Have a Nice Day

[invertedflyer]

The L85A1/SA80 that the brits use, as well as FNs new SCAR-H/SCAR-L series come to mind when considering a new 5.56 weapon. I was arguing for the overall qualities of the SOCOM II specifically versus the M-16A4. One is clearly more reliable than the other. Definitely an interesting point WRT the .280, I wonder what would have come of it.

Also important to note that I was considering the weapon as a standard infantry rifle for the Marine Corps., not other branches. You know as well as any that the MC has more of a "well-placed rounds" quality over quantity viewpoint.. and a proud history of fine marksmanship training. I believe MC infantrymen could have more capabilities carrying the SOCOM vs. the -A4.

Anyway, interesting point about the DM...

 

[Brett327]

Moved to firearms section - enjoy.

Brett

 

[xmid]

The L85A1/SA80 that the brits use... come to mind when considering a new 5.56 weapon.

This IS A JOKE right?

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.

Don't confuse "rapid fire" with an M1A to firing a M-14 on full auto. Even short bursts on an M-14 are exponentially more difficult to effectively employ than an M-16. Cut the M-14 down like the SOCOM and you have a weapon that is going to be a monster to go FA with. We're talking completely uncontrollable. Now you could just issue M1A's instead, but I think anyone would agree that in todays urban environment you need to have some sort of FA capability even if its a burst option.

Try shooting 7.62 full auto from a lite weight rifle and it will become blatantly obvious. Trust me. There is no correlation to firing a SAW, 240, or the 60. Most people (cops and grunts included) have a hard enough time using a 5.56 on auto. When clearing buildings this is gonna be a serious issue.

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.

I don't know why you think people are going to fire less rounds simply because they are firing a larger caliber. The M-16's cyclic rate is 650-750 rounds per minute while the M-14's is 700-750, so they are pretty much even in that respect. Plus you can only hold 20 rounds in a magazine as apposed to 30 in the M-16, all while carrying more weight. You're effectivly going to run out of ammo faster.

Another major problem with doing what you're saying is that whatever rifle the Marines choose, EVERY Marine is going to have to use it. That means you are going to have 110 pound women trying to employ the M-14. Not to mention how gun shy the larger round could make alot of Marines. The number one cause of innaccuracy is flinching and pulling the shot. That goes up drastically as the caliber goes up. How accurate is Private Schmucketelly (who never fired a rifle before he joined the Corps at 18) going to be when he flinches every time he pulls the trigger?

The M-14 is a great weapon for what its being employed to do right now, medium to medium-long range target interdiction. Issuing one to everybody just doesnt make sense.

 

[MasterBates]

Another major problem with doing what you're saying is that whatever rife the Marines choose, EVERY Marine is going to have to use it. That means you are going to have 110 pound women trying to employ the M-14. Not to mention how gun shy the larger round could make alot of Marines. The number one cause of innaccuracy is flinching and pulling the shot. That goes up drastically as the caliber goes up. How accurate is Private Schmucketelly (who never fired a rifle before he joined the Corps at 18) going to be when he flinches every time he pulls the trigger?

Not that I think the M-14 will replace the M-16/M-4 for most troops, but back when the average man was a lot smaller, the main battle rifle of the USA was the M1903 and it variants. They kick a hell of a lot harder than M1A's, or M14s, and yet the men back then handled it.

Those girly-men need to sack up, learn/be taught how to properly shoulder a weapon, and get over it. My 12 year old nephew can shoot an M1.. He has been taught (by my father, I'm not that patient) to properly shoulder a weapon.

 

[MasterBates]

And as a side comment, the M-16 family is approaching the same length of widespread service the M1903 saw, but there was a new weapon being issued in the same caliber by this point of it's career..

 

[xmid]

Not that I think the M-14 will replace the M-16/M-4 for most troops, but back when the average man was a lot smaller, the main battle rifle of the USA was the M1903 and it variants. They kick a hell of a lot harder than M1A's, or M14s, and yet the men back then handled it.

Those girly-men need to sack up, learn/be taught how to properly shoulder a weapon, and get over it. My 12 year old nephew can shoot an M1.. He has been taught (by my father, I'm not that patient) to properly shoulder a weapon.

Sir, if you look over my argument you can see that I was speaking more along the lines of full auto use. The first firearm I ever personally owned was a winchester model 70 30-06 and I never had any problems with it. Its all well and good when you are firing the rifle from the bench or standing at the firing line taking slow calculated shots down range, but walking through villages and buildings with it? Having shot a BAR full auto (30-06) and M-14 (7.62) I can tell you that its apples to oranges vs. semi-auto. One of the main reasons for doing away with the M-14 in the first place was that it was uncontrollable on FA.

Theres a big difference between hunting with a 7.62 or shooting from the bench with one and actually employing one in urban combat. If you look at the SEALs (who could carry a slingshot in to combat if they wanted to) they don't all carry the M-14. Sure some do to employ them against longer ranged targets, but by and large they carry M-4's or AK's. Issuing the M-14 to everyone is just bad joo joo.

And for the record I'm a fan of the M-14/M1A... just not for everyone.

 

[MasterBates]

Xmid,

Also, remember that FA is not always needed. I can't find the source at this time, but I remember seeing/reading that if the USMC had their way, they would have Semi-Only on their M-16s at some point.

I've shot M-14s Full Auto before. I would prefer it over the M16 if I was going to Iraq personally. My father has used both, in combat, and prefers the M14 as well.

M16 was for USAF security when it was first adopted. And that is a good use for it. I like the platform, but for Iraq, IF I was a grunt (an I am NOT by any stretch of the imagination) I would want the M14.

I personally think that if you cannot handle the M14, maybe that you should be in a different line of work, but that is my OPINION, and it is not that "strong" since I am not a grunt, and am merely armchair quarterbacking this one.

 

[xmid]

I'd think the HK416 chambered for the grendel would be a better compromise, but hey thats not practical either.

 

[MasterBates]

6.8 SPC in the M-16 platform would be the best compromise.

6.5 Grendel has better ballistics from 200+ yards than either the 6.8 or 5.56, but I think the "wildcat" nature of the cartridge may scare some in the beltway.

6.8 is reportedly controllable on FA. Would like to try for myself.

6.8 is also VERY close to the .280 British NATO should have adopted back in the 50's.

 

[invertedflyer]

This IS A JOKE right?



Don't confuse "rapid fire" with an M1A to firing a M-14 on full auto. Even short bursts on an M-14 are exponentially more difficult to effectively employ than an M-16. Cut the M-14 down like the SOCOM and you have a weapon that is going to be a monster to go FA with. We're talking completely uncontrollable. Now you could just issue M1A's instead, but I think anyone would agree that in todays urban environment you need to have some sort of FA capability even if its a burst option.

Try shooting 7.62 full auto from a lite weight rifle and it will become blatantly obvious. Trust me. There is no correlation to firing a SAW, 240, or the 60. Most people (cops and grunts included) have a hard enough time using a 5.56 on auto. When clearing buildings this is gonna be a serious issue.





I don't know why you think people are going to fire less rounds simply because they are firing a larger caliber. The M-16's cyclic rate is 650-750 rounds per minute while the M-14's is 700-750, so they are pretty much even in that respect. Plus you can only hold 20 rounds in a magazine as apposed to 30 in the M-16, all while carrying more weight. You're effectivly going to run out of ammo faster.

Another major problem with doing what you're saying is that whatever rifle the Marines choose, EVERY Marine is going to have to use it. That means you are going to have 110 pound women trying to employ the M-14. Not to mention how gun shy the larger round could make alot of Marines. The number one cause of innaccuracy is flinching and pulling the shot. That goes up drastically as the caliber goes up. How accurate is Private Schmucketelly (who never fired a rifle before he joined the Corps at 18) going to be when he flinches every time he pulls the trigger?

The M-14 is a great weapon for what its being employed to do right now, medium to medium-long range target interdiction. Issuing one to everybody just doesnt make sense.

X, I never made mention of full auto use with regard to the M-14 or the M1A SOCOM II series. Primarily because the SOCOM II is NOT designed to be a full auto weapon. In fact I don't even think it has the capability of being one. The weapon is compact enough to be used for CQB/MOUT.

WRT to the SCAR-L being used instead of the -16, or the L85... uhh no I wasn't joking... overall they're pretty reliable weapons (debatable) ... just throwing it out there.

WRT to rate of fire... again not talking cyclic. BUT, since the SOCOM II has a bit more recoil it'd be slightly harder to get off as many rounds. However, if your stats are correct that only helps my argument, not hurts it.

Again, keep in mind that I carry an M-16A4... I qual'd expert with it and believe that, if kept clean, its a good weapon. Its only jammed on me once and it wasn't due to poor weapons maintenance. I just believe that the M-14 a more reliable, accurate, and hard-hitting weapon that, given the SOCOM II, can be adapted to the full spectrum of Marine infantry operations.

 

[xmid]

Maybe you are right. Maybe it could be adapted for the complete spectrum of the needs of the Marine Corps, but I really can't see it ever happening. The reason that the Socom II is not full auto is because its not a M-14, its an M-1A. The M-14 was designed to be FA and the Socom is basically a semi-auto, sawed off version of that weapon. I seriously can't see DOD replacing the M-16 with anything thats not select fire. I think there are several choices for replacement that would be a better pic than the M-14. I think either the 6.5 Grendel or the 6.8 would make a better replacement, and if we went to gas piston uppers we could fix the problems of the M-16 cheaply without replacing the entire weapon. So buy 6.8 piston uppers and you have a better caliber thats more reliable for half the price of new weapons.

As far as my comment on the L85A1, they aren't even liked for the most part by the British. They are already looking for a replacement and plan to have them completely replaced by 2013. You won't see the SAS carrying them. The L85A1 has added fuel to the fire for opponents of bullpup designs. Heres a good clip:

 

[A4sForever]

...As far as my comment on the L85A1, they aren't even liked for the most part by the British...

It has always been a P.O.S. .... years back, when I got a chance to fire it --- they wouldn't let us rock & roll ... said it "might" catch fire .... what a surprise.

 

[invertedflyer]

I must have heard some bad gouge on the L85... understandable.

WRT to the M14/M1A I understand the difference between the two... which is why I was confused with your argument (wrt FA) given that I was advocating the SOCOM... I understand that theres no chance whatsoever that the DOD will replace the M-16 with the SOCOM... as stated its just wishful thinking. I couldn't see the DOD replacing the entire military arsenal with a semi-auto weapon... however it would make sense for the USMC (although I agree it won't happen). Naturally my bias is for the M1A series.

Those new weapons and modification of the upper receivers sounds very interesting to me...I'll have to do some research on that. Hopefully we'll be able to get some quality hardware in the future.

What would you say to the G36 or SCAR-L?

 

[insanebikerboy]

I've shot both a good bit and love shooting both, but the thing that sticks out in my mind is this.

Larger calibers are by nature harder to handle due to recoil, ballistics, etc. Also, not considering the issue of full auto, bringing the sight picture back down onto the target takes considerably more focus than for a lighter round. One way to compensate for that is to make a heavier rifle, which limits muzzle rise. With the SOCOM II apparently being a lot lighter than the old school M14, I'd wonder about how it handles on steady, repeated fire.

So, to follow on that point of view, I'd doubt the average guy on the ground would have any problems on the range handling the -14 because it's a controlled, "somewhat" calm environment. However, when SA goes down and stress goes up, the average individual begins losing their sight picture and trigger control, which when combined with the inherently more difficult controllability issue of the -14 when shot rapidly (not full auto, just rapid semi-auto shooting), combines for less accurate shooting.

From what I understand, the M14 was an issue of weight and controllability when it was being issued in the 60's. The unreliability of the -16A1 when it was first issued was a big drawback, but the succeeding variations have helped fix that fact.

Finally, and this might be the biggest point in why the -16 was issued, is that the bean counters like the fact that the 5.56 is a cheaper round to manufacture than the 7.62. When it comes to that, they're not as concerned with the penetration factor as it is with the bottom line. SOCOM is a completely different animal in that they seem to have an almost unlimited budget to buy whatever they want, but for the average Marine or Army unit, not so much.

 

[xmid]

Those new weapons and modification of the upper receivers sounds very interesting to me...I'll have to do some research on that. Hopefully we'll be able to get some quality hardware in the future.

What would you say to the G36 or SCAR-L?

My hope would be that DOD would buy something that was a gas pistoned upper for the M-16 in a different caliber. From what I've seen the HK416 and other piston uppers make the M-16 on par with anything out there. That being said, they will probably blow lots of money on a product that performs half as well for twice as much. Thats just the nature of the beast.

I found the bullet drift and such with the 6.5 to be a very capable medium between 5.56 and the 7.62. Fact of the matter is the average grunt is not going to be making shots past 4-500 yards, and thats where the 6.5 and the 6.8 rounds shine. They are also going to provide you with more energy in to the target at shorter ranges, as long as you dont have overpenetration issues (9mm argument any one?).

I believe the G-36 would be a good battle rifle. I don't believe it will be adopted however. The Feds actually gave up their G-36's for HK416's ( though this very well could have been because they were surrounded by M-4 parts and ammunition.)

Larger calibers are by nature harder to handle due to recoil, ballistics, etc. Also, not considering the issue of full auto, bringing the sight picture back down onto the target takes considerably more focus than for a lighter round. One way to compensate for that is to make a heavier rifle, which limits muzzle rise. With the SOCOM II apparently being a lot lighter than the old school M14, I'd wonder about how it handles on steady, repeated fire.

So, to follow on that point of view, I'd doubt the average guy on the ground would have any problems on the range handling the -14 because it's a controlled, "somewhat" calm environment. However, when SA goes down and stress goes up, the average individual begins losing their sight picture and trigger control, which when combined with the inherently more difficult controllability issue of the -14 when shot rapidly (not full auto, just rapid semi-auto shooting), combines for less accurate shooting.

This is exactly my point. The -14 and especially the SOCOM II is going to cause problems with the masses. I believe the M-14 is great, and maybe even the answer, for certain medium to LR situations but not for the masses.

If you really wanna be the guy with brass balls be the guy that carries the XM109