).
Units have been purchasing Sage stocks with unit funds for quite a while now.
The TACOM M14EBR-RI is a complete system that is delivered as a complete rifle.
The days of units buying SAGE EBR stocks and doing it themselves is over.
I really like the Harley Davidson comparison . That would make the M-14 tough , reliable , American made and long lasting . As for Mr. Roberts comments . Just because one supposed Veteran of M-14 vintage bad mouths the M-14 actually tells me that that may very well not be the case . He was probably a company clerk or something , maybe a cook or mechanic . Has that author been to battle with the M-16 as well , I think not . Just because someone has a pulpit does not make them a preacher . Many people tend to believe that the written word is sacred . I on the other hand tend to be very skeptical about what is written by the liberal press and Gun Magazine wannabes that will write anything to make their deadlines . At best it's the opinion of one man , and hearsay " facts " . The modern G.I. is so loaded down with gear it's a wonder they can bring any weapon to bear ! Lighter is better within reason . We don't drive paper cars do we even though they would get much better mileage .
Well, take the bolt apart, clean it and then we talk again. Field strip? Just push the lever and slide out the bolt! And you have access to the trigger assembly too in a split second.How would a FAL be better than an M14 in the DMR role?
It would be also much less expensive to updgrade the FAL's to todays standarts, you wouldnt need the new expensive stocks, just get the paratrooper folding stocks maybe with a cheek rest and you are good to go. Pistol grip is already there. Ergonomics are great right out of the box.
You dont have to worry about bedding. Installing a dust cover with rails and forend withs rail would be fairly easy too, the M14's not so great for scope mounts.
Turn it around, arguments AGAINST the FAL for DMR role?
I'm also in the crowd that sees nothing better in an FAL, which I've examined and found wanting. Not wanting, exactly, just nothing better than the M14 I had in the army. I've also owned an FN-49 (in .30-06). Real nice but nothing better than an M14. Better than an M1, yes, but not the M14. However, for all those rifles from the 1950s, including the G3 (which everyone that didn't use an FAL had--except us), most of them that are still in use now have plastic stocks. I've even seen photos of L1A1s with mixed stocks.
The original intent was to use the 7.92k cartridge in the FAL and I can't help but wonder if people would have liked it as much or if they would be saying the same things people say about the AR15 now. We'll never know.
Do you realize that treatises were being written about fighting in the mountains of northwest India and Afganistan before 1900? And that it is all still relevant. Some officers said that shooting at targets beyond 400 yards was pointless for an individual rifleman and should be discouraged. Targets out to 800 yards (and beyond) are difficult for the best riflemen. But times have changed and though volley fire is as antique as an infantry officer's sword, optical sighting equipment is in widespread use now. But even that is only an aid and not a guarantee of sucess at extreme rifle ranges. But then, what is guaranteed anyway?
The original intent was to use the 7.92k cartridge in the FAL and I can't help but wonder if people would have liked it as much or if they would be saying the same things people say about the AR15 now. We'll never know.
Do you realize that treatises were being written about fighting in the mountains of northwest India and Afganistan before 1900? And that it is all still relevant. Some officers said that shooting at targets beyond 400 yards was pointless for an individual rifleman and should be discouraged. Targets out to 800 yards (and beyond) are difficult for the best riflemen. But times have changed and though volley fire is as antique as an infantry officer's sword, optical sighting equipment is in widespread use now. But even that is only an aid and not a guarantee of sucess at extreme rifle ranges. But then, what is guaranteed anyway?
oneoldsap SR420 I did leave out payola didn't I !!
Yep, that motives behind that article do not pass the smell test.
Did you never field-strip your M14 to clean it? With the FAL you push a lever on the left side of the rifle, slide out the bolt, thats it! Now you can take out the bolt, you have access to the trigger assembly, you can clean the barrel from the chamber with a cleaning rod. The bolt is also so easy take apart a 5 year old could do it.I'm also in the crowd that sees nothing better in an FAL, which I've examined and found wanting. Not wanting, exactly, just nothing better than the M14 I had in the army.
You dont have to worry about bedding too, no action screws which need to be tightened etc. Dust cover helps a reat deal to avoid mud getting into the action.
Did you never field-strip your M14 to clean it?
Sure, and it is easy.
Disassembly of the semi-auto M14 type rifle.
I own two FAL and agree that it is robust, simple to operate, has great ergos, and is a fine battle rifle. I love 'em.
However, it seems to me that the FAL is not known for its accuracy. How many FALs have you every seen winning long range competitions? The M14 does have that pedigree. Even DSA, who has one of the best chances of building an accurate FAL, hasn't done all that well selling their SPR.
However, it seems to me that the FAL is not known for its accuracy. How many FALs have you every seen winning long range competitions? The M14 does have that pedigree. Even DSA, who has one of the best chances of building an accurate FAL, hasn't done all that well selling their SPR.
You gotta admit, it's pretty complicated compared to the FAL, AK or M16/AR.Quote:
"Did you never field-strip your M14 to clean it?"
Sure, and it is easy.
Willie Lowman
New member
I really like the Harley Davidson comparison . That would make the M-14 heavy , expensive , American made and propped up with nostalgia
I don't have a dog in this fight, never fired a FAL, very little hands on with a G3 or M1a (closest I have come to a M14). I will make an observation though, the argument seems like the story of Goldilocks and the three DMRs. This rifle is to hard to maintain, this rifle is to heavy, this rifle has to much recoil. None of them are just right. This thread is just a few good flames away from being just like the stuff up in the handgun forums.
We have a handful of rifle designs older than the parents of some of the soldiers using them.
Can we improve on them? Yes.
Will any be perfect? No.
Will any of these new design rifles be better than these old war horses? Perhaps.
Will these new rifles be without their own problems? No.
Are the best rifles always going to be found in the imagination of what is next or in the selective memory of what was? I think so.
Rant off.
It was one of the worst days of my life when they took away my M-14 and gave me that Mattel POS . Now I know there are those out there who think the .223 and it's military platform is the greatest thing since sliced bread . If you have been in combat in the jungle with it I'll respect your opinion , otherwise not!
I said the same thing, until I was issued the M16A1 and started using it. I found it highly reliable and effective. And by the way, I was infantry (2/502 Inf, 101st Abn Div).
What we must understand if VIETNAM IS HISTORY, NOT DOCTRINE.
We are talking apples and oranges here. In reality, in Vietnam, 90% of the time we didnt see who we were shooting at. In the jungle, its one set of trees shooting at another set of trees. Vietnam was about fire power. Vietnam had a lot to do with how much ammo you could carry. If I remember right, the basic load for the M-14 was 240 rounds, the basic load for the M16A1 was 460 rounds. Weight matters, we didnt have bottled water carried by HUMVEEs, we weighed whether we wanted to carry more water or more ammo. Our company trains supplied us once a week so we had to carry our rations. Most of us carried 5 qts of water. Nasty as it was, it came from rice paddies or mud puddles.
In Vietnam we didnt wait to see a weapon before we openned up, if we got fire from the tree line, we openned up on the tree line. And Villages, well, you get the ideal. Violence of Action.
That was a completely differant enviorment then what we have now. ROI is differant. You have a differant enviorment between Iraq and Afgan. The way I understand it, most of Iraq is urban fighting, where as Afgan for the most part, is mountain top to mountain top. Differant jobs require differant tools.
I love the M14 system. I used them in basic and AIT, I carried one in the 82nd before I went to SE Asia. I've used them for over 30 years in competition. I've use them in Sniper School (M-21) and have taught sniper schools with them.
The are extremely reliable and accurate to 900 meters. They, hold up, when deployed in SE Asia, they spent less time in the maitance shops then the Marines M-40s of the day.
BUT for "violence of action" as in ambushes you want the fire power of the M-16 systems. For engaging targets at long distance, not repelling an ambush the M-14 is hard to beat. A M-4 beats the heck out of a M-14 for room to room searches. Just like you dont want any rifle when crawling through some dark muddy tunnel.
So it boils down to, we need both, I really like the desinated marksman program, it fills the void. Its kind of like saying, which is best, a fighter bomber or a helochopter gunship. Fighter Bombers are great for laying naplam in the tree line, but if you want some one to start at your muzzle flash and work their way out, you need the gunships.
Yes to AK, no to all the others. You know how accurate the AR platform can be? Less then MOA. A tricked out FAL also goes MOA.A little extra time to clean the M14 is well worth the effort because you gotta admit, the FAL, AK or M16/AR can't perform as well as M14 does.
Comparing an up to date M14 EBR to the standart FAL is kinda unfair compare it to the tuned ones and they shoot MOA.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.