Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77

Thread: Gun Trouble

  1. #1

    Default Gun Trouble

    "Gun Trouble" is an article in The Atlantic magazine (Jan/Feb 2015) by retired Army general Robert H. Scales He discusses US military rifles and the process of testing and adopting them. The article is now available online. www.theatlantic.com


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    It was interesting. He talks about the Army's "love affair" with the M14. Was that rifle as touchy as the M16 or M4? I've heard about M14's being used in Afghanistan because of the long engagement distances. I guess the .308 can handle situations out to 600 yards, if you were good with it and you had an optic. Does anybody know any information, of a good article, about the M14?

  3. #3
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,360

    Default

    Your googlefu is weak grasshopper

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

    I am old enough to have qualified with an M14 and carried one as an issue rifle.
    Last edited by kyratshooter; 12-31-2014 at 10:18 AM.
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post
    Your googlefu is weak grasshopper

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

    I am old enough to have qualified with an M14 and carried one as an issue rifle.
    Did you like it?

  5. #5
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zack View Post
    Did you like it?
    There is a philosophical point of discussion here Zack, especially for one who carried a tool into combat.

    And this is a 100% opinionated statement expressing my views only.

    A military rifle is a general purpose tool designed to aid the soldier in closing with and destroying the enemy. It is made to do that job while fitting and being used by several million men at any given point in time.

    It does not matter if one "likes" the issue rifle, as long as it does the assigned job better than the rifle carried by the enemy.

    The M14 was an "adequate" rifle for the time, but it was simply a revision of an already obsolete design (the M1).

    FN had produced the FAL ten years before the M14 was adopted, Spain and Germany had the G3, the Soviets had already been using the AK for a decade. For Gods sake the Germans had MG44 rifles during WWII !

    They were all better at aiding the soldier at closing with and destroying the enemy due to design features, shape, ammo, or durability.

    If I had not know anything about what was available to the soldiers of other nations I might have thought the M14 was the bees knees. As it was, I felt that I was issued a rifle that was 25 years behind the development curve.

    There was a valid reason why we dropped the M14 within 10 years. It was 10 years obsolete the day we adopted it in 1957.

    Real problem was, what they gave us to replace it was worse than the M14.

    Patton might have considered the M1-M14 platform the "greatest battle weapon ever designed" but that was in 1940.

    and I have the distinct feeling he might have held a battlefield pickup MG44 in his hands and mumbled "God help us!"
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  6. #6
    Super Moderator crashdive123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    44,846

    Default

    Yep - first rifle I qualified on. I loved it........but I didn't have to hump it around in the field.

    I was teaching a Shipboard Anti Terrorist class and one of the students complained about the weight and size for use on Submarines and that we should all be issued 45's (issued sidearm at the time). I asked him what was the "mantra" regarding hostages? His reply was correct when he stated "The life of the hostage shall be considered, but it will not affect your course of action". (Remember... this is nuclear weapons security) I said OK.....if you have to take out the bad guy NOW and he is using a human shield, would you rather try and ricochet a shot with your 45 off a missile tube or shoot through the hostage with the M-14 and kill the bad guy?

    He asked not to be put on OPFOR (opposing forces) for drills.
    Can't Means Won't

    My Youtube Channel

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45

    Default

    As another who qualified with the M-14 I agree completely. The M-16 was a bust at first, too. As for it's utility in Afganistan, many different rifles could have been bought off the civilian market to do the same mission...kill at a distance.

  8. #8
    Administrator Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Indiana
    Posts
    58,832

    Default

    @ Kyrat - That was a very well written and informative response. Thank you.

  9. #9
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    4,004

    Default

    I cannot disagree with anything that was said. I qualified and used both the m-14 and m-16 variants during my service with the Navy. I loved the capability if the M-14 better than the m-16. .308 or .223? Is that really even a question? I found it even more accurate than the m-16 as well as the fact it was more reliable. There are only a dozen parts to an m-14, they don't have to have tight tolerances, and none of them are plastic except the hand guard. The down side to the m-14 is it is HEAVY and the standard mag held 20 vs the m-16 which holds 30. Than again, one .308 does what 2-3 rounds of .223 does and the accuracy of the m-14 means fewer shots. The m-16 seems to be more of a "spray and pray" piece of equipment and the amount of maintenance for it as astronomical. So my choice between the two would be the m-14.

    Like KyRat said though, there are many better options that our military doesn't look at. Mini-14 and Mini-30 are both a cut above the m-16 in the civilian world. Same thing as the m-14, but a little smaller and much lighter and in .223 and 7.62x39, respectively. Outdated design? Maybe. But how old is the wheel and it is still in use?!!!!! I always thought that if the military had converted .30 carbine to .223 they would have had a great option for little expense, but what do I know? I would definitely take an AK over the m-16 too. Of all the rounds, I like the .308 the best. I think an AK in .308 would be tough to beat for a military rifle. But then again, there is fantasy......
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  10. #10
    Senior Member kyratshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    KY bluegrass region-the center of the universe
    Posts
    10,360

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post
    . I think an AK in .308 would be tough to beat for a military rifle. But then again, there is fantasy......
    Ain't fantasy Nate, you held one in your hands last time we went shooting!

    I had the little AK and the BIG AK. The BIG AK was an SVD knockoff in 7.62 NATO.

    The Russians still issue one in 7.62x54r to one man in every squad as a designated marksman rifle. What that really means is that every tenth man in the Russian Army is issued a sniper rifle.

    Do you suppose they learned something during WW2 that we let slip?
    Last edited by kyratshooter; 12-31-2014 at 05:25 PM.
    If you didn't bring jerky what did I just eat?

  11. #11
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    4,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post
    Ain't fantasy Nate, you held one in your hands last time we went shooting!

    I had the little AK and the BIG AK. The BIG AK was an SVD knockoff in 7.62 NATO.

    The Russians still issue one in 7.62x54r to one man in every squad as a designated marksman rifle. What that really means is that every tenth man in the Russian Army is issued a sniper rifle.

    Do you suppose they learned something during WW2 that we let slip?
    I know the AK is made in 7.62 NATO, I am just saying that it is fantasy for it to be used by our military.

    As far as designated marksmen in squads..... I don't think we let that slip too much. It seems to me that the military still issues an m-14 or two to units depending on the situation. One thing is that an m-14 is nearly impossible to use to clear buildings with due to its size so it isn't delegated too much for urban patrols. The M40A1 and the M24 are both heavily modified Remington 700's in 7.62 NATO and are what our snipers use and our snipers are utilized fairly often. So I don't think we let the lesson slip, I think we apply the lesson in a different way.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  12. #12

    Default

    I enjoyed the thread, creative discussion and some history too! I wanted to thank all that participated.


    Im old school, but not as old school as some of you! HA HA! I qualified on an M16 A1 with triangle handguards, Ft. Benning. Anywho, all that root training carries over to this day... If I put optics on a weapon I just cant use it... Im off center so to say.... One reason I am looking at the Savage Hog Hunter, its a 308 bolt with iron sights, which is not in vogue anymore (due greatly to the tacticool takeover I reckon...). I taught my daughter to shoot rifle with iron sights, and NOT off a bench... (You guys might have already grown tired of the video, but I present it again)






    On the topic of the AR/M series rifles... First, the GI system lends it's self to failure because of use... who came up with the idea to blow the gases into the upper and bolt face?!?!? The tolerances are too tight for reliability. What you get is a light bullet at high velocities with greater range and respectable accuracy but at the cost of dependability.

    MK did not, in my mind, "invent" the AK... instead he created the weapon off the design of other already proven weapons, one being the SKS. Not to take from MK, the weapon he created is one of the finest ever designed even to this day... The design totally lends it's self to reliability and retain respectable accuracy to at least 200 yards, 250 if you memorize the trajectory and understand the ballistics.

    No one will try to engage the enemy at 2,000 yards with a rifle... they will instead call for artillery or mortar. What I am getting at, is to deploy the weapon knowing its capacity and limitations.

    You do not try to fight with an enemy at 350 yards with an AK, unless you like holding over by 6 feet. Its a limitation of the cartridge. (.54R style AK type weapons do not have such limitations, HA HA).

    To compare the ballistics of an AK to an AR is udder nonsense and only a fool would try to make a direct comparison.


    If my life depended on it, I pick the AK to protect me. Knowing the limitations dictates that enemy at 300 yards gets a free pass, which is fine by me because at that distance you wont know Im there anyway. At 200 yards, even better at 150 yards.. aggressor beware.

    To live the XboX daydream that having an AR will automagically make you a killin' machine is just immature at best, idiotic at worst. Sure the AR platform has evolved and matured over the years, but it too has long lived past its design and should be abandoned for better. I still think the AK and FAL are by far more superior by design and function than the AR will ever be.

    The number one thing a soldier wants on the battlefield is a weapon that will go bang every time. Seriously adverse conditions tend to muck up good luck with an AR. After reliability, the soldier wants combat accuracy. Any serious grunt will tel you, get me within 3 inches of center mass and they would be more than satisfied... Only a true and certified sniper, not a keyboard commando or warrior wannabe (mall ninja?) would be obsessed with MOA accuracy out of a semi automatic. Period.


    I remember the entire time I was in the service, I heavily drank the Kool Aid and thought the M16 was the bestest weapon in the world, and I always regarded the AK as a P.O.S. stamped receiver rattaly worthless piece of junk. Fast forward to many years, and I sold my AR to get an AK, and couldnt be more thrilled and pleased! Its amazing how your impressions change, when you finally grow up.

    This is my story, take it for what it's worth, I dont seek conflict or argument, only the opportunity to share my experience and ideas.


    That is all, carry on...
    EB
    Last edited by ElevenBravo; 01-01-2015 at 09:58 AM. Reason: changed CAN for CANT, typo corrected

  13. #13
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    I will have to join in with TFB in calling B.S. on it. Right off the bat, if the other sources I've read are correct the author is employed at a competing company trying to the Army to buy their gun. No conflict there.

    I'll say right off that I'm not a veteran. But I work with and know a multitude of recently discharged vets home from the sandbox. It's hard to find any of them with anything negative to say about the M4. Sure, some of them would have liked a bigger more powerful round. But it's not like the enemy AKs were mowing them down from outside of 5.56 range. According to the guys I've talked to the AKs in the hands of the Afghan's were in crappy shape, barely serviceable in a lot of cases. The consistent story I have heard is that the Taliban troops largely didn't know how to shoot, either.

    The numbers don't really bear our the hit piece, either. How many troops were lost in ten years of combat? And how many of those were lost to enemy action? And of those, how many were IEDs, mines and mortars and how many were due to rifle fire? And of those how many were in stand-up firefights? I don't know the number but it's got to be pretty small. My guess is that the US troops gave a helluva lot better than they got. The author makes it sound like we were basically shooting spitwads at them as US soldiers were being mowed down. That strikes me as unmitigated BS.

    Just as telling is the number of spec ops troops that have carried some variant of the M4. Sure, some of the SEALs have HKs (and I would personally rather have an HK but I'm a fanboy) but the bulk of them carry M4s or something akin to one. They presumably have some latitude in SOCOM to equip the troops.

    What would be a better rifle then? I'm sure the author would humbly suggest whatever his company is making. But let's be objective. We have to look at the round and the gun as a package but even if we switched guns it's not clear that we'd move away from the 5.56 NATO round. It's the NATO round, after all. What gun would do a better job? An obvious contender is the FN SCAR but it is enough better to scrap 100s of thousands of rifles to change over?

    The M16 was a disaster in the beginning for a lot of reasons. But the current M4 bears little resemblance to the old school 'Nam-era M16! It has served millions of troops very well and serves them well today.

  14. #14
    Senior Member randyt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    tip of the mitt
    Posts
    5,258

    Default

    I own a fn-fal, m14, garand, ar15, m1 carbine, sks, ak-47, mas 56, cemte, and to be honest I prefer my SMLE or eddystone enfield LOL but if I had to choose a semi auto it would be the fn-fal.
    so the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law and you want me to believe that somehow more laws make less criminals?

  15. #15
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    4,004

    Default

    Phaedrus, a lot of troops and newer veteran's will praise the m-16 and variants. Why? Because it is the only combat rifle they have ever used and they don't know any better. Also not abandoning the 5.56 just because it is "the NATO round after all" is faulty thinking because it is not the only NATO rifle round. That is why I would favor an AK in 7.62 NATO for a military rifle. Also implying the modern day M4 is better because it no longer looks like a nam era m-16 is foolish as well. You stated you are not a veteran, if you were you would realize the amount of cleaning, maintenance, and replacement of parts the M4 has to go through in order to serve those millions troops well. You stated that many of the AK's in Afghan were crappy and barely serviceable in many cases and I have no doubt that is true. But I guarantee you those AK's are older than the very first M-16 ever procured by the military and the only cleaning ever done was by blasting rounds through it. You couldn't get a week out of most M-16/M4 treated like that.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

  16. #16

    Default

    I did not know about The Firearms Blog article when I posted information about a piece from The Atlantic. It seems that there is a lot of disagreement. More information can probably help people make up their own minds.

    The Atlantic article is from a whole issue devoted to national defense, an issue that is important to Americans. Because I am not a military veteran, I have no personal experience or knowledge of military small arms issues. From what I can tell, though the author of The Atlantic article has combat experience as an Army officer and served for many years in the military. If the author is employed by a company that is developing a rifle for sale to the US government, I am not aware of it.

    Controversy about small arms is not new, and I have read about some of these issues before. Even today, some sources suggest that a larger diameter, heavier bullet than the 5.56 mm should be adopted. Because I lack practical experience, I cannot say much concerning the M16/M4 compared to other weapons. I hope those who do have experience can discuss the topic. I only posted the original thread because others might be interested in the "Gun Trouble" topic.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post
    There is a philosophical point of discussion here Zack, especially for one who carried a tool into combat.

    And this is a 100% opinionated statement expressing my views only.

    A military rifle is a general purpose tool designed to aid the soldier in closing with and destroying the enemy. It is made to do that job while fitting and being used by several million men at any given point in time.

    It does not matter if one "likes" the issue rifle, as long as it does the assigned job better than the rifle carried by the enemy.

    The M14 was an "adequate" rifle for the time, but it was simply a revision of an already obsolete design (the M1).

    FN had produced the FAL ten years before the M14 was adopted, Spain and Germany had the G3, the Soviets had already been using the AK for a decade. For Gods sake the Germans had MG44 rifles during WWII !

    They were all better at aiding the soldier at closing with and destroying the enemy due to design features, shape, ammo, or durability.

    If I had not know anything about what was available to the soldiers of other nations I might have thought the M14 was the bees knees. As it was, I felt that I was issued a rifle that was 25 years behind the development curve.

    There was a valid reason why we dropped the M14 within 10 years. It was 10 years obsolete the day we adopted it in 1957.

    Real problem was, what they gave us to replace it was worse than the M14.

    Patton might have considered the M1-M14 platform the "greatest battle weapon ever designed" but that was in 1940.

    and I have the distinct feeling he might have held a battlefield pickup MG44 in his hands and mumbled "God help us!"
    I wasn't really referring to the rifle as it performed in battle, but more about its all around use. Besides using it as a fighting rifle, did you think it was an okay gun in the field? Was it accurate? Did it malfunction like the M16's? Was it a decent general purpose rifle? How did it compare to the M16's as a GP rifle? To clarify, was the M14 a better rifle that the M16 when it came to all purpose use? Thanks for the response, though.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by natertot View Post
    Phaedrus, a lot of troops and newer veteran's will praise the m-16 and variants. Why? Because it is the only combat rifle they have ever used and they don't know any better. Also not abandoning the 5.56 just because it is "the NATO round after all" is faulty thinking because it is not the only NATO rifle round. That is why I would favor an AK in 7.62 NATO for a military rifle. Also implying the modern day M4 is better because it no longer looks like a nam era m-16 is foolish as well. You stated you are not a veteran, if you were you would realize the amount of cleaning, maintenance, and replacement of parts the M4 has to go through in order to serve those millions troops well. You stated that many of the AK's in Afghan were crappy and barely serviceable in many cases and I have no doubt that is true. But I guarantee you those AK's are older than the very first M-16 ever procured by the military and the only cleaning ever done was by blasting rounds through it. You couldn't get a week out of most M-16/M4 treated like that.
    I dunno...some of them have had access to every battle rifle up to this point. And what did previous soldiers have experience with? Only their own battle rifles. The point I'm making is that the article's claims of poor reliability don't seem grounded in reality. The reports I've heard are that the M4 is reliable and accurate. And realistically are there contrary reports? Every weapon has fans and detractors. I recall one battle where troops were doing FA mag dump as fast as possible til they went "black" on ammo. What service rifle is made to do that? That is poor training for the most part.

    What would we replace it with? I owned a good Chinese civilian AK and didn't strike me as a great rifle. It really is a myth that the AK will never stop running. The poorly maintained AKs confiscated in the sandbox often wouldn't run right either. What is the argument? We need something easier to clean? That's maybe true but according to recent vets the M4 doesn't need to be squeaky clean to run well. The more expert folks I know will echo this sentiment. M4 reliability problems seem to more myth than actual fact.

    I'm not praising or condemning the 5.56. But looking at the reality adoption of that round forced the Soviets into a smaller caliber AK to "keep up". Last I read several thousand rounds are expended for ever hit on a combatant. That means you probably need a lot of ammo. We had a 7.62 rifle and ditched if for a reason. War changed. We didn't get into 1000 yard rifles battles anymore. My dad, a Viet Nam vet, actually felt the rifle was obsolete in warfare (a view I dont' agree with BTW).

    As for the US adopting an AK that will never happen as you well know, for lots of reasons. First it's simply not that great a gun and doesn't fit modern Western military doctrine. More importantly it's famous as an enemy weapon, a tool of terrorism and communism. I can't imagine that politically we could ever adopt an AK! Obviously something like a Galil would be more politically correct but even the Israelis are moving away from it to the Tavor IIRC.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Phaedrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Last Best Place
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post


    FN had produced the FAL ten years before the M14 was adopted, Spain and Germany had the G3, the Soviets had already been using the AK for a decade. For Gods sake the Germans had MG44 rifles during WWII !

    They were all better at aiding the soldier at closing with and destroying the enemy due to design features, shape, ammo, or durability.

    If I had not know anything about what was available to the soldiers of other nations I might have thought the M14 was the bees knees. As it was, I felt that I was issued a rifle that was 25 years behind the development curve.

    There was a valid reason why we dropped the M14 within 10 years. It was 10 years obsolete the day we adopted it in 1957.
    Very true! The FAL was superior to the M14 in every way except possibly accuracy potential. The G3 would also have been a superior weapon.


    Quote Originally Posted by kyratshooter View Post
    Patton might have considered the M1-M14 platform the "greatest battle weapon ever designed" but that was in 1940.

    and I have the distinct feeling he might have held a battlefield pickup MG44 in his hands and mumbled "God help us!"
    Another very good point! We always seem to adopt weapons perfected to fight the previous war. In the jungles of VN there wasn't a lot of call for a 7.62 rifle nor many big set-piece battles. Some of the lessons of WWII were definitely driven home! In WWII the "blitzkrieg" was very effective. German tactics incorporating rapid movement and heavy use of light, portable machine guns changed the face of warfare. I watched an old WWII training video that was created to address the fear US troops had of the MG44! It's funny now but sure wasn't then; the video tries to say that the "bark is worse than the bite" but that was not the case at all. The MG44 was highly lethal.

    In service rifles it seems the Sturmgewehr was the game changer. While it didn't materially affect the war due to supply problems and the late introduction it had a profound influence on the Soviets and the West. The M16 was basically a reaction to the Sturmgewehr. The AK was a direct response to it. All modern military rifles are. What major army in the world still fields a "battle rifle" in the old sense? Everyone has switched over to 'assault rifles' influenced by the Sturmgewehr, guns in an intermediate caliber, high capacity and select fire capability. It's hard to overestimate the impact the MG44 and the STG44.

  20. #20
    Senior Member natertot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    4,004

    Default

    Phaedrus, I doubt they had access to every battle rifle up to this point. Maybe US Rifles, but not every battle rifle in the world. Not even within NATO which includes the British SA80, Swedish AK5, Germany and Spains Hk G36, French FAMAS, Italian AR70/90, Mexican FX-05, Russian AK74, and Belgium and croatian FN F2000. All of which are 556.

    I am not saying that the m-16 or variants are not accurate. They are. I am not even saying they aren't reliable. What I am saying is it takes a lot of effort and keeping several small parts on hand to keep them reliable. That is why after every firing and every patrol they are broken down, cleaned, and inspected. Lots of effort. Basically like saying you got 500k miles out of a car without it ever breaking down, never mind the fact you had to change all the fluids and filters ever 500 miles and replace half the gaskets every 3k miles to achieve it.

    One cannot compare a Chinese civilian AK to a true military AK. The fact you even did that made me do a face palm and illistrates that you have no idea of what a true Russian military AK is. I also never stated that an AK will never stop running. What I am saying is that the Taliban can keep an AK running without any proper cleaning, no replacement parts, and no armorers for decades. What we need is something not so high maintenance which I touched on in the second paragraph. BTW, we never ditched the 7.62 either. If the 5.56 was all that and a bag of chips we would have.

    I know the US won't adopt the AK for a military rifle. Not saying they should. I just said an AK in 7.62 NATO would be a great rifle for our military presently. For future rifles I believe they should look at something as reliable and low maintenance as an AK. As urban warfare continues and develops, I believe shorter and lighter rifles are key. Perhaps a bullpup style with a 12-14" barrel?
    Last edited by natertot; 01-02-2015 at 03:46 AM.
    ”There's nothing glorious in dying. Anyone can do it.” ~Johnny Rotten

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •