Have a Nice Day

[A4sForever]

You guys make me chuckle when you go on and on about perceived problems with the M-14's "weight" and "controllability ... it weighs only a few ounces more and is just as accurate in semi-auto as the M-1 Garand that a bunch of "average" draftees used 60 years ago to win a World War ...

 

[xmid]

You guys make me chuckle when you go on and on about perceived problems with the M-14's "weight" and "controllability ... it weighs only a few ounces more and is just as accurate in semi-auto as the M-1 Garand that a bunch of "average" draftees used 60 years ago to win a World War ...

Yes, but they used a semi-automatic weapon against a bolt action weapon for the most part (mauser '98). There's no argument from me that that generation was great (greater than ours? maybe?) But when you walk in to a room full of guys with the capability of going FA you need the ability to go FA more effectivly than them. I can't see this being plausible with the M-14. As a pure semi-auto weapon I believe that the M-14 is as good a weapon as it gets, but in todays battlefield there is a need for FA (weather its small or not). The Socom II bridges the gap with weight, but with what sacrifice to controllability?

 

[A4sForever]

.....in todays battlefield there is a need for FA ...

Full auto's fine -- it's even appropriate once in a while ... but aimed fire and rounds on target is better -- always.

My SEAL MCPO shooting mentor/buddy taught me that ... ... and I believe him.

 

[A4sForever]

Yes, but they used a semi-automatic weapon against a bolt action weapon for the most part (mauser '98)......

Negative ---- one quick and easy (and valuable) resource F.Y.I. is: [FONT=verdana,arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]

U.S. War Department Technical Manual TM-E 30-451: Handbook on German Military Forces published in March 1945.

Quote:
"....[/SIZE][/FONT] The general trends in German small arms have been an increase in production of semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons and an increase in the rate of fire of machine guns...."

".... (the Germans) have placed considerable reliance on novel and sensational weapons ..... principal weaknesses in this regard have been their failure to integrate these new techniques with established arms and tactics---and their devotion to automatic weapons at the expense of accuracy ...."
[FONT=verdana,arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
By the time US forces engaged the Wehrmacht in strength from 1944 onwards, the "average" Wehrmacht battalion included many more semi and full auto small arms than the "average" US Army battalion. We won't even get into the TO&E of their "above average" units, i.e., SS, Panzer Grenadiers, Falschrimjager, etc., etc. ....

I learned that from my other shooting mentor/buddy -- who was there --- my Dad. And I believe him, as well .... [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[invertedflyer]

Full auto's fine -- it's even appropriate once in a while ... but aimed fire and rounds on target is better -- always.

My SEAL MCPO shooting mentor/buddy taught me that ... ... and I believe him.

Agreed, go M-14.

 

[insanebikerboy]

You guys make me chuckle when you go on and on about perceived problems with the M-14's "weight" and "controllability ... it weighs only a few ounces more and is just as accurate in semi-auto as the M-1 Garand that a bunch of "average" draftees used 60 years ago to win a World War ...

Yeah, when comparing the M1 and M14, there are a few differences but all in all they are pretty much the same rifle. As I'm sure you know, the M14 was the intention of having a full auto capable rifle that mimicked the performance of the M1. Combining that with the weight and recoil of the 7.62, it created an issue in controllability when at full auto.

Now, that said, I too was taught by my first rangemaster that going full auto is only for fun on the range or if you're all out of other options. However, that's part of why the M16 came on line, b/c back then it was perceived that full auto on the average serviceman's rifle would be a good thing.

I heard once that in the mid-70's there was some discussion on switching the M16 to either a semi-auto or three or four round burst mode, because so many guys were just going to full auto and randomly pointing and holding the trigger, just wasting ammo instead of putting rounds on target. If that's true it definitely makes sense.

Either way, do I think that the average serviceman could handle an M14? Yeah, probably, as you said the M1 has been used by thousands and the 7.62, in my opinion, feels slightly less in recoil than the .30 (at least to me). However, I think that at the time the M16 was coming on line the full auto option was a huge consideration, so the controllability issue was a factor.

 

[Lawman]

One problem yet to be brought up is how this would drastically effect the make up of the typical Rifle Platoon if we did switch over to a weapon like the M-14.

You would essentially have to bring back the "Grenadier" because I doubt without seriously compromising the performance of the weapon you could adapt the M-14 to replace the M16/203 combo. Also would we really want to loose that firepower in the individual fireteam of having the availability to put direct fire explosives in on an enemy.

 

[invertedflyer]

The SOCOM II can carry a -203 given its rails (or at least could be modified to carry one), along with anything else. Againt this is M1A SOCOM II, not M14.