Battlefield Ops: My Weapons Of Choice

Sierra Times ^ | 24 September 2003 | Sheriff Mike Cook

[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.

[in the Arena]

I really like the ergonomics of the CDP II, the melt-down treatment.

I had a P14 45 with an alloy frame that was a sweet shooter but way too large for CCW.

I currently have a 1991 Compact that, being the engineer-tinker-geek that I am I've tried all sorts of replacement parts, each of which needed custom fitting. The thing shot great out of the box, except for the "bite" the short beaver tail gave me. It still shoots great...BUT...the work I have done on it leaves me wondering of it's reliability a SHTF situation. It did fail to lock up once but I believe that was due to a limp wristed shooter...

The one and only pistol I have that has had zero-zip-nada problems is a G21, but being the brick that it is I find myself not carrying it as much as I should. I've heard reports of the dreaded Glock KB but have never once worried with this weapon.

I'm still planning on the CDP II when the penny jar is full. Thanks for the info.

Jim

[in the Arena]

You never stop amazing me with your knowledge. You're talking like a consultant with that post...great points indeed..

The only draw back I see to an enbloc type system is the inability for a tactical re-load...

Maybe there's some advantage to investigating a belt fed rifle. Different than the SAW though. Use disposable, short, fat, factory packed "boxes" with 30-40 linked rounds, with the first round held captive...so it is pre-positioned...similar to being held in place by spring fed magazine lips.

There would be no belt to position. Insert and charge. The "box" could be removed and replaced. Each subsequent linked round would get pulled into the lead position as the preceeding one is stripped and chambered.

Way more complicated that it sounds I'm sure...

[Travis McGee]

I think there is great merit to what you propose. One advantage is that the fat short box could hold 80-100 rounds and still not stick way down under the rifle. The "links" need not be metal, they could be mylar or some such high tech plastic tape. No springs to deaden or break, for decades-long shelf life. Cheap and light plastic mag body. What's not to like? Fire your 100 rounds, then drop it and put in another.

[Matthew James]

Some great ideas -- I especially like the ceramics twist! I've been saying for years that we should make the moving parts out of stainless, but that ceramic coating sounds great, and appears to wear well.

Thanks for the Ping.

[Shooter 2.5]

Ah, the melted treatment.

Sorry for having to express my opinion of the melted look. I hate it. To me, there's nothing worse than taking a brand new gun and making look like a sandblasted relic piece that had been buried for a hundred years. It's ugly. It removes the fine edges one would expect on a newly minted piece.

Somone will have to explain why the melted look had to extend out to the muzzle where no one's hands have to be.

Sorry, I like Kimbers but I'm deeply disappointed they came up with that. I keep thinking it was a manufacturing idea in order to save some of their rejected parts.

I don't expect anyone to share this humble opinion.

[Atlas Sneezed]

(Of course the enviro weenies won't like that battlefield littered with 'non returnable' mags, among the corpses.)

---

THAT is an eloquent description of the loonies on the enviro-left!

[archy]

. 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.

A lightweight FN-FAL chambered in 6.5 mm would be sweet.

Just a little larger, if you please, to prevent hydrostatic lock of water in the barrel when immersed, and to provide a bullet with a little better stopping power. The Swedes never carried their 6,5mm M95 Mauser action rifles into battle, but the Finns used some in their 4-month civil war of 1918, during the 1939 *Winter War* [Talvisota] that followed the invasion of Finland by a million and a half Soviet troops, a half-million of whom were still alive to return home and lick their wounds once the Finnish Army and Civil Guard riflemen were done with them. The 6.5mm Swedish rifles were not thought to have particularly good stopping power, and something a bit larger was called for, though the m/1921 Swedish Browning Automatic Rifles were highly perized- as mine is.

The original 7mm/.280 cartridge developed for the British EM-2 and used in some of the early British FN-FALs during the development of their L1A1 version seems just the ticket; and the later .280/30, based on the bolt face/cartridge case rim dimensions of the US .30-06 and 7,62 NATO cartridge could be even better. But the NATO development was forced on the allies by US Army Ordnance, and it will do. That .280 [.276 true bullet diameter] loading remains a possibility not fully explored, and a SAW in that chambering would be an effective machine as well. The American .276 Pedersen cartridge originally intended to give John Garand's rifle design a 10-shot magazine capacity offered similar ballistics, though with a longer, .30-06 length cartridge meant to cycle through the Garand rifle's action. Shorten that case somewhere between the length of the 39mm Soviet M43 AK47 cartridge and the 51mm length of the 7,62 NATO round, and you'd be in business. The British .280/30 was 44mm long, just short enough to be usable in actions that handle the 5,56x45mm cartridge of the M16 or the Czech Vz58 7.62 cartridge.... -archy-/-

[archy]

Another home run. The M1 had disposable "magazines". They were called clips.

The 8-shot limitation of the Garand in the .30-06 caliber was an unacceptable limit for a rifle today, though not just acceptable but nearly state-of-the in 1936 when 5-shot bolt actions were the most commonly used design. Likewise, the Garand's inability to be *topped up* when a clip was partially expended was a feature some users didn't care much for.

But suppose you had a Garand-style en-block clip of about ten rounds that could be loaded either into the top of the rifle's action, as per the original design, or could be introduced into the magazine system from beneath, as with box magazine feed, allowing a reload without cycling or opening the rifle's action, and a total capacity of two clip's worth, twenty rounds. Or three. Or four....

The downside: it would probably obviate the ability for the rifle to offer downward ejection suitable for both left and righthanded users. But that might be a price worth paying.

-archy-/-

[archy]

As to the magazines. I'd like a shorter magazine so the rifle could be properly fired from a prone position. A wider mag and mag well would still allow at least 30 rounds but I personally would really like to see 40 per magazine.

Also a magazine should be "disposable". With modern materials, phenolics and spring set myths busted a pre-packaged and loaded magazine packed and issued in crates with seven mags to a bandoleer and 18 bandoleers to a crate. Thus a crate would resupply a basic 9 man squad.

Very do-able, but don't necessarily think about a magazine extending from the weapon at a 90º angle like most of today's magazines, but consider a inline magazine coaxial to the barrel/action/stock like that of the Calico, which in a 9mm pistol/SMG design offers a 50 or 100 round capacity. The company had been working on a .223 version when they relocated from California due to that state's *assault weapons* ban.

A Hill-design magazine atop the receiver is also possible, or a multiple tube feed as per the South African Neosted bullpup pump shotgun is possible, too. How would you feel about having your ammo in 10-round tubes, easily carried in something along the lines of a bowman's quiver for arrows, with the weapon taking four or five of them simultaneously, and not extending at all when in the prone position.

Take a look at the old Civil War butt-fed Spencer carbine....

[Travis McGee]

The meltdown treatment isn't for your hands as much as for your clothes on CCW guns. The lack of sharp edges is supposed to keep it from snagging or wearing your clothes as much. Of course, if you use a holster, this is not so important for the parts that are holstered!

[Shooter 2.5]

The last time I checked a Melted Kimber, I noticed the bells and whistles were still sharp. Most of the problems with clothing occur against the front sight and the hammer. My shirts are starting to look like a moth infestation.

Like I said, everyone here probably disagrees with me.

[Travis McGee]

Like I said, everyone here probably disagrees with me.

I'd hate like anything to live on Planet Clone, where everybody agreed, and all the weapons were the same.

[Squantos]

Yeah in one post here I suggested a magazine not unlike the PDW FN 5n7 caliber uses along the top of the weapon. HK even had one for their caseless trials. That IMHO would have to be kinda Bullpupish in design as the weight would be to far forward on a standard service rifle possibly.

As to the spencer I really love mine. My collection of service rifles is from civil war era to current issue. With AWB in place my collection may be agumented with an accurate Airsoft display of the next selection vs the real thang.

Stay Safe Archy !

[Squantos]

Good point about the tac reload. I like to think I know a little bit about everything and a lot about nothing.......:o)

Maybe a system not unlike the old Krag Jorgenson rifle had. Aka 30-40 Krag/30 Army caliber uses a spring loaded side trap. Ammo configured such as you suggest would allow one to break off part of a block of rounds to top off or drop the partially used portion and tactical reload a full "brick". Even with two or three partial bricks dropped in togeather to make a full mag well....??

Just tossing ideas around ...........Stay Safe !

[archy]

Yeah in one post here I suggested a magazine not unlike the PDW FN 5n7 caliber uses along the top of the weapon. HK even had one for their caseless trials. That IMHO would have to be kinda Bullpupish in design as the weight would be to far forward on a standard service rifle possibly.

That's the Hill design of the 1950s, which positions the cartridges in a magazine with the bullet pointed 90º from the receiver, with a *turntable* plate repositioning them as the bolt reciprocates. The Russians also have a design that predates the H&K effort, and a couple of other pistol caliber versions are around, as their ammunition's relatively short overall length makes the layout very usable in that application.

Assault Weapons Ban or not, I've got a couple of applications and possible uses for a SAW, and the layout of the Australian F89 is about as credable as anthing done with the basic FN Minimi as anywhere else. But the new Navy version in 7,62 NATO has possibilities, as do a couple of other SAWs, including the Bren-configuration or beltfed Robinson M96, the Israeli Negev and the South African S77. It sure would be nice to have one that'd feed from either side, allowing a twin-gun vehicle mount....

As to the spencer I really love mine. My collection of service rifles is from civil war era to current issue. With AWB in place my collection may be agumented with an accurate Airsoft display of the next selection vs the real thang.

I've got most of the XX Century covered, with a few odd sorts from before that, but figure any future developments will come my way if really needed. I've got a couple of Airsoft handguns around leftover from a project involving Crimson Trace laserpointer grips and holsters, and a couple of bullpups from configuration studies trying to improve the breed. There's still a lot of work to be done in that line.

-archy-/-

As to the spencer I really love mine. My collection of service rifles is from civil war era to current issue. With AWB in place my collection may be agumented with an accurate Airsoft display of the next selection vs the real thang. Stay Safe Archy !

[Squantos]

Looks a lot like a FN 240G Archy ??

Stay Safe !

[archy]

Although I never fired one of these, the E2 (also known as the 'M-15' was an attempt to replace the BAR. Or so I have gathered in my readings of history, and talking to vets who were there.

It did not work. The M-14 action was capable, but it lacked the heavy barrel of the BAR.

I carried an M14E2 as one of the three M14 sniper rifles I often used, since it would take either of the two scope mounts I had avauilable, or could be fitted with a starl;ight scope, useful when working overnight providing security for *rat six's* tunnel-clearing combat engineer teams.

On full-auto the bolt roller of the M14 would sometimes crack or split and fall off, a worse weakness than the lack of an interchangable barrel also lacking on the BAR. The problem was most frequent during monsoon weather when slow steady drizzle would wash away any lubricant applied in an hour or two's exposure. The M14's front sling swivel would sometimes rip out of the wooden-stocked versions, the later fiberglass-stocked versions cured that problem. Front sights loosened from vibvbration and would fall off if not repeatedly tightened with the M14 combination tool and an allen wrench, likewise, the flashhider on which the front sight was mounted would work loose, ruining accuracy unless a scope was used, and it took a special pair of armorer's pliers to tighten the castellated nut of an M14 flash suppressor; happily I managed to scrounge one for myself, but not every M14E2 gunner was so fortunate.

Don't misunderstand me; I liked the M14, but preferred to use it as a rifle, and a semi-auto target version is no step down from a full-auto capable M14 or M14E2; it's an improvement, except for the VERY practiced gunner.

In the late 1980's when impending action of the Desert Shield/Storm/Sabre nature was looking likely, an Infantry National Guard S2 NCO of my acquaintance asked me to evaluate his companies from both an armourer's and combat grunt's point of view. Afterward, they got a lot more hands-on training with grenades and pyro, mine awareness and hydration than they really wanted, but he asked so I delivered. And since they had not received their issue of M249 SAWs, I suggested issuing a bipod-equipped M14 to each SAW gunner, with a shorty compact 4X scope that'd let them double as what's now calles a *designated marksman* on semi, or as an imitation MG in full-chattergun off the bipod. Extra magazines could be carried in 7-pocket M16 ammo bandoleers [the old ones from the days of 20-round M16 magazines; their guys had the M16A1 then, not the newer M16A2] with two for the shooter and one for his M16/M203 equipped partner. He told me the arrangement workede just fine, though they were quite happy to eventually get their new M249 SAWs.

You can't get something for nothing. A 'light' machinegun will always weigh more than a rifle. If it is well made it will weigh twice as much as a rifle. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Yep. But you can sometimes get acceptable compromises, and some such compromises may fill a particular niche or requirement much better than the eqyuipment developed for a general purpose. The mudfoot infantryman may not need an overbuilt weapon with a heavy barrel and receiver stressed for the impact of continuous bursts as from a tank crewman's co-ax MG or an aviatior's door gun. So long as he has to carry his ammunition, he needs to be thrifty in burning it up. Interchangable lighter *assault barrels* for the infantry are one possible answer, but only a partial one.

Anyhow, when my Dad went to his second tour in Vietnam, the E2 was mostly gone. In its place was the M-60.

Yep. The *General Purpose* platoon MG slipped down to squad issue, sometimes augmented by a second gun, or with captured enemy RPDs and the occasional then-rare RPK or TUL-1. But too often there were only two guys assigned to *the pig* which meant the tripod got left behind and full flank security couldn't be accomplished by the MG team on its own.

Do not send a rifle to do a machinegun's work.

Concur. But several automatic riflemen can get the job done nicely, as per the Marine squads of the Pacific island-hopping campaigns with three fireteams with three Garands and a B.A.R. each. And a rifle with a telescopic or electro-optical sight and/or an underbarrel grenade launcher can do things the GPMG/LMG cannot. Likewise such developments as the *Shrike* belt-feeding arrangement for the M16 family offer great possibilities for Stoner's design with weight reductions that offer a greater ammo load to be carried, every gunner's dream.

[in the Arena]

With the "melt down" I am thinking more function than form. But the $800+ has kept me from purchasing it...You know the deal, I've got more guns than I need but not all that I want...I've worn a 1911 inside the waist band and I do notice every pointy part so I think this might be a solution. I'm still on a quest for the ultimate CCW which I think is a never ending story.

[archy]

Looks a lot like a FN 240G Archy ??

Stay Safe !

Yep, and also used by the Diggers, long before the F88 version of the Minimi went in service. Like the Brits, they refer to the 7.62 version as the GPMG [General Purpose M.G., pronounced *Gimp* or *Gimpy* by the troopies.

Interestingly, though, the Navy's been working on a 7,62 NATO version of the M249, though the ability to use M16 magazines is deleted. No great loss, that, though it does kick the cyclic rate of the gun up when a belt isn't used. But that's not always a good thing.

L9A1Gimpys/M240s at play:

*Little Brother* F89/M249 equivalent:

[Shooter 2.5]

Once the 1911 is in the holster, the only part that digs into me is the safety or the hammer.

When I'm using it, the only problem I have is the rear edge of the safety.

That's it.

I see no reason to spend hundreds more for a sandblasted relic.
Again, only my opinion.

There's no way I'm going to say that I think Kimbers are junk. The only reason I didn't buy one is because they don't offer the V-10 system that Springfield has.

One of the most beautiful handguns I had ever seen is Kimber's smoked finish. Absolutely beautiful.