Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Definitive Military Service Calibre and Rifle For the 21st Century - Part 2
Naval & Military History Page ^ | Unknown | Mike Staples

Posted on 01/04/2006 11:28:28 PM PST by ghostcat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last
I am personaly more inclined towards an updated version of the M-14 but feel either of these rifles would be superior to the M-16 and all of its current derivitives.
1 posted on 01/04/2006 11:28:30 PM PST by ghostcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

Yeah, me too... (Although I greatly prefer the XM21 myself.)

But they are kind of heavy for the little guys (and gals) to carry, especially with a full combat load of ammo.


2 posted on 01/04/2006 11:34:51 PM PST by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

Don't ya hate having a job to do, but don't have the proper tool???


3 posted on 01/04/2006 11:40:29 PM PST by Hypervigilant (Never Never Never Give Up!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

I am a Nam Special Forces veteran, and I have lugged both the M-14 and the M-16 many miles with ammo and a full combat pack. There are advantages with the M-14, however lots of ammo is very important, and when in the brush that is a problem with the 7.62. I will take the M-16 any day of the week over the M-14.


4 posted on 01/05/2006 12:01:29 AM PST by GarySpFc (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

The M-14 is a PAIN to work with compared to the FAL!

Harder to clean, very hard to adjust the gas system, heavier, harder to scope, difficult to readjust heads-pace if needed, .........


5 posted on 01/05/2006 12:30:41 AM PST by Richard-SIA ("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt
But they are kind of heavy for the little guys (and gals) to carry, especially with a full combat load of ammo.

Ruh-roh. Did someone say, "boy guns" and "girl guns"?

Hope we don't compromise the Army's infantry weapon because it has to be light and limber enough to be wielded by females.

Perhaps that's why lots of ARVN's, militiamen, and Montagnards wound up carrying M-2's and captured AK's/SKS's.

And why the drum magazines available for Sov weapons like these never really made it in the Third World.

6 posted on 01/05/2006 12:46:46 AM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

Thanks ghostcat. Excellent series.


7 posted on 01/05/2006 12:46:51 AM PST by Khurkris ("Hell, I was there"...Elmer Keith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard-SIA

The bottom line is that the ammunition does the work. I like the heavier slug of the 7.62, for a number of reasons. Although choosing the FN-FAL over the M-14 would be a personal matter, I'd be more than happy to carry the extra weight any time.


8 posted on 01/05/2006 12:50:31 AM PST by Bazooka (Just say what you think. They hate our guts anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GarySpFc

I'll respectfully refer you to my reply on the other thread. By the way if I haven't mentioned this to you before Thank you for your service. I was barely too young for Vietnam and too physicaly damaged to serve afterwards, but I have the greatest respect for all of you veterans. I have been fortunate to be surounded by veterans all of my life. My father was Marine in WWII, My oldest brother was a Marine in Nam, My oldest sisters husband and one of my best friends retired as one of the most decorated soldiers of the 101st Airborne(3 tours Vietnam). My other brother was served 2 enlistments in the army, the second as an officer. All of my other brother-in-laws served. I kind of feel left out at times!


9 posted on 01/05/2006 1:58:15 AM PST by ghostcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat
Ammo: Can we say 6.5x55. No need to reinvent the round

Rifle: The modified FN suggested in this article sounds interesting.

10 posted on 01/05/2006 2:18:35 AM PST by Lion Den Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat
I am personaly more inclined towards an updated version of the M-14 ....

But how much of an M-14 would it be with a gas tube on top?

Full auto requires the gas port be on top rather than slung underneath.

11 posted on 01/05/2006 2:25:26 AM PST by papertyger (We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

If not a M-14 or L1A1, why not a G-3 or HK variant?


12 posted on 01/05/2006 2:30:01 AM PST by endthematrix (None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lion Den Dan

They also have a .243 variant.


13 posted on 01/05/2006 2:34:27 AM PST by endthematrix (None dare call it ISLAMOFACISM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

Bump


14 posted on 01/05/2006 2:47:08 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Why in the world would full auto require the gas port and operating rod to be on top?

The world is full of successful gas operated fully automatic weapons which have the port, and operating rod mounted below. In fact the very first successful gas operated machine gun had its port and gas assembly mounted on the bottom side of the barrel. John Browning designed it and Colt produced it. It had the peculiar nickname of "the potato digger" because of the flapper assembly he designed to transfer the energy from the gas to the operating rod. If the gun was mounted too low this flapper would hit the ground throwing up chunks of dirt and digging a small trench, hence its nickname.
Another very successful auto with a bottom mounted gas assembly was the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle)so successful that it can still be found in use some 80 plus years after it was introduced. The Bren gun is another, as is the M60 medium machine gun, the M249 SAW, HK MG43,and the M240B. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the successful gas operated fully auto designs have bottom mounted gas assemblies

15 posted on 01/05/2006 3:32:47 AM PST by ghostcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

Ghost,

You seem to know your sh!t.

This was a very good reply. I'd forgotten about, of all things, the immortal BAR.


16 posted on 01/05/2006 3:42:40 AM PST by x1stcav (First Afghanistan! Then Iraq! When Cuba?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
But how much of an M-14 would it be with a gas tube on top?
Full auto requires the gas port be on top rather than slung underneath.

Why is that? The M-14 I carried was full auto, and worked just fine.
17 posted on 01/05/2006 3:46:00 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

But the AK series has it on top! It must be true! < /sarcasm>


18 posted on 01/05/2006 3:48:08 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

I'll stick with my Winnie 30-30


19 posted on 01/05/2006 4:05:47 AM PST by wildcatf4f3 (the friend of my enemy is my enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghostcat

I agree. When I was going through basic in 1965, some of the "Urban Commandos" from New York City would whine about how the M-14 "kicked". We kids from "Fly-over Country" told them to suck it in, hold the weapon like they were taught, and grow-up.


20 posted on 01/05/2006 4:20:35 AM PST by Redleg Duke (Kennedy and Kerry, the two Commissars of the Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-87 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson