US Army sees urgent need for 'longer-range' infantry weapon

[Jimro]

SR420,

I have 6 m14's on my MTOE that I don't have in my arms room because there aren't enough serviceable m14's for us to train with. When my brigade left Iraq the first time they handed off the m14's to the replacing unit, and when they went back the second time they got the same m14's handed back to them.

The problem with the 6 m14's is that it isn't enough to fill the company with dedicated SDM rifles. It means that I can give two to each of my three line platoons for the PL/PSG to give to his best two marksmen, leaving the third squad marksman to use whatever else is available (such as an M16A2 or M4).

The other problem is that m118lr ammo is sometimes scarce, and my snipers have priority. I can give my SDM's mk262 when it is available and not short my snipers anything.

Shooting an m14 with 3 moa m80 ball isn't going to be any more accurate than shooting an m16 with 3 moa m855 ball. Hell at the live fire exercise on Sunday my snipers were shooting delinked m80 ball through the m24, but that cuts the effective range down to 600 meters.

Jimro

 

[SR420]

Jimro

The problem with the 6 m14's is that it isn't enough to fill the company with dedicated SDM rifles. It means that I can give two to each of my three line platoons for the PL/PSG to give to his best two marksmen, leaving the third squad marksman to use whatever else is available (such as an M16A2 or M4).

It sounds like you could use more M14s.
I hope you get them and I hope that they are modernized.

 

[Fat White Boy]

I vote for the original BAR. Good range and dependability. Heavy Muthuh, though....

 

[Average Joe]

The military knows what still looks cool.

 

[Deaf Smith]

No reason the orgional BAR could not be redesigned for the 7.62x51 and use an aluminum or titanium frame with quick change barrel.

 

[King Ghidora]

Speaking of the original BAR I know a shop that has one with a nice scope on it. They also have a Remington 700 Sendero in 7mm with an apparently very powerful Nikon scope. And I've been looking at a Savage 110G 30.06 with a medium grade scope at Wally World.

The BAR and the Savage are obviously much cheaper but the Sendero is only $750. Can anyone point me in the best direction here? How close is the Sendero to the M24? That seems like a really good price to me but I probably need to keep any more gun buying under $500. But I hate to see that Remington go somewhere else though. I guess my question is how much better is the Sendero than the BAR or the Savage. I hear really good things about Savage too BTW.

I'm certainly not an expert but isn't the different type of terrain the main reason for the military switching to sniper fire? Suppressing fire makes a lot of sense in a jungle situation especially with a huge tunnel network involved but in an open desert a sniper can make a big difference even in house to house fighting IMO. I'm basing this on the tactics used in WWII and WWI too for that matter.

 

[44 AMP]

A bit of confusion

The "original" BAR is the full auto military weapon M1918 (A1, A2, etc) and variations. .30-06, 20 rnd box magazine, 18.5lbs+ Designed by JM Browning.

The "Browning BAR" is a semi auto sporting rifle, available in several calibers, including some magnums, and usually has a 3 or 4 round mag, and can be easily scoped.

Very similar names, two completely different rifles.

 

[gruntrus]

I'm certainly not an expert but isn't the different type of terrain the main reason for the military switching to sniper fire? Suppressing fire makes a lot of sense in a jungle situation especially with a huge tunnel network involved but in an open desert a sniper can make a big difference even in house to house fighting IMO. I'm basing this on the tactics used in WWII and WWI too for that matter.
__________________


Right, the urban combat situation reports are showing an opportunity for quick engagement turn-arounds by pin pointing spotters and RPG attacks, on the rooftops. They (Washington) have finally realized that 2 men with a long rifle and a spotting scope are more effective than "laser guided video game Tomahawks", AND it boosts the morale of the shooters and their Company. Get some!

I can't speak with all the acronyms that some guys are throwing around here. I can to speak to being a hunter/shooter and I really disliked the M16rifles we had to use 20 years ago in the Army. The M14s, rebuilt, will be well received. No, I don't have an M14/M16/BAR chip on my shoulder. I just thoroughly enjoy hitting and killing what I shoot at! Particularly long range.

BTW-I'm interested in seeing what these M24s and all the rest look like. Got any links?

 

[funfaler]

It is good to see that they transformation from "one gun, one tactic" to "the right tool for the job at hand" is going on.

Face it, we have seen/read plenty of the military trying to put a square peg in a round hole, but trying to spruce up the M16 family to be a real rifle for real rifle work. It makes a very good carbine, but there it stays.

Also good to see more focus on marksmanship, heck you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a "sniper" or "designated marksman" now days.

The controversy of which rifle will rage for as long as there are wars and rumor of wars.

 

[SR420]

funfaler It is good to see that they transformation from "one gun, one tactic" to "the right tool for the job at hand" is going on.

Face it, we have seen/read plenty of the military trying to put a square peg in a round hole, but trying to spruce up the M16 family to be a real rifle for real rifle work. It makes a very good carbine, but there it stays.

Also good to see more focus on marksmanship, heck you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a "sniper" or "designated marksman" now days.

The controversy of which rifle will rage for as long as there are wars and rumor of wars.

Well said sir.

 

[ssilicon]

Let's just come out and say it, over-all, the M1A and M14 are actually better firearms than the M16. Not that the M16 didn't shine in some ways though. Light weight, recoil transmission along top of stock straight back is good etc. But when it comes to the core of the gun.... it is not really an improvement over it's predecessors there.

 

[Jason_G]

Let's just come out and say it, over-all, the M1A and M14 are actually better firearms than the M16.

It's better at some things, but the M16 is far better suited for burst or automatic fire than the M14 is.

Jason

 

[Major Dave (retired)]

A story about "urgent operational need"

As a brand new Artillery 2nd LT, in 1965, I went into the Central Highlands of Vietnam, carrying a M-14. It was a heavy load, especially with 2 ammo pouches of fully loaded (10 round) magazines.

Then, I was assigned to provide arty forward observer support to 1st Cav (airmobile) operations, and sent into the jungle with a squad of infantry. My only ammo supply was to break M-60 mg link ammo, because the grunts had those nice lightweight little black rifles.

So, I notified my arty chain of command that I needed a black rifle, and they sent one out to my location on "the breakfast chopper" (one hot meal a day, routinely).

The first night with my 22 Magnum (little black Mattel Toy plastic) M-16 rifle, I stood my 3 hour watch, then bagged out in my foxhole.

I dreamed that I was a spectator at a bullfight, and was awakened when the bull in my dream kept bellering louder and louder.

Once awake, I continued to hear the noise, and then I realized that it was a nearby tiger, on the hunt. He was making a gutteral sound, expecting some small helpless prey would be scared into trying to flee. I was tempted to do so!

It was then that I realized that my only defense from this 600 - 750 pound meat eater was a 22 magnum.

"Urgent operational need", indeed.

Of course a .308 Win/7.62 NATO would have been only marginally better.

My solution was:
1) Be still - don't run.

2) Be sure the Ma Duece, about 10 meters to my right, was on alert (he wasn't), and had a round in the chamber (he didn't).

3)After correcting step 2, I spent the rest of the night with a trip flare in one hand, and a hand grenade in the other, both pins pulled, and ready to "light em up and fire em up".

I still wish I had an M-14.

 

[Crosshair]

It's better at some things, but the M16 is far better suited for burst or automatic fire than the M14 is.

That has more to do with the caliber the gun is chambered in and the stock configuration. I don't think an AR-10 in 308 would be very practical to shoot FA either. Some of the newer stocks for the M-14 are very good.

 

[Jason_G]

That has more to do with the caliber the gun is chambered in and the stock configuration.

It actually has a lot to do with the stock and overall design of the rifle. There is a natural pivot point on the backside of the grip area on the m14. It's around this point that the rifle's muzzle pivots (climbs) upon recoil. There is no such pivot on the M16 because of its straight line design. Most of the recoil is directed straight back into the shooter's shoulder rather than contributing to muzzle climb. I would venture that a fully automatic AR-10 would be fairly controllable. The 7.62 in FA has enjoyed success elsewhere in the world when used in a differently designed rifle. Look at the FAL, G3, etc., etc.

Jason

 

[HorseSoldier]

Let's just come out and say it, over-all, the M1A and M14 are actually better firearms than the M16.

No. It isn't. It never was. It was a half-assed design whose only real selling point was it was invented here in America and not by some dangerous, perfidious foreigners like those devil Brits or Belgians. It's main claim to fame was being chased off the battlefield by the AK-47 fast enough it made the Krag-Jorgensen seem long-lived. End of story.

 

[SR420]

Quote:
over-all, the M1A and M14 are actually better firearms than the M16.

HorseSoldier

No. It isn't. It never was. It was a half-assed design whose only real selling point was it was invented here in America and not by some dangerous, perfidious foreigners like those devil Brits or Belgians. It's main claim to fame was being chased off the battlefield by the AK-47 fast enough it made the Krag-Jorgensen seem long-lived. End of story.

End of that story, but the M14 continued to generate stories after Vietnam
and continues to generate new stories today. No. The story has not ended.

 

[44 AMP]

Chased off the battlefield?

I don't see how a political decision redefining the mission requirements and the weapons that fill them as being chased off the battlefield by the AK or anything else.

The M14 wasn't pulled out of the field because it didn't work, it got pulled because the bean counters of the MacNamara DOD decided that the M16 would work better.

The M14s only serious flaw is that it is not a satisfactory FA weapon. And a 300 meter SMG was what the DOD decided it wanted, not a real rifle. And they got it in the M16. After their miserable screwups during the introduction of the new "rifle" and ammo, they finally got it.

I have never been able to understand how people can agree that the M1 Garand was a fine rifle, but the M14 was crap. True the M14 couldn't do everything the military wanted it to, but those expectations were unrealistic in a rifle of that weight with a conventional design. For a selective fire MBR ther are better designs (FAL, G3, even the AR), but that doesn't make the M14 a bad rifle, just one that couldn't do everything as well as some others.

There are a great many modifications that could have been done to the M14 to make it better at filling roles beyond that of an infantry rifle, but the US govt wasn't interested in them then. They were determined to make the M16 system work, and eventually, they did, while the M14s sat in warehouses, waiting to be destroyed (as many were under the Clinton administration). Today, things are being looked at a bit differently by the powers that be, and some M14s (modified) are being fielded again. The difference is that today they are recognised as specialty pieces, very useful within their limits, and not a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[Davis]

The M1 was a fine rifle when compared with everything else fielded by every other military in the world in WWII. Compared to what the Japs, Brits, French, Soviets, Finns, Germans, Italians, Romanians, Swedes, Norse, Spanish, Albanians, Yugoslavians, Czechs, Hungarians, Polish, Australians, or Canadians carried, the M1 was the best overall combat weapon.

Fast forward. The M14, in the jungles, was not as suitable for combat as the AK's and even the SKS's carried by the enemies in southeast Asia. Just as the Krag was smooth and accurate, but inferior to the Spanish Mausers, the M14, while accurate and reliable, was not ideal for jungle warfare. Compared with contemporaries, it was behind the times.

The most successful tank in WWII is arguably the Soviet T-34, but those who like the King Tiger and its fearsome gun can have that argument, too. Certainly we can all agree that the Sherman was not a very good tank compared to them, though the Firefly did even things up some (even though compared to what the Japanese fielded, it was great).

Yet, take the T-34 into the 1960's and it was a greatly inferior to every other design fielded by major powers. Though they can still be found around the world in action today, they are antiquated.

Ditto for the T-55, which was a revolution in tank design when it was introduced. Yet the Soviet T-72, which was still an evolution of the T-55. While the 55 was great, and the 72 could hold its own pretty decently against the M60, it was markedly inferior to the M1 Abrams. The T-80 is much less capable than the M1a2.

Just because a thing is based on something great for its day does not make it timeless.

The Transistor was revolutionary for its time. Who wants to build a computer with transistors today?

Davis

 

[Crosshair]

It actually has a lot to do with the stock and overall design of the rifle....etc etc etc.

From the standpoint of muzzle rise, yes the stock plays a large part. However the caliber/weight ratio also affects how accurate a gun will be in FA fire. A Full-auto AR-10 with it's "superior" stock design would not be a very effective FA gun simply because of the recoil throwing you off target in any shooting position except prone.

A full-auto 9mm AR-15 is very controllable in FA mode, even when shooting freehand. You can practically write your name with one.