would be perfect for medics to use, but we still get stuck with the M16.
Posted on 03/10/2006 8:55:20 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Substandard Issue: Why can't the military give good guns to our troops?
And while we’re on the subject of military rifles, it’s worth mentioning that the U.S. has less than a terrific record on equipping our troops with the latest and best. Consider:
The Union Army fought the Civil War with single-shot muzzle-loaders, despite the fact that practical breechloading repeaters were available for almost all of that period.
After the war, the Army went with the single-shot Model 1873 .45/70 Springfield, despite the demonstrated superiority of repeaters. General Custer could tell you about this.
We stayed with the Model 1873 right up until the Spanish American War in 1898, when we met up with the Mauser, firing smokeless powder. Ooops. Our mistake. Despite the availability of the Mauser, we replaced the Model 1873s with a strange Danish bolt-action called the Krag-Jorgensen. It lasted all of ten years or so. We fought World War I with the Springfield Model 1903, a great rifle, and a flagrant copy of the Mauser. Mauser sued the U.S. Government for patent infringement and won.
For the first year of World War II we got by with the Springfield. Then M-1s got to the troops. It was the best rifle of the war for two years until the Germans came up with the MP43—the first assault rifle. Korea was fought with World War II surplus.
In 1963, the Army began issuing the M-14, an improved (?) M-1. it was obsolete the day it was first issued. The M-16 was our weapon of choice for our excellent adventure in Southeast Asia. Its introduction was a disaster, due to: a) the Army’s alteration of the inventor’s design; b) the use of ball powder instead of the original extruded powder; and c) no cleaning equipment was issued with the rifle, despite the fact that it required frequent and careful cleaning.
Despite this, the M-16 has had a 40-year run as our standard infantry weapon, having been tortured into an acceptable state. Why, however, are we still using it, considering that all our other Vietnam-era equipment, from helmets to jet fighters, is stone age compared to what he have today?
It isn't the military's fault. It is politicians. Taking money from the taxpayers for the only federal responsibility, national defense, does not buy any votes. Taking money from the taxpayers to create programs and other pork does buy votes.
Thats what you get when you get your equipment supplied by the lowest bidder.
I'm curious to hear from the M-14 users, also what are the military females view on this subject.
bump
I watch that show "Shootout" on the History Channel sometimes when they feature Iraq battles. It seems to me that I'm seeing a lot less M16s and more carbine-sized automatic weapons.. If they are still M16s, they've been so modified I can't recognize them. Idon't know, comapred to the 40-year-old rifles they are taking from our enemies, I'd say we do OK.
Also, the author doesnt seem to mention pistols or carbines, just rifles.
"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the worlds most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple, 9-pound algemation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it... and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."
Because the Pentagon hasn't yet found a way to shovel the contract for the replacement to H&K? Seriously, H&K is the only manufacturer that I hear mentioned when I read a story about what will replace the M-16.
Oh, and I remember the History Channel stating that the specification for a chromed bore on the early M-16 was dropped in the interests of cost savings.
would be perfect for medics to use, but we still get stuck with the M16.
Despite this, the M-16 has had a 40-year run as our standard infantry weapon, having been tortured into an acceptable state. Why, however, are we still using it, considering that all our other Vietnam-era equipment, from helmets to jet fighters, is stone age compared to what he have today?
They are using M4's
The worst day of my life in the military was when they took my m-14 away and gave me an m-16, that constant jamming, low power POS almost got me killed.
The ammo is lightweight, so a soldier can carry more of it.
It doesn't have the recoil of the 30-06, so people who aren't used to firing rifles are easier to train.
The high velocity of the round makes it pretty effective at short ranges (100 yds or less).
The long term planners felt that small arms were going the way of the dinasaur. We were supposed to be able to use our superior air power and heavy weapons for most of the fighting and the small arms were secondary.
The downside is that in the desert, the firefights frequently exceed the effective range of the M-16.
Small arms are a primary weapon in urban combat when you don't want to drop 500 lb bombs on a city block or spray a market place with a minigun.
Me too. The author is a bit down on the M-14. Wonder if he knows that the M1A has been finding it's way to Iraq?
Call me crazy, but I actually like the m16/m4 from a functionality standpoint. My only issue is knock down power. If it fired 7.62 rounds, it would be ideal. JMO.
"They are using M4's"
Ah, thanks.
No, the FN SCAR concept is also near the top of the list.
Some people will probably shriek bloody murder when they read that, but there were always plenty of crew served weapons ready to defend the ambulance, and my first purpose is to treat the wounded. Me and other medics throwing rounds downrange as dismounts has the propensity to contribute to friendly fire incidents as we are not included in the defensive fire plan of the platoon accompanying the ambulance, better that we use our weapons for defense of ourselves or our patients and I was always close enough to the ambluance to retreive my rifle quickly if I needed to.
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.