Replies

FYI -

What most people don't realize is that this is the golden age of the M14, and the 7.62mm NATO round in general. There are specialized gunsmiths that transform every lowly M14 the government can find into match-grade rifles with all kinds of specialized optics and furniture on it.

The M16-type 5.56mm carbine has been a world-wide success story for most soldiers. Accurate, easy to learn, easy to maintain, and very shooter-friendly, but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that. But for a unit's "designated marksman", a rebuilt M14 or new AR10-type is great for filling the gap out to about 500m where the real snipers and rifles take over. The 7.62 round is easily lethal to 1000m, but the challenge is on the shooter, and not the weapon.

And there are times when you want good things in small packages. That's why I put my SOCOM-16 into this Troy Industries all-aluminum chassis and added a folding stock.

It even has the luxury of accessory storage in the pistol grip and cheekpiece pad. This ain't your daddy's M14, but I'm sure he'd appreciate what can be done with it.

>> . . . but not perfect for every job. Nobody will ever design a rifle like that.

On that note, an historical observation.

In WWII, the Army seemed to realize that One Size Does Not Fit All. You’d have guys with Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompson SMGs, maybe even the odd ‘03 sniper rifle, down to a fairly low level (platoon, squad).

Up until Afghanistan, the Army seemed Hell-bent on jamming the square peg M16/M4 into every hole of every shape. Whether this was for ease of procurement, training, logistics, all of the above, some of the above, other, it doesn’t matter.

Afghanistan really showed the idiocy of the “one size fits all” approach, and we’re finally remembering institutionally what it seems we knew quite well in WWII, which is still in living (though long-retired) memory.

Did this happen because of too much small arms doctrine by the desk bound?