quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
There are no reports of any kind of functioning problems with the M14, from Vietnam, to TODAY...

The G3[H&K91], and the M14[M1-A], and the AK-47, have the best reputation for reliability over any other modern Military rifle.

quote:

Actually, in the hands of the guys carrying them, there are lots of complaints about the M-14 right now.

They're heavy, they're hard, or damn near impossible to get parts for. Unless you're in a battalion sniper position, and even then sometimes, it can be hard to get ammo(M118 special ball) for.

There are very few qualified armorers for them, and even fewer replacement parts. There is almost no issued gear for them.

quote:

Originally posted by mwm464:

quote:

Actually, in the hands of the guys carrying them, there are lots of complaints about the M-14 right now.

They're heavy, they're hard, or damn near impossible to get parts for. Unless you're in a battalion sniper position, and even then sometimes, it can be hard to get ammo(M118 special ball) for.

There are very few qualified armorers for them, and even fewer replacement parts. There is almost no issued gear for them.

Seems to me all but being "heavy" has nothing to do with the M14, and more of a logistical problem that could be easily solved.

As far as weight is concerned, maybe the people complaining should have trained a little harder?

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
AK

I think a 20" accurate M16 with a good scope, the right ammo, is a good idea. With that and some additional markmanship training, it can over come some of the problems that "regular troops" are having with "regular M4's" ie haking hits, especially at distance.

Still it is only a 223.

quote:

I'm considering a semi-auto .308 again, since I've actually come to miss the CETME I used to have. Is there any reason besides history/nostalgia that one would pick an M1A over an AR-10 type rifle, like the DPMS LR308? They both have their pluses, and I'm familiar with each.

My biggest thinking is that the AR platform is much easier to scope, and this will be a scoped rifle in the end. Lots of good triggers, etc for this species of rifle as well.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
AK_Stick
I have used a 223 and a 308, both with good results.

However,
If you do not know, or have not seen, the difference between people and "things", hit with a 223 vs a 308, then nothing I say here would make sense to you.

No offense intended.

quote:

Originally posted by AK_Stick:
No problem my friend, I truly enjoy what I do.


To answer your questions.

1. I am a crewchief on a UH-60L blackhawk. So my gun is primarily mounted. However, we carry our ground kit (butt stock, and pistol grip) so we can convert our weapons back to ground configuration if we crash or are shot down. I'm also a member of the Downed Aircraft Recovery Team (DART) who's job it is to go secure and recover downed helicopters. So we do carry it in a both configurations.

2. There are 75 round E&E box mags, that clip into the fed tray, and give you a small belt of ammo. I have two of these, I carry when I fly. However if I'm on the ground, I carry only 1, and use it as a starter belt, after that I use standard belts broken into 80-120 round increments. The second pouch I carry is a hand made mix of 3-1 AP ammo to tracer, incase I have to disable a vehicle.

3. I've carried both the SAW, M60, and 240 in the ground variant, on different deployments. I think the best mix, would be the new 240 that the SF has, that is basically a scaled up SAW in 7.62x51, using box mags would be the ticket. I also think something like an updated BAR, or BREN, kinda like the new H&K M27 IAR, in 7.62x51mm would be a good addition to the fight. Because it gives us the temporary volume of fire of a open bolt machinegun, without the weight.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
AK_Stick

I can tell fron your replies that you do have some experience, and have given some thought to belt fed vs magazine light machineguns/

Once upon a time, I had an occasion to be involved in a "little" testing of several maching guns.

The Belt Feds, with a few odd ones as well:
We had the Brownings the 1919 A4 and the A6, the German MG 34 and 42,[thee are aon the finged of being called "light" but they were often used in that role in WWII] we had the Jap gun that used the rounds in a long steel open clip [this is really a heavy type MG but we wanted to test the Hotckiss clip system, and the one that used a "hopper" with the 5 round stripper clips, [Type 11 if I remember correctly].
We had a M60 and the light weight M60, and an FN minmi, 223 [Mag fed as well].

Magazine Fed:
The Bar, and the BREN.
We also had the Chinese RPK, and the belt fed in a drum Type 56, these are in 7.62x39.

We had an H&K 21 that we couls set up for the DM13 links or with Magazines. We did have some 30 round Nigerian magazines...

quote:

Originally posted by AK_Stick:

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
There are no reports of any kind of functioning problems with the M14, from Vietnam, to TODAY...

The G3[H&K91], and the M14[M1-A], and the AK-47, have the best reputation for reliability over any other modern Military rifle.

Actually, in the hands of the guys carrying them, there are lots of complaints about the M-14 right now.

They're heavy, they're hard, or damn near impossible to get parts for. Unless you're in a battalion sniper position, and even then sometimes, it can be hard to get ammo(M118 special ball) for.

There are very few qualified armorers for them, and even fewer replacement parts. There is almost no issued gear for them.

They're not as accurate as the DMR M-16's that are also in circulation, and while they can be made very accurate, in combat conditions, they're very hard to maintain sniper rifle accuracy on.


Now, they are very reliable, as a battle rifle, and as a DMR gun, with a medium power scope, they provide a niche role well. That of a slightly more precise (than your rack grade M-4 or 16) weapon, with a little bit longer range.

However, they really are a throw back. For the price the Army pays to build one to the new SEI-M14 standard, with the Crane stock, I can take several of my M-16A2's and rebuild them to be a more accurate DMR rifle. (infact my brigade did just that before deploying)

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
As a side note, the Com Block "stuff"...

Them "Commies do have their stuff going on."

They field weapons in the SAME calibre, that will take the SAME MAGAZINES, with slightly heavier firepower belt fed guns, that take the SAME ammo.

The 7.62x39 is an excellent calibre withing 300 or even to 400 yards.
Their guns work in bad conditions.
When you consider the skill of their Troops, their Tacticts, etc. Their system is a Valid one...

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
If you look at tests of 5.56mm, it doesn't immediately upset in tissue so issue ammunition isn't the best for putting down 120 pounders. Easy fix.

As to ammunition commonality, the US issued 62 different rounds of small arms ammunition in the second war. I think we can figure it out. Ideally I would like to see a 6x35mm for support troops and officers, a 6.5mm magazine rifle for Infantrymen and marksmen, and a 7mm belt fed in the 12-13 pound range at the squad level. The 6.5mm would fire accurate, barrier blind expanding ammunition and the 7mm machinegun would fire cheap, high BC bullets, probably solids, that would be the ultimate in barrier penetration at distance. MGs aren't all that valuable on point targets up close after all.

quote:

Originally posted by AK_Stick:

People who are in the fight, and committed, don't always just roll over and die. They've got their heart rate up, blood pumping and lots of adrenaline, and sometimes take exception to being shot, and don't just quit.

People who aren't expecting anything, i.e. getting hit by DMR/snipers, tend to just fold up like they've been pole axed. And other than the ballistics of getting the round there, 5.56 and 7.62 seem to have similar effects. (Or so I've been told. I've never shot someone 200m+ just walking around)