Faults found in army's new rifle

ic Wales ^ | 3 July 2002 | staff

[Drew68]

You want to carry it in combat? Not me!

Nope! There are many guns I own and many more that I wish to own. However, if I needed to go into combat, I'd want my trusted AK-47 and my M1911A1 as my sidearm. There is nothing better.

[Willie Green]

I don't know if it has made a difference militarily,

Yer not gonna win a war if the weapon can't hit what you aim it at.
OTOH, the best weapon ain't gonna help if you're not trained to use it proficiently.
There's some sound logic behind the Civiliam Marksmanship Program.

[meyer]

They left it because it was an obscenely expensive rifle to produce for its capabilities, making the inordinate expense extremely difficult to justify in the long run. Good riddance I'd say, and a smart move in any case.

Well, deep down inside, we all know that it would be way more expensive to build than, say, an M-16. But it is very reliable and a work of art in its own way. I know, work of art doesn't cut it, but reliability certainly is a factor. Ask a few of the folks that got the earlier version of the M-16 what they thought of it. I know its a much improved rifle now, but those early ones, particularly when you're being shot at, are hard to forget.

That's not to say that I wouldn't have an AR - its pretty handy and easy to shoot. Its just that the caliber isn't all that powerful. There's a reason that hunters call the .223 a varmint caliber. :^)

[c-b 1]

I liked the compact M-1 Garand better - the only M-14 feature that I thought was an advancement was the removable magazine.

That is a fact.

[Clive]

Sorry for mixing up the weapons.

I am old enought that I was trained on the Lee Enfield Bren, Sten, Browning 9mm semi-auto pistol and 38 cal S&W revolver.

The current standard Canadian light infantry rifle is the C7A1 which is a more rugged version of the M16A1E1.

But my first love is the Lee Enfield.

My first rifle was a 22 Cooey but I didn't have it long before my my dad confiscated it when he caught me using it to try to ring a church bell (in a steeple, from the ground).

[Lazamataz]

Nope! There are many guns I own and many more that I wish to own. However, if I needed to go into combat, I'd want my trusted AK-47 and my M1911A1 as my sidearm. There is nothing better.

My FNFAL is my combat arm.

My Garand is my competition arm.

My AR-15 is shiny and pretty.

My Uzi pisses off antigun people.

In the sh*t I would go to my FNFAL and my Glock model 34. (With that Glock I can put a new forehead on a man at 75 yards with no real effort).

[Lazamataz]

I believe the FNFAL is one of the finest combat arms in the world. I don't have any experience with the M1A however, so your milage may vary.

[VadeRetro]

. . . the Lee Enfield No. 4 Mark 1 * was better able to handle mud, dust and rough handling by young men on the move.

I have one of these, an Ishapore from 1963. Simple, rugged, with very accessible parts due to the open-to-the-sky breech. Fairly accurate as well. (Sure wish I knew what was supposed to be in this plastic tube hidden in the butt compartment, though.)

[Jack Black]

FAL - the right arm of the free world.

[Valin]

WAIT A MIN. those are assault weapons!
Sorry I meant evil wicked assault weapons. How can I tell, well because they look dangerous! I got scared just looking at a picture of them! Why I'd probably fall over in a faint if I was ever to see the real thing.

[Shooter 2.5]

There's some sound logic behind the Civiliam Marksmanship Program."

"The old Department of Civilian Marksmanship is the only government program I ever liked. Now that it's the CMP, prices have gone up but you can continue to buy whatever is available which, at the moment, isn't much. I found out that I may be one of the last ones who will receive a 1903A3 because I think they're all gone.

My opinion of the Garand is that there are too many things that can go wrong that effect accuracy. Anyone liking the rifle should do it for nostalgia, but they're delusional if it's anything else.
The M-14 is a fine weapon but I don't want to carry it too far.
The early M16's killed a lot of our guys. The latest ones are as fine a rifle as we can get. I wish the cartridge was a little bigger.
I wish they would have redesigned the butt plate on the FN-FAL. The thing can hurt. I'm not sure of the accuracy.

We should have adopted the AR-10 in 6.5.

[Shooter 2.5]

I currently working on a system that will correct the accuracy problems of the Mini-14. I still have to get it on paper to see if what I did made a nightmare into a 2-3 minute rifle.

[Clive]

The items that go on or in the butt are the butt bolt and washer, the oiler, the butt plate and the screws to hold the butt plate to the stock.

[VadeRetro]

the oiler

That would be the mystery tube.

[Willie Green]

We should have adopted the AR-10 in 6.5.

6.5 is a nice, mathematical dead-center middle-of-the-road compromise between the .223 advocates and the 30 cal. traditionalists.

I prefer the oomph of the .308 myself, but for a compromise I'd pick the .243 Winchester -- just 'cause I like the sound of the name -- and you can still tag a deer with it, something I wouldn't use a .223 for.

[Clive]

"the oiler"

"That would be the mystery tube."

Haven't seen it, but that ought to be it.

BTW, the way I was taught was to leave the magazine in place and to reload from the top without taking it out. The magazine is made removable for cleaning purposes only.

[dcwusmc]

Nice. However, for distance work... 30-06 has considerable more oomph at longer ranges than .308. I had an M-14 at Parris Island but I got to carry a Garand during Infantry training at Camp Geiger... that's when I fell in love with it. Had another -14 after school at my first duty station (MCAF New River) but saw my 1st -16 during Staging Bn at Pendleton. The one they gave me I had to cock manually after EACH round. Told the armorer, he says "live with it.!

[Shooter 2.5]

I think you are correct. The .243 offers a shorter case based on the .308.
I had never shot a .243 but I have a 6.5 and have shot a few others. I believe that David Tubb is experimenting with a 6.5. Those are the reasons why I mentioned it. I also thought that the AR-10[T] is a 6.5 but it's a .243.

[RISU]

Hey marine!

You are right about the M14. The NATO 7,62 "penetrates". That damn M16 is just a glorified 22, and the bullet rides up in the forest when you shoot at ground targets. The M16 bullet tumbles the first twig it hits, and goes right up.

The M14 just punches through the damn tree and the person behind it.

Attention small unit co's. Give your point guys the M14 and shotguns, and forget that mini supercharged magnum 22 poof gun called the M16. "Black death" my a..s!