ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:54 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Should the military have switched from the M-14 to the M-16 in Vietnam?
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 1:55 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Interesting little topic, I think. I saw this debate on the history channel, and thought it would be a good topic for all the other gun collectors/enthusiasts. I'll start us off with some facts about both rifles.

The M-14 is basically a reworked M1 Garand with a larger clip and fully automatic fire capability. It's built to be durable and reliable in combat. It fires the 7.62mm (.30cal) round, and can deliver the round farther, more accurately, and with more stopping power than the 5.56mm of the M-16. However, the M-14 has a larger kick when firing than the M-16 does, which would make fully automatic fire not really a viable option. It also weighs more than the M-16 by a few pounds.

Now before I continue, let me make something clear: The M-16 I'm talking about is the first model, which had fully automatic fire.

The M-16 is built from state-of-the-art materials (atleast for the 60's), and fires a 5.56mm round. It has much less kick than the M-14, so fully automatic fire can be useful. It weighs about 3 pounds less than the M-14, which makes it easier to haul around.
The early M-16 was prone to jamming, breaking, and misfiring. This caused the death of many a soldier. It also lacks stopping power and accuracy, especially at ranges longer than 200 yards. Some could argue that the decision to switch from the '14 to the '16 was a political one, not a decision by the military and its soldiers.

So there ya have it. So, which weapon is superior? Which one should have been placed in the hands of our boys in combat?

_________________
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave"-Edmund Morris

Moodflow.com - the greatest pictures ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:28 pm 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Hmmmm.

One thing to consider is that the M-16's ammo is significantly smaller and lighter than the M-14's, making it easy to carry more of it. More ammo is a good thing; however, when balanced against the fact that each individual shot is less likely to kill your enemy, it becomes less important.

The current M-16s, at least circa the battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, have very little stopping power. According to the book "Black Hawk Down," the soldiers were using armor-piercing rounds that would simply go through the enemies without taking them down, unless they hit the brain, heart, or spine. They might die later from blood loss, but in that kind of situation you need them dead now, and the M-14 was superior at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 4:39 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Good point. Another thing to consider is the ammo expended to kill an enemy. I have a very interesting fact here:
In World War II, when most soldiers had semi-automatic rifles, the average number of rounds spent to kill one enemy was 23,000 to 26,000.

During Vietnam, when soldiers had access to fully automatic fire from their rifles, it took an average of 240,000 to 300,000 rounds to kill one enemy.

So what good is carrying extra ammo if you're not hitting what you aim at? Given, most of the war was fought in jungles, where is could be hard to see your enemy, but that's alot of ammo to expend per kill. Access to fully automatic fire is more likely than not going to tempt the shooter to 'spray and pray'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 2:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
the wars were very different affairs, the deaths don't take into account the numbers/tons of bombs dropped or the intensity of the conflict, that is to say 'Nam was counter insurgency/limited conventional where as WW2 was 100% conventional total war, not to mention the great lack of tank support in 'Nam and the great air power used in it;'s place, really the wars were so different as to place simple numerical comparisons invalid, plus a number of the rounds fired there include ones fired with M14s..

anyway, on real terms, you can't turn back the clock, so don't try, if you want to dump the '16 and have nice heavy M14, why not dump that and have the Garand back/ or a bolt action Springfield of the 1st WW, or a rifled musket of your civil war, or the smoothbore musket before then?

times change, opposing armies develop and equip with new and innovative guns and the rules of warfare change, full-auto and small calibres had been on the drawing boards for decades before the M16 was taken into service, the nature of warfare had changed for accurate rifle fire at the start of the century to sharp firefights in close combat with massive armour, artillery and air support of the end of the 20th century

now adays if the enemy is more than a few hundred metres away you call in for fire support from combined arms, be it air or arty support if not tanks in the area, your infantry gun doesn't need to be effective out past a few hundred meters, that is only needed on the weight of fire role, i.e. section machineguns and sniper teams, and anything that reduced the weight carried is a good thing, I've got stats somewhere but lets say 'generic' assault rifle of 5.56mm can be fully loaded and have 3 full mags and be the same weight as an empty 7.62 gun

as for stopping power that really is of little actual use, this isn't hunting where you're up against bug heavy wild animals, the people that are going to be shot with modern guns will be approx 100 to 200lbs of thin skin and small bones, and in army terms a casualty is just that, not specifically a KIA or a wounded, but a catchall term for both, if your best mate is killed next to you, you're going to get revenge, but if he's hit and bleeding shouting for your help.. well, you're suddenly torn between helping him and going and getting the guy who shot him

on an operational level, wounded men cause great trouble for the army, medical facilities, transport and logistics, it's actually better to wound rather than kill in the end, you put a man down and he's down, dead or bleeding and in shock still has the same effect short term effect to you as a guy on the ground, but to their side if a big difference

Israel is blamed of this very often, by using 5.56mm bullets, it is said, they cause far more wounds than they would with other ammo calibres, the bullet fragments when hitting the body (especially bone) and has a dum-dum effect shredding tissue and making it hard to extract from the body. I should point out that 5.56mm ammo has vastly different fragmentation properties depending on what manufacture you get it from and what specifications it is made to, it can be designed to be more dum-dum or less if you really want, the blanket accusation against 5.56mm is made by pressure groups hearing stories, not technicians

as for bullets going straight through people in Somalia, well, they would be at the lower end of the 100-200lbs scale sated earlier (the US Army slang for them was 'skinnys' as they were so malnourished and thin) and the newish ammo being used at that time was, I think, 'green tip' 5.56mm (or some other code-colour) as the army was moving towards amore environmentally friendly bullet, no lead and less other harmful chemicals etc as, mainly, it caused health and safety troubles for them using it on firing ranges back in the USA and if you don't fire in practice with the same ammo you use in combat then what's the point etc, it wasn't 'real' armour piercing (what point would it be, few armies wear body armour and they had practically zero armoured vehicles to speak of)

in conclusion? the smaller the bullet the better, as I said above, if you're going to go back to muskets remember that they used 13-20mm balls fired at low velocity, today we fire 5.56 at very high velocity (and Russia 5.45 at similar speeds) then guns were about killing people, now it's more about projection of power, thatis to say keeping the enemies head down, stopping them from shooting by overwhelming them withthe weight of your fire etc, only killing them if you catch them in the open or up close, the actual killing is done by air and arty assets, the infantry directthese and provide covering fire and close combat specialisation

you have to remember that even in WW1 bayonet training got more time and emphasis in combat than rifle shooting did, they worked din the old premise that guns were the things you used until you got to 'cold steel' ranges, it seem today that many people think of infantry rifles as being the most useful things in the army, with all supporting arms being secondary, in reality they are only useful at short range, everything else is done by air and indirect fire support, that's th way things have moved and to ignor eit and worl by 50+ year old tactics is to invite the sort of scenes in WW1 where old tactics were used against modern weapons

the infantry gun is becoming more of a sidearm to be used in addition to their specialist weapons, fire support radios and designators, squad machineguns and rocket/grenade launchers etc. the reason why NCOs and offices carry SMGs and carbines is to give them a smaller gun so they have more space and effort designated to using tactical weapons and directing the battle, the modern soldier is going in that direction, smaller gun + bigger responsibilities and flexibility.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2003 7:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I think a better question would be, shouldn't the US have come up with an assault rifle cartridge first and kepth the far more powerful 30-06 for Machine Gun and Sniper use, skipping the 7.62x51 NATO altogether? For a decent sniper the 30-06 with the right ammunition has half again the range of the 7.62x51. It has more power and greater penetration qualities for machine gun use especially with 180 grain bullets. If we are only considering a cartridge for a midway point between the 5.56 and the .50 BMG and not for general use, cartridge length and weight are much less of a consideration.

In my opinion the perfect assault rifle cartridge would be a 6mm 100 grain bullet at 3000 fps*, about the same muzzle energy and recoil as the 5.56 but stabilized to about 500 metres rather than effectively at 300**.

* Of corse I would want a bullet with the most inhumane yaw and fragmentation qualities I can get, because I'm a bastard like that.

** The 5.56 will hit just fine out to 600 Metres but the bullets just punch a small hole and ask the target politely to bleed to death. The wonderful "Dum-Dum" Effects that the 5.56 is known for do not come into play. The 5.56 does not carry with it a great deal of momentum and it has a rather mediocre ballistic coefficient, so it loses energy far more rapidly than a 6-6.5mm bullet

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2003 4:34 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
I'd personally take the M-14, just cause thusfar the M-16 hasn't impressed me much. Go figure.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:13 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Actually you can make the Garand automatic. Read Band of Brothers, it mentions that Winters carried an M1 with him to Korea that had been tinkered so that it could fire on automatic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 12:33 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
any semi automatic gun can be converted to fully automatic

befor ethe ATF decide to raid me, it's a technicality, you *can* do it but you basicly need to take apart and gunsmith it up with a few extra catches and rivits here, a few less there, note the Glock 18 full auto pistol (as used by Morphious in Matrix2), a few parts away from the Glock 17 semi-auto, and during the Malayia emergancy th eenglish special forces who technically weren't there converted semi-automatic combat shotguns into fully automatic shotguns, good for jungle fighting

a full auto garand is a pretty bad idea, even an automatic shotgun has around 7 to 10 *big* rounds, the Garand is hardly suited to full auto, just nab a lmg or smg if you're that concerned about short range/sustained firepower, or realise a commanders job is not to dig holes and shoot men, thats' what his army is for

anyway, I'm waiting to get my hands on the <u>NEW</u> SA80A2, whispered to be the best gun in the world at the moment...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
A garand kicks your ass in moderately paced semi-auto fire, if you torched off a burst from one in full auto, no telling where you'd end up with it aimed. The BAR weighs nearly twice as much, is DESIGNED for full auto, and only the most hardcore can control it.

The STEN is more controllable, but it is heavier. more of a true LMG than an Automatic Rifle. The BAR was invented with the idea in mind that you could make an Assault Rifle in a full-power Rifle cartridge (not only that, the most powerful standard-issue cartridges ever adopted). That would have worked great if the average serviceman had been a 6'5" 270 lb Highly Trained and Highly Motivated Marine.

I still think the BAR could be a great weapon for special forces maniacs. Nothing says Hardcore like a BAR.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 3:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
you mean BREN there, but yes, the BAR is an automatic rifle, not a light machine gun, it was designed for 'walking fire' tactics of WW1 (it's getting on for 90 years old therefore) it's a full-auto rifle (heavier and a bipod and larger mag etc) rather than a cut down machine gun, the bren and bar came from different ends of the weapons spectrum, not quite meeting in the middle etc

US special forces made much use of soviet RPD LMGs in combat as it bridged the gap between the new m16/xm177, the heavy and low mag capacity BAR and a even heavier M60 general purpose machine gun (GPMGs tend to be half way between a full heavy machine gun and a light machine gun) basicly the RPD had a huge mag, being a drum of belt fed rounds that were the AK style 7.62x39mm short soviet infantry rounds, easy to nab on raids and lightto carry yet still the full 7.62 size for getting through jungle canopy and flesh, also it was very light and being soviet, easy to maintain

this was the case where firepower was more important than accuracy of fire tho, (ambushes, close combat firefights etc) if you want accurate fire you have snipers with sniper rifles, for weight of fire you have troopers with full and semi auto lead throwers, you're not trying to hit, just scare, percentage wise, the number of bullets fired compared to teh casulties taken by bullets gives you around a 0% chance of being hit/killed out to a number of decimal places, but i'm pretty sure that anyone who'd been under fire will tell you they didnt' like it all the same, gunfire is psychological more than anything

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 4:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1415
Location: Scotland
In Vietnam, I would have to say that I would rather have an M14 than an M16a1 in my hands. The M14 is more accurate, most likely more reliable, and encourages semi-automatic fire much more. Another point, is that the M14 is basically a sniper rifle. Put a scope and bi-pod on there, and you have a makeshift long-range rifle. But of course, there is the M21 to fill in that need. (with the adjustable cheek rest, I think.)

I think the main problem with the M16a1 in Vietnam was that it was proclaimed to be the "self cleaning rifle" so I'm guessing that the soldiers just didn't bother cleaning their weapons... and then, yeah.

Oh, and for the record, I'm an... Image

_________________
Science! ...but what is... Science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:20 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
H00AH!
This is sort of off subject, but I just got a brand spanking new M1 Garand for 790$, made by Lithgow. Beautiful stock and everything. Not only that, I get to go shooting tomorrow morning.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:32 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Great arguments for both weapons, I'd say. Still, I have to go with the M14.

Congrats, Rupert! Welcome to the M1 Club. Mine is WWII vintage. It's my grandfather's rifle he used while fighting against the Germans from June 6, 1944 (yes, he was there at D-day. Omaha beach, no less) until February 12, 1945, when he was hit in the leg by shrapnel from an exploding 88. It's worn, but it still works. Such is the genius of Garand.

Glad to see everyone enjoys the weapon discussions. Any ideas for the next one? I'm thinking of the classic and longest lasting argument: The Colt .45 vs the Baretta 9mm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:28 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1415
Location: Scotland
Rupert The Airborne Rat wrote:
H00AH!
This is sort of off subject, but I just got a brand spanking new M1 Garand for 790$, made by Lithgow. Beautiful stock and everything. Not only that, I get to go shooting tomorrow morning.
:o
...
...
...
:cry:

You'll give your old pal Asmo a go, right???

Anyway, a friend of mine has a Kar-98, which is quite nice.
Gir wrote:
Glad to see everyone enjoys the weapon discussions. Any ideas for the next one? I'm thinking of the classic and longest lasting argument: The Colt .45 vs the Baretta 9mm.

Good choice.

Colt M1911a1 .45 > Beretta M92f 9mm parabellum.

_________________
Science! ...but what is... Science.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:43 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Quote:
Colt M1911a1 .45 > Beretta M92f 9mm parabellum.


yeah, if you're a cowboy operating a century ago

combat pistols are not meant to be used, they're there for peopel who aren't meant to be doing any shooting in the first place, if anything they are little mor ethana badge of authority, like the sword it's only recently that non-officers have even been allowed to use them in warfare

basicly, 9mm = smaller so you get more bullets out faster and with less recoil than the antiquated .45, lets face it, a cowboy bullet for cowboy guns. the 9mm is a universal round for SMG and pistols, both armed forces and armed police that is in use worldwide, ONLY the USA and it's direct dependants use the .45

(apart from a large number of Imperial British officers up to ww2 who had old service revolvers in .455, hardcore)

anyway, i've got an interview with the British Army's officer recruiting colonel in 2 weeks, so i'll soon see you on the frontlines Rupert.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
OK as to the 1911 vs Beretta debate, I am surprised at Ollie taking that stand. Beretta makes a barely adequate firearm, the 1911 was the most reliable Semi-Auto handgun design until Gaston Glock showed up with the Model-17, If the US military bought Glocks in 9mm I could deal with that, but Berettas are crap. Seen too damned many at the firing range who couldn't get through a magazine without a stoppage. On top of that, I have a friend who shoots handgun competitions and does very well with his 1911, he can't hit the broad side of a barn with a Beretta.

In addition, the only pistol cartridge that's ever been shown to be a good man-stopper with Military Ball ammunition is the "Antiquated" .45 ACP. That's due to the fact that you don't have to have expansion with a .45. The wound channel is already very wide. I don't even understand the idea of carrying a gun that you don't plan on using. If that's all you have, it might be the only thing between you and a funeral, For my money, I want a gun I can bet my life on.

P.S.> Sorry about the Bren/Sten mixup.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:18 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
I like the 1911 better than the Beretta. But that's just personal preference.

OMFG My new M1 Garand kicks fucking ass! Just went shooting this morning, put 48 rounds through her, no jams, accurate, and barely kicked at all! Some muzzle flip, but that's about it. And then there's that cool-ass PING sound at the end of a clip. Holy fuck, fucking awesome rifle.

BTW, her name is Meia Claire Garand.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
God, Rupe, we missed you and your naming of your guns...

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
The Garand could have been perfect as a High-Power support weapon if they had just fitted it with 20 round magazines

(Some have been M-14-ized by adding M-14 Mags and convertiing to 7.62 but 20 rounds of 30-06 would have been much cooler.)

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:14 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 23
Location: Mexico
To put it simple: Historically speaking, no regular army (no matter how much advanced weaponry or troops deployed) can outrun a disciplined persistent guerilla. The proof is Vietnam, and, mark my words, the US will be forced to leave Iraq for the same reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group