-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Have a Nice Day
- Thread starter invertedflyer
- Start date
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Heck yeah it is... the Corps. should have never gotten rid of it in my opinion (although they were hesitant to let it go in 'Nam)... solid weapon, very reliable... Always a fun one to take to the range.
I like the SOCOM II/16 as well. Think if it was the standard infantryman's weapon... wishful thinking.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18
I like the SOCOM II/16 as well. Think if it was the standard infantryman's weapon... wishful thinking.
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18
I think the rifle we choose should decided with a little more info than what some O cans would rather run through the Quantico highlands with ...
But to answer your question, Ill take that plastic thing anyday for OCS/TBS ops.
If I was going to light someone up .... thats an easy choice.
I think that it proves exactly one of the reasons the M-16 came on line to begin with. In a force that prides its self on Maneuver doctrine Im amazed at how many people (many of which have never fired a 308 rifle to begin with) seem to sing some lament for the old 14 or 1911. Not saying they arent good weapons but it smacks of the same garbage you hear about F-14's. :icon_wink
Im pretty sure you mean maneuver, but I wont go too much into that. And the maneuver warfare you are talking about doesn't have to do that much with a grunt being able to move a little faster while moving in the woods. It deals with maneuvering forces on the battlefield to put your enemy into a combined arms deliema which destroys his will to fight.
The reason the M-16 came online was due to many things. One main reason, and this goes for the M9 as well, is uniformity throughout NATO with ammo. 5.56 and 9mm. You go ask anyone who was in a real fight up close with someone if they would rather have the 9 or the .45. Don't get me started on the 1911, Ill start to get passionate. This is not garbage, its a matter of the physics of speed and mass (of a round) and what it will do to an enemy. Plus, what feels better than some wood in your hand .... wait a min ... that didnt come out right ....:tapedshut
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
devil has it on this one Lawman. The SOCOM II is literally only a couple pounds more than the M-16A4 (if that) which is standard these days. If you can't maneuver using this rifle then you should stick to playing counter-strike and eating cheesums (and you shouldn't have joined the Corps). Not only does the 7.62 allow you to engage targets far beyond the envelope of the M-16 (up to 1000 yards) ... it gets better penetration and does more damage. This is why the SOC community has requested it. It also jams less, given its sturdy construction as it has the garand as its ancestor. Long story short... it won't slow you down significantly, and it increases your effectiveness in urban operations (penetration), as well as range and knock down power.
One foreseable drawback is the negative aspect of penetration. IE rounds going through walls and hitting non-combatants.
Still, the +s overwhelmingly overshadow the -s. Bring me back my M14 DOD!
One foreseable drawback is the negative aspect of penetration. IE rounds going through walls and hitting non-combatants.
Still, the +s overwhelmingly overshadow the -s. Bring me back my M14 DOD!
DD, we practically forced the 5.56mm round to be invented due to our inability to compromise and abandon the old way of thinking. Had we not interviened in the development of the FAL when the british were experimenting with the .280 round I have no doubt we would have ended up with that being the NATO Standard (which is startlingly close to 6.8mm). When Remington finally was chosen to manufacture the M193 5.56mm round on the specifications they were given it was essentially coming together on the final round for a weapon that was going to no matter what use a round smaller then .280cal. We invented it, we fielded it, NATO followed suit not the other way around.
Weight isnt neccesarily about speed its about what I can bring to a fight given a specified limit on the number of lbs I can carry. With 5.56 Im looking at a whole lot more bangs for my lbs of load. Not to mention the ability to put followup rounds on target is a whole lot easier to do with a 5.56mm or similar round then with a full size .308 round. Yes penetration is good but not every rifle carrier needs a .308 to hit something. And how many actual engagements have we as a military or you personally been in at 1000yards, face it the days of Bellue Wood are over. And if we actually wanted to do something about the 5.56's performance at longer ranges we could simply change the bullet load that we are using. Hell we only went to the M855 due to the streamlining of having one type of ammunition since it was the only one that worked well in both the SAW and the M16/4 family.
Put the actual damage inflicted on human tissue and Id much rather if I had to pick be shot with a large caliber round then a round that spins and yaws on impact with soft tissue. My dad worked in Combat Med and he can personally attest to the nasty tendency for the 5.56 to turn and weave causing wounds that cant be slowed with pressure and due to length of travel from entry to exit wound are more likely to hit vitals.
And Ive been in a real fight up close would I like a .45 over a 9mm, when limited to strict use of jacketed non expanding ammunition yes. Would I want it to be the 1911, absolutely not. There are far more better, simpler, more reliable .45 platforms out there. Is the 1911 a great pistol yes, but the Sig 220, H&K USP, and half a dozen other weapons are all evolution of the design and at the end of the day better weapon systems.
Weight isnt neccesarily about speed its about what I can bring to a fight given a specified limit on the number of lbs I can carry. With 5.56 Im looking at a whole lot more bangs for my lbs of load. Not to mention the ability to put followup rounds on target is a whole lot easier to do with a 5.56mm or similar round then with a full size .308 round. Yes penetration is good but not every rifle carrier needs a .308 to hit something. And how many actual engagements have we as a military or you personally been in at 1000yards, face it the days of Bellue Wood are over. And if we actually wanted to do something about the 5.56's performance at longer ranges we could simply change the bullet load that we are using. Hell we only went to the M855 due to the streamlining of having one type of ammunition since it was the only one that worked well in both the SAW and the M16/4 family.
Put the actual damage inflicted on human tissue and Id much rather if I had to pick be shot with a large caliber round then a round that spins and yaws on impact with soft tissue. My dad worked in Combat Med and he can personally attest to the nasty tendency for the 5.56 to turn and weave causing wounds that cant be slowed with pressure and due to length of travel from entry to exit wound are more likely to hit vitals.
And Ive been in a real fight up close would I like a .45 over a 9mm, when limited to strict use of jacketed non expanding ammunition yes. Would I want it to be the 1911, absolutely not. There are far more better, simpler, more reliable .45 platforms out there. Is the 1911 a great pistol yes, but the Sig 220, H&K USP, and half a dozen other weapons are all evolution of the design and at the end of the day better weapon systems.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
I would say that many fights take place in environments more than 400 -500 yards... anything past that and a 7.62 is going to be more accurate. Theres tons of "rooftop footage" to confirm this... taking sniper fire from mosques and hotels etc. I think the accepted philosophy here is that a few well-placed shots are much more valuable than 20 others. On that note, however... with a 20 rd. mag you're still getting plenty of "bang". If the weapon wasn't superior, the SOC wouldn't request it. Penetration is needed., and obviously they find themsevles in situations (just look at the picture) where they are employing optics to "reach out" using this weapon. Hence its a good sniper rifle as well. The modern battlefield is much more complex than belleau wood, with more places to hide. A weapon with venerable optics and capabilities is key.
WRT to load... if you're used to carrying around two SAPI plates, as well as ammo for your SAW gunners and machine gunners, this should be nothing new.
You'd be hard pressed to find something that the M-16 can do better, except for rate of fire... again it goes to your philosophy. The SOCOM II can carry all of the same optics and gadgets that the A4 can. Its also compact, and basically the same weight if you need to go CQB or MOUT. The twist rate is also adjusted so that it can still be used accurately as a sniper rifle (800 + yards).
In the end much of it speaks to preference... I'm old school.
WRT to load... if you're used to carrying around two SAPI plates, as well as ammo for your SAW gunners and machine gunners, this should be nothing new.
You'd be hard pressed to find something that the M-16 can do better, except for rate of fire... again it goes to your philosophy. The SOCOM II can carry all of the same optics and gadgets that the A4 can. Its also compact, and basically the same weight if you need to go CQB or MOUT. The twist rate is also adjusted so that it can still be used accurately as a sniper rifle (800 + yards).
In the end much of it speaks to preference... I'm old school.
Well said ...
Its a DM weapon, not a Sniper Rifle (gotta be careful who you throw those terms around like the SWAT sniper that frequents my range). And Im not saying the ability to put rounds accurately on target is in question, nor am I advocating putting rounds down field just for the sake of shooting at somebody. Im saying that your typical riflemen (I.E. not the DM in that picture) is going to put more rounds on something accurately and with more frequency with an M-16 then with an M-14. Are their situations where you need that reach out and touch somebody ability, yes. But are they the overwhelming majority of situations. SOC ordered this because it goes into their bag of tricks, and its a big bag given the number of toys they have to play with. Are they all carrying M14's of course not. Are they even carrying them as the majority when they being the nature of who they are could simply say "We want to go to a .308 rifle as our primary weapon" sure, but they arent and that speaks volumes to what they think. What your saying is Id rather have, yeah great but that always seems to devolve into "The Corps/military would be better off if all their riflemen carried ______." That would be the mistake in my opinion.
invertedflyer
500 ft. from said obstacle
Your opinion is welcome and I definitely see your point. IMO however, the infantryman could use the extra punch and range that the M14/SOCOM II would provide. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an M25 or standard M14 with optics would be considered a sniper rifle, and not a DM rifle.
Granted volume of fire would be affected.... but then you have to look at the structure of a fireteam or squad, as well as the kick of the weapon.
Recoil -- having fired both many times, I would say that the M1A can be fired reasonably quickly with a trained shooter compared to the M-16. Is the -16 going to throw more downrange, ofcourse yes, but again that goes to the philosophy of 5 well placed rounds, as opposed to 15 not so well placed rounds.
Fireteam/Squad structure - your SAW gunners and -240 gunners are going to worry about volume of fire IMO. But even in that aspect, the M14 series could probably fire 7 or 8 rounds to every 10 fired by an M-16... not much of a difference in volume of fire.
SOC isn't the only group requesting these weapons... and from what I've heard they're seeing use with regular infantry too. Availability and contracting issues I would say play a part in the use of the weapon... infantrymen that have used it (I have a friend in the 82nd) are pleased with its all around performance.
You made good points though... many of which are standard and I've heard on more than a few documentaries. However, you didn't speak to one KEY issue -- Reliability
The M1 garand is the grandad of the SOCOM II. It was built with a sturdy and durable design, with a completely different receiver grouping. The weapon has proven to jam much less, and require less cleaning (although naturally your infantrymen are going to clean it anyway). This is why many Marines complained about the M-16 in Vietnam... they were used to a reliable weapon that wouldn't jam and could be carried through mud etc. and still get up and fight.
Last but not least... the standard infantrymen could use the penetration of this weapon to great effect. Using volume of fire against a fortification, or brick wall for example... an infantry squad firing all 7.62 is going to take those structures apart (or go through them). Theres also the obvious uses against vehicles, hardened or not.
Again... good debate, good points. Matter of preference. I'm sticking to my guns on this one (pun intended).
Granted volume of fire would be affected.... but then you have to look at the structure of a fireteam or squad, as well as the kick of the weapon.
Recoil -- having fired both many times, I would say that the M1A can be fired reasonably quickly with a trained shooter compared to the M-16. Is the -16 going to throw more downrange, ofcourse yes, but again that goes to the philosophy of 5 well placed rounds, as opposed to 15 not so well placed rounds.
Fireteam/Squad structure - your SAW gunners and -240 gunners are going to worry about volume of fire IMO. But even in that aspect, the M14 series could probably fire 7 or 8 rounds to every 10 fired by an M-16... not much of a difference in volume of fire.
SOC isn't the only group requesting these weapons... and from what I've heard they're seeing use with regular infantry too. Availability and contracting issues I would say play a part in the use of the weapon... infantrymen that have used it (I have a friend in the 82nd) are pleased with its all around performance.
You made good points though... many of which are standard and I've heard on more than a few documentaries. However, you didn't speak to one KEY issue -- Reliability
The M1 garand is the grandad of the SOCOM II. It was built with a sturdy and durable design, with a completely different receiver grouping. The weapon has proven to jam much less, and require less cleaning (although naturally your infantrymen are going to clean it anyway). This is why many Marines complained about the M-16 in Vietnam... they were used to a reliable weapon that wouldn't jam and could be carried through mud etc. and still get up and fight.
Last but not least... the standard infantrymen could use the penetration of this weapon to great effect. Using volume of fire against a fortification, or brick wall for example... an infantry squad firing all 7.62 is going to take those structures apart (or go through them). Theres also the obvious uses against vehicles, hardened or not.
Again... good debate, good points. Matter of preference. I'm sticking to my guns on this one (pun intended).
Reliability of the M-16 isnt really part of the point of my arguement. My arguement with regards to the M-14 was simply that Id rather have the average rifleman employing a 5.56mm round rather then a .308 round when only given the choice between those two. Reliability of the M-16 on its own is a differnt issue as it could easily be fixed by doing one of two things, retrofitting the existing weapons in inventory with an upper using gas pistons rather then direct blowback, or by going to a superior 5.56mm rifle which there are plenty to choose from.
Could we make a round superior to the 5.56 for use as a general rifle round (I.E. not LMG, SAW, or DM/Sniper weapon), sure and were doing it with the experementation in true intermediate caliber rounds like the 6.8mm and 6.5mm. Like I said I believe if we hadnt gone and messed with a rifle program that we were never going to buy anyway I think we would have seen just how amazingly capable the British .280 was and it would have replaced the .308 instead of the 5.56mm.
And in the semantics arguement of is it a DM weapon or a Sniper Rifle, Ill basically give you the viewpoint of that SWAT officer I mentioned. A Sniper Rifle and a DM are not differing weapons in regards to optics or caliber but in the way they are employed and the limitations a weapon would give its self in one role or the other. Then he went into the whole discussion of how a semi-auto weapon will always be a worse choice as a Sniper rifle over a bolt action weapon because of the methodology of remaining concealed at all times and a rifle that flings its brass after letting it be known he is there is a disadvantage. On the other hand a DM rifle due to the nature of its employment would be better off as a semi-auto with a capacity to allow for rapid employment of the weapon. I kinda agree in the idea that a anybody with a good steady aim can be a DM where as a Sniper involves a whole extra deal of training in the art of "the stalk." And dont think about the whole "well what about the .50bmg" cause he covered that one too with the basics of that is an anti-material rifle, though it shoots people pretty good too.
Could we make a round superior to the 5.56 for use as a general rifle round (I.E. not LMG, SAW, or DM/Sniper weapon), sure and were doing it with the experementation in true intermediate caliber rounds like the 6.8mm and 6.5mm. Like I said I believe if we hadnt gone and messed with a rifle program that we were never going to buy anyway I think we would have seen just how amazingly capable the British .280 was and it would have replaced the .308 instead of the 5.56mm.
And in the semantics arguement of is it a DM weapon or a Sniper Rifle, Ill basically give you the viewpoint of that SWAT officer I mentioned. A Sniper Rifle and a DM are not differing weapons in regards to optics or caliber but in the way they are employed and the limitations a weapon would give its self in one role or the other. Then he went into the whole discussion of how a semi-auto weapon will always be a worse choice as a Sniper rifle over a bolt action weapon because of the methodology of remaining concealed at all times and a rifle that flings its brass after letting it be known he is there is a disadvantage. On the other hand a DM rifle due to the nature of its employment would be better off as a semi-auto with a capacity to allow for rapid employment of the weapon. I kinda agree in the idea that a anybody with a good steady aim can be a DM where as a Sniper involves a whole extra deal of training in the art of "the stalk." And dont think about the whole "well what about the .50bmg" cause he covered that one too with the basics of that is an anti-material rifle, though it shoots people pretty good too.