testtest

Ichord Report: What If Congress Had Let the M16 Die?

KillerFord1977 said:
Owning both the FAL and M1A, plus building FAL’s for ages, the FAL is a better platform IMO.
Click to expand...
The M14-M1A built upon the legacy of the Garand rifle- well and good. The FAL was a later whole separate development based on post-war designs and manufacturing technology. I've owned and enjoyed all three. If I had to take one to war it would be the FAL hands down everywhere except- perhaps- in the USA itself.
 
SIW1911 said:
keeping the 7.62,
Click to expand...
Keeping the .30 NATO round was part of the problem; it would be tough to get away from the greater recoil/uselessness of select fire with that round. The straight-line FN version might have helped, but physics never takes the day off.
It was never my lot to run through the jungle with one, but did shoot the M16-A1 quite a lot in my old Guard unit. That included getting range detail, to burn off unused ammo. (Shooting OP's ammo was even better than smoking OP's cigarettes.) Never a problem. I've since assembled a replica 16A1, with NOS Colt upper and NoDak lower, and it's never been troublesome. Same was true of an M16 dash nothing in Basic. This was in '70, so there was some expectation of both cleaning and lube. But I can recall, when first stripping my issue rifle in basic, that it was mighty dry, and heavily carboned.
The powder problem was certainly an issue. My recollection, from The Black Rifle, was Big Army's desire for multiple sources of rifle powder, in case of national emergency. But read The Black Rifle; it was a more nuanced problem than just the powder. There was plenty of incompetence, pigheadedness, and garden variety bureaucratic stupidity to go around.
Fired the M14 for familiarization, and was not impressed. I wasn't really a shooter before the Service, so the recoil was more than I'd expected. The selector switches had all been removed, for good reason. Always thought the Garand (I have one) is more pleasant to shoot.
Moon
 
bangnburp said:
What was waiting in the wings? Yeah we had the M14 and the M2, but wouldn't the AR180 or AR10 have been considered? What about overseas weapons, the FN-FAL comes to mind. It's an interesting question, but the what if's are numerous.
Click to expand...
Big Army had the same attitude as many posters here; the 5.56 wasn't a full power .30 caliber, and, by God, that's what we need. Throw in a big dose of Not Invented Here, and general resistance to change, presto, the M14. It might have served well in an European war, but it was too much gun for a lot of places. Again, The Black Rifle has a good analysis.
The German STG should have been a guide (hey, at least it was a .30!), but even the Russians finally shifted to a small caliber, high velocity round.
Moon
 
halfmoonclip said:
Keeping the .30 NATO round was part of the problem; it would be tough to get away from the greater recoil/uselessness of select fire with that round. The straight-line FN version might have helped, but physics never takes the day off.
It was never my lot to run through the jungle with one, but did shoot the M16-A1 quite a lot in my old Guard unit. That included getting range detail, to burn off unused ammo. (Shooting OP's ammo was even better than smoking OP's cigarettes.) Never a problem. I've since assembled a replica 16A1, with NOS Colt upper and NoDak lower, and it's never been troublesome. Same was true of an M16 dash nothing in Basic. This was in '70, so there was some expectation of both cleaning and lube. But I can recall, when first stripping my issue rifle in basic, that it was mighty dry, and heavily carboned.
The powder problem was certainly an issue. My recollection, from The Black Rifle, was Big Army's desire for multiple sources of rifle powder, in case of national emergency. But read The Black Rifle; it was a more nuanced problem than just the powder. There was plenty of incompetence, pigheadedness, and garden variety bureaucratic stupidity to go around.
Fired the M14 for familiarization, and was not impressed. I wasn't really a shooter before the Service, so the recoil was more than I'd expected. The selector switches had all been removed, for good reason. Always thought the Garand (I have one) is more pleasant to shoot.
Moon
Click to expand...

Running n the paddies, the 5.56 was great in the open. But in the JUNGLE, not so good. Little penetration using the standard round. Shooting at Mr. Charles, hit or miss, too easily deflected. The M60 round did not have this problem, continuing to penetrate. This was evidenced by tracers, both 5.56 and 7.62. My take on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top