Posted on 09/26/2003 1:38:23 PM PDT by 45Auto
I was approached by a person the other day who asked me if I had such a big dislike for the Colt M-16 issued by the military, what weapons did I like? Well after a quick answer and some reflection I believe I have the answer.
First let me say that when the U. S. Navy sent me into combat on the river patrol boats in Vietnam, they issued me what I consider the greatest military rifle ever made. It was the M-14 in 7.62 MM NATO (.308 Caliber) with four magazines and ammo. This rifle had a selector switch that would cause it to fire full automatic if need be, however it controlled much better in the semi-automatic state. I still believe that this rifle is the best ever. I would like to see a down-sized version in the 5.56 MM (.223 Caliber) also built for the military. They could also put the synthetic stocks on it for keeping the weight down. Then our troops would have a great weapon for combat that would work and keep them alive and well defended.
Now let me say as a Gunners Mate most of my patrol time was setting behind the forward twin 50's. These were the .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns mounted on the bow of the boat with the old air craft mount used in the bombers from WW II. I just can't say enough about this great weapon. From all the reports we are getting from our current conflict this is still one of the greatest weapons used by our military. Mr. John Browning was indeed a genius of weapons design. His military and civilian weapons are still some of the best ones over 100 years after he built them.
Another weapons system that we had favor for during my time in combat was the M-79 40 MM grenade launchers. They worked very well from our delivery vehicles in the water. We also got a Honeywell belt fed grenade launcher for these rounds after we were in country for some time and they were great. At our top speed we could put a grenade about every 40 feet on the land with them. We made good use of these weapons also.
As our job was to stop and search boats during the daylight hours we were also issued side arms and shotguns. Some had Smith & Wesson model 10's in .38 caliber and some had the 1911A1 .45 caliber semi-automatic sidearm's. I liked the 1911A1's the best. The shotguns were the old military pump action Ithica's in 12 Gauge. They were great shotguns and held up real well.
The other weapon we had on board that everyone liked was the M-60 Machine gun. What a great weapon. We learned that if you put a C-Ration Can on the belt feed side so the belt would feed over the can that this weapon would just keep working and working. It punched out those 7.62 MM NATO rounds with no problem, and was very devastating to the enemy. This weapon could be held like a rifle or fired from a mount and was very versatile for use on the boat. We all agreed it was one of the best we had.
Now I should say that we were also issued three Colt M-16 rifles with each boat. They were there and we used them for warning shots more than anything. They were kept real clean and worked most of the time. We learned that you could only put about 17 or 18 rounds in the 20 round magazines to keep them working good. Most others and I were not impressed with them.
So that kind of gives you a run down of why I still have strong feelings about what we are sending out troops into combat with. I know that some people got upset when I run down the M-16's and they have that right. My opinion is not just mine and is shared by many people today. I feel that our military made a mistake when they were forced into accepting this as the primary weapons system for our troops. Perhaps in the future we can get something that will be much better. Like I said I think the M-14 down sized to handle the .233 round something like the Ruger Mini-14 with a better barrel would be just the ticket.
God Bless America. God Bless our Troops still in Harms Way.
If there's any way you can scrounge up the money for an M1A -- like stop eating -- do it. My shooting buddy has a reconditioned M1 Garand he got form CMP, and I have an M1A. I love shooting his Garand and can see why General Patton called it the finest battle rifle ever implemented. I love my M1A even more. It's the smoothest shooting, most accurate shoulder weapon I've ever fired.
But for the day when I become as accurate as my M1A (sigh!).
Now that SB489 has become law in the People's Republik of Kalifornia, effectively banning the sale of all semi-auto handguns starting in 2005 by mandating this ridiculous loaded chamber indicator and mag. drop safety, I think it's time to stock up on handguns again while I still can.
Having been bitten my the 1911 bug, I've learned you can't have just one. I've got two Paras right now, a P14 Ltd. single action and a 12.45 LDA. Looking to pick up one or two more.
In your experience, is the Wilson Combat CQB worth all the extra money? It's way out of my price range, but. . . if I don't buy now, I won't be able to buy later. I saw one today and it looked, felt and smelled (yes, smelled -- try it sometime) just beautiful.
Looking at the Wilson, a Colt XSE (if I can find any of them) and maybe a Springfield Armory TRP. No Kimbers. Seen too many problems with Kimbers.
What's your take on it?
Oh that's a bummer, I've been saving my pennies for a CDP II...can you expand on the problems ?
This experience does not make him in any way an expert on the kind of battle rifle our troops should be issued for mounted and dismounted combat ops in middle eastern deserts.
I'm just going by what I see. There are three different ranges I shoot at. One indoor range rents handguns. Put it this way, if there are 1911s on the range with chronic problems -- FTF, FTE, stovepipes, premature slide lock, slides jamming that can't be unjammed -- they are almost always with a Kimber.
I've rented Kimbers, brought my own factory ammo, and had much more frequent occurances of stovepipes and doublefeeds than with any other 1911. Now I realize rental guns are not the best maintained weapons, but it seems unlikely that this would happen over and over on different guns if there wasn't some serious problem somewhere.
The other issue is price. For a production gun, Kimbers run anywhere from $100 - $300 higher than comparable 1911s. And I just don't see any reason for the difference.
I know there are people who swear by them. I know there are people who use Kimbers for years and are completely satisfied. I just have to go with what I see and what I experience. And it hasn't been good.
Stay Safe !
I will stay away from Springfield products.
I think of the three, the Wilson is probably the most reliable. I have not seen an out-of-the box 1911A1 (including two Kimbers) from any manufacturer which did not require a little work to make them function flawlessly.
After some years of tinkering with the 1911A1, I have come to the conclusion that I can always make these guns function better than they do right from the factory, at least with the low- to mid-price range versions, like the basic Springfield mil spec 1911A1.
I have built up a number of 1911's from frames, which I can no longer get in California because of SB 15. These include a nice Para 14.45 with a Caspian slide, Bar-Sto barrel, and a Wilson beavertail grip frame safety.
The sad part is, (Ha!) I cannot build up one of these guns cheaper than I could buy a factory custom unit - but, heck, everybody needs a hobby.
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.