Posted on 04/06/2017 10:06:27 PM PDT by MtnClimber
The early model M16s suffered from several problems, the most serious being that the Army substituted inferior steel in the firing chamber for the high chrome alloy required by the designer. Coupled with a dirty gunpowder and a lack of cleaning kits and proper instruction, the result was that early M16s in Vietnam were prone to fouling and jamming.
What you said!
Reach out 300-to-600 yds and knock someone down...No one "keeps coming"...
While I very much enjoy FALs, they are problematic due to the issues with mounting modern optics, which are de rigueur these days for the longer engagement distances given as the driver for this decision.
What are you using for a scope mount, and how does it remove for cleaning the bolt group so as to retain zero upon reassembly?
It was the mud that jammed them :p
I’ve always wanted an M14... the closest I ever had was the Ruger mini-14.
We complained that we were getting killed while "Matty Mattel" failed us in combat and we were told that we were cleaning them wrong or using the wrong lubricants, or not cleaning them enough - but the real analysis was that we got a new weapon that hadn't been tested enough and the subconscious issue was that our lives didn't mean enough.
The M-16 was lighter, space-age looking, and nicely cheaper to make and you could carry more ammo and everybody could be an automatic rifleman but it was a disaster and we lost a lot of good, solid young men in their singleminded push to get tens of thousands of them into our hands.
The M-14 was long and heavier but we got used to that. It always fired when you pulled the trigger and it hit and killed what you aimed at. In Vietnam we had engagements all the way from three feet to 500m and the '14 was capable of both and everywhere in between. Vietnam had intense heat and humidity, heavy rain and mud, and huge clouds of dust and the simple, open action of the M-14/Garand system and the AK handled everything easily. The M-16 has a small and inaccessible chamber and stoppages required a full disassembly and sometimes even that didn't work.
Combat is the very last place on Earth that you want an unproven, insufficiently tested system.
I kept my M-14 long after I was supposed to get an M-16 and I still resent the bastards the pushed the M-16 on us.
Yours is a HORRIFYING story. Reminds me a little of the HumVees that could have protected soldiers but weren’t used until there was an outcry in the Iraq War.
Soldiers dying in Vietnam because of the M16. I have read that many times.
What a heartbreaking disgrace!!!
Why don’t superiors ever listen to the people using the weapon!!
And not stopping a charging NV soldier?!! That’s horrifying.
I lost a BIL to a heart attack five years ago. He was a medic embedded with the marines. Talked about it once. I cringed.
The military contacted my sister that quite a few had heart attacks due to agent orange. She didn’t contact them. They contacted her and I think she was getting a check or something.
Don’t know how you guys that were there feel about this. But a check doesn’t replace a father.
My opinion on the payments means nothing. I wasn’t there.
But what about the guys who died because of a defective rifle?!?!!
Come on man.
And three feet away?!?! You guys saw heck.
I wish you didn’t. But wishing is for kids I guess.
Belated thanks, guys.
“I woulda thought it’d be the M16. Well, I learned something new today re:standard issue rifles!”
I was in Nam urging the earlier days (july 64 - July 65) and packed a M-14 with selector switch some of the time. Also packed a Thompson some. Was issued an M-16 towards the end of my tour. Much preferred the 14 though. But, wasn’t a grunt was an MP in central highlands, mainly ran convoys out to area A-Teams and such. When doing town patrol packed my trusty 1911. Still own two of these.
“#9: Mosin-Nagant M44
Speaking of guns without safeties, here’s the Mosin-Nagant M44 Carbine from Russia. The Mosin was used by the Russians against the Finns, the Finns against the Russians, the Estonians against the Russians, the Russians against the Russians, and the Russians against the Germans. It does, in fact, have a safety, but it’s quite hard to engage. But this is not a complaint one would ever voice in the Red Army. Your officer would reply, “Safety? Safety? Is gun! Meant to kill! No warrior should know he has safety on gun, because he should be killing enemies of homeland! Safety make loud click to aid enemy in locating warriors! No safety!” while pounding his fist on the table.
And the Mosin can kill enemies of homeland. The muzzle blast will vaporize green growth within a few feet of the muzzle, and even if you miss, the enemy will be reduced to shouting “WHAT?” to communicate. You’ll need a recoil pad or shooting jacket. Ordinarily, this might be considered unmanly, but this rifle has a short stock for using while wearing several layers of wool for a Russian winter. It is acceptable to wear padding to fire a Mosin.
Of course, there are also M38, 91/30 and other variations of Mosin-Nagant and all are cool. All, also (except the M38), come with a bayonet. Russian doctrine held that the bayonet was mounted except while traveling in a vehicle, because the Russians understood that an empty rifle could still be a pointy stick—a Viking spear. The Russians loved to spear Turks. So, coincidentally, did the Vikings. This rifle sounds better all the time, doesn’t it? The Finns used the Mosin as a sniper rifle during the Winter War, and their greatest Sniper was Simo Häyhä, who had 500 confirmed kills in 100 days. This is a man the Finns describe as “modest” and “self-effacing.” It’s a good thing the Russians didn’t run into a Finn who was proud and arrogant. They’d have been wiped out.
It fires a 7.62X54R (for “Rimmed”) cartridge, about as powerful as .30-06, and holds the distinction of being in service from 1891 to the present, longer than any other military cartridge. It is still used in Dragunovs, PKMs and other Russian weapons. It’s cheap in quantity. So are the rifles, because they were built for (all variations) over 70 years, by Russia, Finland, Poland, Romania, even the US. As I write this, arsenal-new M44s are $55 to $200. At that price, you should have several, so any guests you have during the Collapse can be outfitted as they receive Enlightenment. Then they can rape, kill, sack and loot with the rest of the men who secure a new Dark Ages to hasten the new renaissance. It will be a manly duty.”
What is the status of the work they briefly did on the 6.8 SPC? It was designed to fit in the magazine well of the M4/M16. It only needed a new bolt and barrel. It had good downrange ballistics.
Really? Given the calibers mentioned, a thousand people on this board alone could tell you the engagement distance.
With this latest development in the arming of America combat troops, Colonel Jeff Cooper is vindicated. He used to say that eventually, with the longer combat distances in the Middle East, the US would eventually have to go back to a larger caliber weapon.
Beside the stupid rifle, we had jerks demonstrating at home - even carrying the enemy flag - and we were insulted frequently when we got back home. The news media gave slanted coverage about us to our families and spread a defeatist message and our government didn't bother trying to inform the public of what we were really accomplishing and never even arrested the folks travelling to enemy territory to support them.
And as you pointed out, we got sprayed (or just drank water that flowed down from the sprayed areas) with some genius' idea that poisonous defoliant would make life easier. Never mind that it caused birth defects and cancers to everyone that had contact with it. Including me.
It's been 50 year and I'm still angry.
Soviet doctrine was to have each squad, or at least each platoon, have a marksman armed with a 7.62x54R Dragonov, for hitting targets at longer range.
We should do likewise.
Righteous anger doesn’t go away with the years.
I’m 48 and ALL of my nephews and nieces know what you guys did and why.
And if I’m still breathing, their kids will know too.
There’s NOTHING in a civilian’s life that can give them cause to Empathize with a combat soldier. Sympathize yes.
But empathize, as in feeling what you feel? Never.
Nothing in civilian life comes close to combat.
If it gives you some peace, generations in my big fat Italian family will KNOW what you guys sacrificed and why.
“I’m sure the military folk would know the reason the SCAR is used.”
Because it functions almost exactly like an M4 this no need for an extensive different training regimen.
L
One of the best references on the subject is ‘American Rifle - A Biography’. The quest for over two hundred years and been smaller caliber, harder hitting loads that are lighter to carry.
This doesn’t necessarily equate with lethality.
That makes sense.
I only used BOTH of them one time at the range.
I dont very much recall what the difference was.
SCAR felt lighter, i think?
I really liked the M4. I guess the difference was in my head :)
Cause i dont know a damn thing about guns, really.
Other than that time, I’ve used the M4, AK47, Glock and a few shotguns that almost blew my shoulder off :)
Semper Fi
When I got to Vietnam in 1969, I was issued a really nice 7.62 M14 rifle. I used it for about 6 months and one day they came and made me exchange it for a complete piece of sh!t 5.56 M16 rifle that jammed on a regular basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.