Posted on 08/04/2002 11:27:23 AM PDT by demlosers
I carried the 14 for half of my first tour, 65/67, never had a prblem with it, a little dusting fire every time. We were issued the 16, the damned thing would jam if you looked at it.
For the remainder of my first tour and all of my second, after they solved the jamming problem, LOL, five minute break clean bolt and chamber, at night dig in, clean ammo and rifle.
Surprise, surprise. The .220 Swift, and the milder .222, of my youth (the former almost identical to the .223) were wonderful on varmints and worthless on large game (not even allowed in many jurisdictions). When I was in the AF and we heard that the Army was going to get a smaller caliber weapon than the M-14, stupid me, I thought they were going to get something like the 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser, or my personal fav, the .257 Roberts, either of which is extremely accurate, easy to shoot, and can knock down a whitetail buck at very long range. But no, they got the M-16, an apparently lesser version the AR-15 in use by the AF at the time for Police and Security work. If I were in Afghanistan (or Iraq), where long range shooting is required, I think I would join you and opt for the M-14: something like a scoped version of the Springfield Armory Civilian Version or one of those Police Sniper rigs they sell. The .308 can kill at 500 meters for sure, and in a sniper's hands, is lethal out at a 1,000.
In their bureaucratic quest to perfect the M-16, the Army have taken away automatic fire in favor of 3-shot burst capability ( a good idea), and they have made it increasingly heavier. Right now, it comes in at 9.5 pounds ... same as an M-1. The problem is there is no way to make a 70-grain bullet reliably lethal at 500 yards. Naturally, the SAW has the same problem. (BTW, this round is also easily deflected by brush or grass)
Lessons learned? Bring back real guns and ammo. The M-16 in .223 is a street sweeper, simply not a weapon for wide open spaces. Use it to equip REMFs and women.
Then the troops would KNOW satisfaction.
I'm not a big handgun expert, so I don't know if other automatics are the same way. I found it disturbing in a way to know that the weapon was that easily disabled. We had another SGT who could do the same thing but actually was pretty good at taking the slide off the top of the weapon as well. He could do this in like one second and leave you holding only half your weapon- it was a funny trick but I didn't think I'd have tried that one. Personally, I'd want a handgun that fired even if it was totally jammed into someone's belly (like they were laying on top of me with all their weight). I've never figured out why they can't just make a revolver type handgun with a larger cylinder or maybe with two cylinders so that you could quickly swivel a full one up into place when the top one was empty- that'd give you ten to twelve shots with a low malfunction risk. I'm no expert or nothing- I'm sure one of you handgun nuts will tell me it's a hokey idea ;-)
Yep!
Make that two. I like the hog all right. My favorite weapon was the Ma Deuce 50 CAL Machine Gun but the 60 was a nice one too. I liked it better than the SAW.
There was a glove in every barrel bag, at least in my experience. The ammo was packed with two 100 round card board feed boxes. Because of the weight and the down sizing of the platoon the boxes and the ammo can were tossed, no ammo humpers everyone carried 200 rounds, my gunner was a mad man, humper two extra barrles, loved the'60.
One thing I don't understand from your description: If a round is in the chamber and the hammer is cocked, what good does it do to grab the barrel? I believe if the hammer hits the firing pin and the firing pin hits the primer, it wouldn't matter if you were applying pressure to the barrel or not. The gun will fire, no?
Now if you can block the hammer with your thumb, either preventing it from moving backward into the cocked position or preventing it from striking the firing pin after the trigger is pulled, then you could conceivably ruin some gunman's day. However, I don't think I'd want to try this trick as too much would depend not only on your own reflexes but also on his.
I've seen something similar with revolvers . . . If you can grab the cylinder, preventing it from rotating, the person holding the gun can't pull the trigger . . . However, if the gun is fully loaded and already cocked . . . Watch out!
PS, I'll also watch this thread with interest now to see what others more knowledgable about modern handguns than me have to say about all this! :-)
Interesting. It's not hard to disarm a person who has a handgun on you within arms length. one hand grabs the barrel and twist up or away and the gun will come out of his hands, the other hand controls his wrist. You could break his trigger finger in the process. The person with the gun has to react to your quick movements, which will be too slow for him to pull the trigger in time. While twisting the gun barrel up you could use the freed pistol butt and pop him in head all in one motion. Or use your other hand, like you said to deliver a blow possibly in combination.
That's been my experience anyway...
I take it you never used the M73 or M219 co-axial machinegun, happily replaced in tanks by the much better M240C, and also quite usable by ground troops, though a couple of pounds heavier than the M60 MG. I was first blessed with the 3 of the things as a headquarters company tank section gunner in the mid-1960s, and by stripping two of the guns for their newest parts, could usually keep the third running for a few 30 round bursts, at least. During gunnery exercises, we'd swap that working gun between the 3 tanks, but that might have been a little difficult in the real world. Though compact and fitted with a nice quick-change barrel setup, the things were junk.
I'm no fan of the M9, either, but at least they work if kept spotlessly clean, and so long as they aren't dropped on the left side grip, which tank crewmen tell me happens often. [It's the left-side grip that's exposed in a tanker's shoulder holster] But it seems their aluminum frames hold up to a diet of 9mm rounds no better that the German's aluminum-framed P1 pistols of the 1960s did, having been *improved* with a steel reinforcing bolt behind the barrel locking flap late in the design's life, before being replaced by the H&K USP 9mm handgun. The Austrians, of course, changed from the P1 to the plastic Glock 17 when the shortcomings of their aluminum-framed handguns became apparent.
Any other views on this?
It'll likely do so lonng as we continue to use brass or other metallic-cased cartridge ammunition. When things finally go to a caseless or plastic caed, internally-primed ammunition, maybe better suited to coaxial/helical feed systems like the 50 and 100-round Calico magazines, we can neatly evade the remaining problems from the M16 design like a bad hangover best forgotten....
We're not near there yet, though the near-adoption of the unproven H&K caseless G11 system by the combined East-West German forces was a once-bright possibility. But it's coming, and until then, the M16 and Kalishnikov leftovers of the XX Century will do.
Then the troops would KNOW satisfaction.
Until the roller on the bolt breaks or cracks, as was common on rifles used in full-auto fire, less a problem if kept well-lubricated. Match shooters even have a little cup made for forcing grease in and around the roller to keep them working through a 60-round match rifle course; something a bit more bulletproof is to be hoped for for more lethal pursuits.
More of a problem though, during 24/7 monsoon rains that washed away any lubricant in a few hours time and demanded continued maintenance for rust and swelled wooden stocks to a fare-the-well. And more of a problem in sandy and dusty conditions, unless the rifle is kept wrapped in plastic [mom: send another roll of Saran Wrap!]
-archy-/-
Then the troops would KNOW satisfaction.
Until the roller on the bolt breaks or cracks, as was common on rifles used in full-auto fire, less a problem if kept well-lubricated. Match shooters even have a little cup made for forcing grease in and around the roller to keep them working through a 60-round match rifle course; something a bit more bulletproof is to be hoped for for more lethal pursuits.
More of a problem though, during 24/7 monsoon rains that washed away any lubricant in a few hours time and demanded continued maintenance for rust and swelled wooden stocks to a fare-the-well. And more of a problem in sandy and dusty conditions, unless the rifle is kept wrapped in plastic [mom: send another roll of Saran Wrap!]
-archy-/-
I'd take a CAR-21 bullpup anyday. Doesn't need to be zero'd, and it's bolt was based off of the AK....
I don't know what combat school you were trained in...but you would never have gotten that close without me double-tapping you and moving on.
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.