Posted on 08/04/2002 11:34:22 AM PDT by demlosers
One of the things needed when we went from the M16A1 to the A2 was a heavier barrel. Not for more accuracy but because the every day GI Joe used it for a pry-bar. Try flipping the lid off a hidden bunker.
The M4 may look cool for all the want to be Rambos Just like sitting in an Indy car. But not useful in the every day real world.
Lets list some of the old weapons that still do a better job B-52s, .50 cals., 1911.....
Cant afford bullets. But can waste money on hats & toys.
I carried a shotgun on patrol in Viet Nam. Since we often could not see more than a few yards into the bush, distance was not a problem. Keeping it clean and free of rust was. Even with the maintenance problem, I liked it, especially since I was not much of a marksman. Evenually the shotgun was taken away and I was issued a M79 grenade launcher. Not much good for close work, but in the open, if I could see it, I could hit it.
As I said, there is a definite place for the M-4. But let us not cut off 300 meters off our infantry's range of engagement.
I agree - it's a great cartridge. And not a "baby" bullet. I drop deer dead in their tracks, yet it has almost no recoil.
Megadittos on the SL-8. I've had mine for a couple of months now and am really impressed - it doesn't seem as finicky as the ARs I've shot, is easy to fieldstrip, and shoots a mighty small group. On the downside, it is limited to a 10-round mag, but then it's a sporter, not a military rifle. I hated the skinny nylon sling and replaced it.
For anyone contemplating purchase of this piece I'd recommend looking into the G-36 optical sight system - replaces the pickatinny rail with a military reticle lower sight and a Hensloldt red-dot. It's another 6 Benjamins but oh, my is it sweet...
The more I read and remember, the more I think we ought to reactivate the M-14.
One dirty little secret. The M-16 was adopted over the M-14, not so much for the reasons reported, but for the main reason that in the mid-60s, we had ceased being a "Nation of Riflemen" and the kiddies drafted from the big cities couldn't handle the recoil (kick) of the M-14 and were boloing on the range. The M-16, nothing but a .22 Long Rifle on steroids, didn't kick the kiddies so much and they were qualifying with it...but not becoming riflemen.
End of rant.
Answer, probably not many.
A shorter barrel means reduced velocity and accuracy at long ranges. But its unlikely, the Marine review said, that battles would be waged at more than 200 meters.
I don't get it...
All the buzz in the military world is that our forces can be lighter and faster because 'Meeting Engagements' will be a thing of the past as better intell and maneuverability give us stand-off, stand-off, stand-off.
OK, now we've got light and maneuverable stuff and great intell and all that crap and we can't engage anything beyond 200m?!
And the Navy tried several M14s in .243 for SEAL team used, and came back unimpressed, largely due to problems with the rifling twist of the barrels, as those suitable for long-range work are less suitable for up-close work with more lethal projectiles. Neither were barrel luives of 10,000 rounds considered sufficient in weapons meant for fully-automatic fire.
The British .280/30, originally meant for their experimental EM-2 rifle of the 1950s, might have been another step in the right direction. But I suspect we'll be stuck with the M16/5,56mm cartridge combination for so long as conventional mettallic-cased cartridge ammunition remains state-of-the-art.
But when caseless or plastic-cased ammo comes along....
-archy-/-
The BAR ( really a WWI weapon !) was good at the same range,and an excellent "light" machine gun : heavy and awkward to carry, but a LOT lighter than the air-cooled .30 machine gun.
One person in each 4 man fire team carried a BAR ( for some reason, it was generally the smallest member of the team. )
During the Korean war, a lot of the shooting was at longer ranges. People who were there said the 7.62 Russian rounds would "fall short" at those ranges, but the Garand and the BAR - in capable hands - would make life interesting for the Koreans and Chinese.
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
--Karl von Clausewitz
If you read "On Strategy" by the late Col Harry Summers, you will see the difference.
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.