outgunned again?

[Kaylee]

Historical question for y'all.

It seems, looking back over the 20th century, we've not exactly had the best rifle each time out... M1 excepted, of course.

I mean... Mausers beat out the Krag. So we scrap the Krag, and go with the Springfield.

Springfield is great... but as a combat rifle, seems to me the Enfield has it beat.

M1 vs. Mausers.. well hey, we got it right '37-'60 or so, I guess.

Then.. I hate to say it.. but I tend to think the FAL outweighs the M14 as an out and out fighting rifle.

And now... we get "he-man AR haters" threads.

I'm not saying that any of the rifle we've had in the last 100 years were BAD, really.. it just seems that through most of the century, we weren't (aren't) carrying the best fielded gear.

For a nation that combines an incredible industrial capacity with being -- at least in the past -- "a nation of riflemen" ... isn't that kinda odd?

Or am I missing something?

-K

 

[brembo]

I can't add much, but today I got to fire an AR for the first time. Nice rifle, noisy as heck in the stock, sounds like a factory back there. But, was able to group nicely, despite a trigger that required effort, rounds fed smoothly, smallish and lightweight, so I guess draggin a few hundred around is not a total bummer. Zippy little bullet, plenty of energy behind it for its intended purpose(flesh). 30(20? I was not counting) rounds fit in a 1.5x cigarette pack size mag, seems like a nice compromise for less than ideal battle conditions. Keep in mind that I have NO CLUE as to what real battle conditions are like, and hope to never know. Kinda gettin an itch to have one in my safe now......

 

[hagar]

Believe me, the AR15 is the best combat rifle bar none. I love my FAL, have respect for the M1 Garand, dislike the G3, and feel totally indifferent towards the M14. The AK family might be reliable, but has the worst sights and ergonomics of any military weapon. There is so much beauty and functionality in the AR15 design, shoot one for a while and you will really appreciate it. They all seem to be very accurate. The one drawback is that they (civilian versions) seem to suffer from a lack of quality control or out of spec parts, some work well, others are jamm-o-matics. I have 2 DCM uppers, a CLE and a RRA. My CLE has never ever malfunctioned in countless highpower matches. My RRA have the occasional hiccup. The "sproing" sound in the buttstock is easily fixed by an application of grease.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

For some reason, the US military generally lags behind other countries in this area. The folks in charge always seem to fight change, even when it is needed. Some would probably not change their underwear unless ordered to.

In weapons, tactics, material, etc. we are always fighting the last war we were in. Back when changing from single shot rifles to bolt action then to semi-auto, the military brass fought it tooth and nail. By providing the additional firepower, the troops would just waste ammo. The M16 had to be force fed to them. Now that it's been around for 40 years or so, they won't let go, even with better combat rifles (IMO) available.

 

[Jamie Young]

can't add much, but today I got to fire an AR for the first time. Nice rifle, noisy as heck in the stock, sounds like a factory back there.

That is one of the three things I don't like about AR's. Whats with the ping ping ping The light mags and the t bolt are the only other things I don't like about them. Oh and the whole controversy and the mean AR owners that bash poor scrub Mini 14 owners like me.

Then.. I hate to say it.. but I tend to think the FAL outweighs the M14 as an out and out fighting rifle.

I've pretty much come to that same conclusion. The M14 is a better tactical gun though.

 

[CWL]

A few things:

Artillery and air power kill more than rifles ever will.

Squad concept as devised by the Germans in WWII and followed up by US Musketeer studies showed that LMGs and NCOs do most of the small arms "killing", riflemen/grunts just provide unaimed volume. -Perimeter defense.

Quality of firearms itself will not win a battle. Shown historically by Prussians v. French in 1870, British colonial troops with smoothbores v. indigenous troops armed with rifled Krupps, Crimean battles, etc.

Training, leadership and resolve of troops mean more than anything.

I've said it before, no army in the world would willingly face an American military force, whatever we are armed with. Be it Garands, M14s, M16s, M4s.

 

[therookie]

Very true. No rifle can match the stopping power of a 155 mm cannon or a 500 pound bomb.

 

[scotjute]

M-16 replacement?

I wasn't under the impression that the Springfield was outclassed by the Mauser in WWI. Haven't really studied the issue but thought that the Springfields and P-17s (model?) we used in that war, at least held their own against the Mauser. We were never up against the Enfield.
During WWII agree that we had the edge with the Garand. And
while the FAL may be a tad better than the M-14, we've never come up against it. Always thought they were more or less equivalent guns.
Agree that with the advent of M-16 we had something with problems, but many of them seem to have been worked out. When you look at it as a light-weight shooting tool out to 300 yds., it seems to be effective. Much past that and the US has been going to heavier coordinated firepower as mentioned above. Do agree with you that I would have preferred a more powerful round for our troops, possibly either .243 or 6.5x55.

Any recommendations on what the US should replace the M-16 with and why?

 

[Art Eatman]

Kaylee, for at least the first sixty years of the 20th Century, there are two reasons for the "why?" of "not as good as". The Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

We weren't interested in acquiring Canada or Mexico. We weren't worried about invasion. The Krag was, of course, an improvement over the old Trapdoor .45-70.

The European arms manufacturers OTOH, had incentive for R&D. We learned from them and came up with the perfectly adequate .30-'06; the Springfield was simpler than the Krag and its two-lug bolt was stronger.

As far as bolt-guns in WW I, we were already making Enfields for the Brits; it was logical to use the same tooling for ourselves, regardless of the Springfield being the "Official" rifle. There was nothing all that wrong with the '03; we just hadn't seen the need for a quantity suitable for a World War.

Post-Korea, we went through a phase of "The Garand is good; the BAR is good; let's try something." and so we came up with the M-14. The effort toward a selective-fire rifle with the weight of a Garand had predictable results.

About that time the Department of War decided that lighter is better and we wound up with the M-16. (Grant me the over-simplification, please.)

Regardless of TFLers' opinions, the M-16 fits in with our military philosophy. Dunno about "best", but it does fit in and it works.

Art

 

[Vladimir_Berkov]

It goes farther back than the Krag! During the time period when Europe was switching over to needlegun, the Martini-Henry, and other single shot breechloaders, most of the American military was issued muzzleloading rifle-muskets. During the time period when Europe was perfecting the bolt action, and starting to develop smokeless powder, the US was primarily issued the Trapdoor Springfield, a poor excuse for a rifle. By the time the French, Germans, and many other nations had front line troops issued with magazine-fed boltaction rifles firing high-velocity smokeless rounds, we were STILL using the Trapdoor, and only starting to issue Krags. By the time the Spanish American war rolled around, the Trapdoors were STILL in service, facing troops armed with modern Mauser rifles. By WW1, we had the Springfield, but many national guard units were STILL using the Trapdoor! And not only that, but the Springfield had serious QC issues! This is not to mention that the US lagged seriously behind in machinegun development, eventually just producing British and French designs.

The Garand, while a fine rifle, was issued at about the same time that the Russians were issuing semi-autos. We were ahead of the curve for once, but considering that the Garand became obsolete at the end of WW2, we were obviously not that far ahead. During the war, we were outclassed by the MP44, and postwar by the AK-47. Consider the fact that by the time that US troops were first getting M16s (and M16s with big maintainance, ammo, and other problems) the Russians had perfected the AK-47, produced three improved versions of it, then redesigned it as the AKM, and produced several versions of that!

 

[Art Eatman]

Vlad, if you don't compare the military philosophies of the USSR and the USA as to tactics and small arms usage, it doesn't mean anything to compare the AK and the M16. It's a pointless endeavor to just compare the two guns.

Art

 

[stinger]

Art said it...


As tactics change, so do weapons. I do not think we are undergunned with the M16. It has been in service for around 40 years with a few modifications over the years.

I can't think of a single weapon that could possibly replace the ones our forces are using. Or even a reason that we should change. Sure, it may be a wimpy 22, but our boys know where to put 'em.

It wouldn't surprise me if someday our military changed their minds about the small cartridge and went back to a larger one. Who knows???


Stinger

 

[Gewehr98]

Could be worse...

At least we aren't saddled with that L85A1 (SA-80) bullpup!

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The Springfield had serious QC issues..."

I'm assuming you're talking about the low-number Springfields.

That was never an issue during the war, and really only became an issue AFTER these guns started to get into civilian hands.

Anyway you cut it, the SMLE-series of rifles was probably the best bolt action battle rifle design of all time, even more suited to military use than the Sprinfield, Enfield, or the Mauser.

 

[Yanus]

"Quality of firearms itself will not win a battle"

No, but if you are a ground pounder, it sure as hell can get you killed!

 

[Art Eatman]

Yanus, I think you're taking it a bit out of context. If Group A has AK47s, and Group B has M16s, I doubt the outcome of a purely infantry battle will depend on the comparative quality of the respective designs.

Art

 

[SHIVAN]

Art is right again....

If Group A has AK's and air support and Group B has M16 and artillery? Who wins? My money would go on the one with the best tactics, not the best marksmen with an individual rifle.

Ed

 

[crowsnest2002]

I have something to add...

Govt's favorite saying "If it aint broke, fix it till it is" lol

 

[Dave R]

You are all correct in giving the historical reasonings, and the political machinations that got us to where we are/were.

But why shouldn't the USA have the best rifle in the world?

Shoot, as I type this, I know the reason. Its because the USA is not a good market for firearms innovation anymore, due to business regs, gun laws, etc.

No more John Moses Brownings for us.

 

[Senior_rifleman]

Machine guns and other stuff

First of all, I agree with Art Eatman. An infantry rifle is part of a weapons system for the infantry team. If you would like to critique a rifle, compare it to the design objectives and determine if they have been met. I believe that the US Army wanted a rifle and several machine guns to use a common cartrige, (the 30-06 cartridge) to reduce supply problems and make sure that the infantry man was not out-ranged by the "other side". Vlad may have forgotten that the Gatling, Maxim (Vickers and Marlin derivatives), Lewis, Hotchkiss, Colt and Browning (both by John Browning) were designed by Americans. I can detect no lack of talent on the American side. What say you?