Posted on 02/06/2021 6:52:57 AM PST by Onthebrink
The United States military is currently seeking to replace its M4 Carbine and M249 squad assault weapon (SAW), while the M240 could also soon be replaced by a more modern platform. And while the M240’s replacement could even fill the role employed by the M2 .50 caliber, it isn’t likely the “Ma Deuce” will be retired anytime soon. Despite its nearly 90 years of service, it just does the job.
It is just one of a few weapons that remained in the American arsenal for decades. Here are what I would argue are just a sample of some of the longest-serving guns in U.S. military history:
(Excerpt) Read more at 19fortyfive.com ...
M1903 Springfield is the first rifle bigger than a .22 that I ever shot. I was about 13 at the time. I remember not liking the recoil very much. I was much skinnier than I am today. I wished I had one. They used to be very cheap to buy and now they are costly.
unfortunately it is unfired NIB semi-auto version. Interestingly I have fired an M1 carbine in full auto. called an M2 I think.
all legally owned secure and insured.
your a liar, and apparently a China sympathizer. See how accusations work?
Good for your dad. I actually am pretty cool, just don’t like blogpimps.
new for me too! wonder how accurate it was? i suppose the level of accuracy isn’t as important in full auto LOL.
Yup, can even disregard the “always aim at center mass” rule lol
He posts about guns, I like guns. try and guess how many FReepers have blogs? would you be upset if he posted articles about horns? I’d like to see some. why don’t you give it a try.
I actually do not read any blogs about any wind instruments (and there are a LOT), because they're just as full of crap as gun blogs. 8~)
A few months ago I visited a small shop machine shop and as the owner was walking me to the back to see his operation, he “Are you afraid of guns?”, my reply, “Well I just finishing watching some ma-duece videos this morning before I came here, does that answer your question?”. He asked because a large pert of his operation was doing special mods on high end guns. Once very cool thing was putting that bronze (ceramic?) frying pan coating on guns. He explained the process: bake the gun in a oven, purging the external metal to help the coating adhere, then apply the coating (very thin layer, just a few thousandths thick) and bake that on. Finished product looked fantastic. I kidded him- “So do guys have that done so if that have to sit still in a blind and overhead birds are dropping poops on the gun it doesn’t stick?”
I have never harrassed, nor posted anything derogatory about the poster himself. Only the blog that he posts from.
Fired the M60 and of coarse the M16a1 in full auto while in the military. A few other full autos like a FAL and an Ak47 both are 30 cal and you MUST compensate for the lift... but when I’ve fired my M1 garand and my buddy’s M14 (m1a1) semi, to try to rapid fire is just...inaccurate comes to mind LOL
Ok understood. You have a M1A, not a M14. Makes sense now.
ROFLOL some truth about blogs!! not all bloggers tho. I didn’t really feel compelled to go to the blog until you called him a blogpimp, and when i did i read 3 articles LOL
I also wonder what percentage of articles posted are from blogs and websites that don’t even rate being called a blog like ABCNBCCBSCNN ect...
to be honest i left out the “PolyTech” part to avoid the gunbasher attack, but technically it is stamped “M14s.308
“How does the m-14 handle in full auto?”
Back in 1968, when I trained on the m-14, the Ordinance Corps had had to make many modifications to allow the M-14 to be useful in full-auto mode. The most obvious was a stock modified to straight-line configuration, like a giant M-16 stock, with a hand grip on the fore-end which was used to hold down the barrel. Both the standard M-14 and the modified full auto version used the same, rather heavy, bipod. There was also a sleeve witch fitted over the flash-supressor which directed the muzzle-blast upward, again to hold the barrel down in full-auto fire. Without these mods, the muzzle climb in automatic fire was such that only the first 2 shots were likely to stay on target, while the 3rd and subsequent rounds would go high and wild.
I have read that this poor performance in automatic fire was due to over standardization. Originally, the M-14 was intended to replace only the M-1 rifle and the M-1 carbine. The BAR was to be replaced by the M-15, which used the same action as the M-14, but had a longer, heavier barrel, the bi-pod, and the upward directing muzzle break. To save a buck, only the M-14 variant was produced, and it was expected to replace the BAR in service as well as the M-1.
LOL sounds like my nephew he undercoated his jeep then took it out in the dunes for a weekend. WHY? lol hey maybe if they use there guns as cooking utensils. lol
Ahhh you got a ChiCom version... Lol!
“...the M-60 as ‘the best Cold War medium machinegun is not based on fact. .... No other countries bought [the M-60] and our NATO allies stuck with the FN-MAG or derivations of the WWII MG-42.”
First of all, the M-60 WAS a derivative of the MG-42, which also was constructed of forgings surrounded by sheet metal stampings. To reduce both weight and cost of manufacture. The M-60’s design was modified to reduce the MG-42’s rate of fire, which burned up ammo and barrels at a rate which was unacceptable to the US Army Ordinance.
I’ve served with the M-60 both in its Light Machine Gun configuration (as it was used in VietNam) and in its medium machine gun configuration (on pintle mounts on jeeps). Yes, the M-60 required careful, detail oriented, well trained field cleaning and maintenance, and a skilled unit armorer to back up the field maintenance. Field maintenance required that the assistant Machine Gunner have the TOE spare barrel, spare parts kit, repair tools, and cleaning kit, all in the Spare Barrel Bag. In combat this was rarely the case. I recall one mission in 1969, I (as Assistant Machine Gunner) had no spare barrel, and only M-16 cleaning tools and supplies. Worse, the main barrel had a burned out chamber, in which the cartrige cases kept splitting. Yet we kept it in action. [No thanks to me; I knew what defective condition the gun was in, how dangerous it was to keep firing it in that condition, and kept my distance. Both I and the Machinegunner were new to the unit, and I suspect they were testing us.] This was with the M-60 in LMG configuration.
Later, in the National Guard, I used the M60 in MMG configuration, usually mounted on a vehicle or pintle mount. Never had a bit of trouble, as long as we kept the guns properly cleaned and maintained. I believe the M-60’s bad reputation came from when it was issued to less well educated troops from less technically oriented societies who did not understand or practice careful cleaning and field maintenance. And yes, the M-60 was sold/loaned/given to countries, and political movements, whose soldiers match that description.
In the end, however, the M-240 is more reliable than the M-60, with far fewer stoppages per thousands of rounds fired. Not surprising, given that it is a later design.
(sigh) yea I know, commie clone!!LOL but its so close the parts are interchangeable...and the base model that i want is 2500 and I paid a third of that for the polytech.
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.