Posted on 11/27/2009 6:46:56 PM PST by Neil E. Wright
Im gonna hide like an Apache, and strike like a WartHog
The M14, with some changes, could have been the weapon in use today, but Robert M.(stupid Kennedy minion)decided, in the middle of a war, to change rifles entirely.
I don't have to place the .308 and the .300 side by side, I know both of them quite well. The .300 would have been a better choice, IMO. Actually the 7.62 X 39 would have been better yet, it is lighter and has enough power. My absolute pick, however, would have been for a shortened version of the .243, or 6 MM.
It was not my call, or anyone else's who had enough firearms savvy to make a correct decision in time of war, and so we are stuck with a gun that jams, and was even worse in the early days of Vietnam, killing our boys with stuck cases in the chambers, and the bureaucrats will take forever to make the mods on the M4, having dithered since 1965 or so already.
I have no problem replacing it, but let’s not make cosmetic changes, let’s take it to the next 20 to 30 years.
This is the paper that changed it all.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=AD377335&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
I think the 7.62mm is too powerful for CQC.
“Ballistically the 7.62 has superior long range performance compared to the .06.”
Got ballistics to support that?
That report is a classic of “bureau-science” in that it has unproven assumptions, faulty premises, and reached an invalid conclusion.
Sumation: File it with the CRU level screw-ups.
I can’t tell the difference in weight or recoil.
This is what I don’t understand – why don’t they simply do that?
The lower receiver and the rest of the rifle shouldn’t affected by the whether it’s direct impingement or piston, so why not swap them out and be done with it?
“All you have to do in the mean time is to switch to the M14/M1A SOCOM, or the FN Scar .308 cal. and everyone will be happier.”
Neither of those options are particularly likely. The M14 is almost nonexistent at this point (there were only about a million made) and the M1A “SOCOM” wouldn’t pass quality control. The .308 SCAR would be too heavy.
“Most jamming problems I saw were clip related. Clips are used over and over and become broken and worn out. “
Ah, I see the crux of your problem! You should’ve been using magazines, not clips! (teasing)
“Actually, I could never understand why they went to the 7.62 in the M14 to begin with, they should have used a lower powered .30 caliber, similar to the 7.62 X 39, they had a readily availble round in the .300 savage, which would have been lighter than the .308, enough power, less recoil, less problem controlling the gun, less heating of the barrel, etc.”
That’s because the M14 was intended as an M1 replacement and the rifleman was still king. 7.62 x 39 is massively inferior at range. The ballistics of the 7.62x51 NATO are similar to .30’06 in a shorter, lighter, package.
The M14 itself is a great gun, better and more reliable than the M16. The military shot it self in the foot when they made it so heavy and used a round that weighted so much and then a few years later got stuck with Robert M's(a Kennedy clone)M16 idea, a poor choice at the time, one that hasn't been fully fixed since Viet Nam.
All the arguements against the M14 could have been fixed easier and cheaper than making a new rifle.
Shorten the barrel, use a smaller round, make 3 round burst instead of full auto. The reliability and ruggedness would have still been there.
“I just never understood the thinking behind using the .308 when there already existed a smaller, lighter, easier to control replacement.”
They wanted good long range ballistics.
“The military shot it self in the foot when they made it so heavy and used a round that weighted so much and then a few years later got stuck with Robert M’s(a Kennedy clone)M16 idea, a poor choice at the time, one that hasn’t been fully fixed since Viet Nam.”
The M14 was designed to be lighter than the M1. They didn’t “make it heavy”.
“Shorten the barrel, use a smaller round, make 3 round burst instead of full auto. The reliability and ruggedness would have still been there.”
Accuracy would not have still been there. The Battle Rifle concept was not intended for CQB.
I’m sorry Sg,.bit there is usually not much time for reading People in action.
Maybe the Bible...that would be worth it.
“I’m sorry Sg,.bit there is usually not much time for reading People in action.”
I can see how your M16 may give you fits if they issue you fashion and celebrity magazines instead of the metal ones... ;)
How do you get the clips to stay in the rifle? Don’t they just fall out? (grin)
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.