Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

EBR Builder, that is a great 1000 yard score for a semi auto. Was that an as issued EBR?

On Stan, lets face it biggest problem there is same as here. Borders need to be shut down. You shut down the crossings and you shut down the problems coming in. Pay off the tribes who smuggle as a way off life, give them another job to do. I know thier culture has been to smuggle for thousands of years but money coming in is money coming in. Get the folks working for good salaries in countryside and bad guys go away. Trick is to make them think they are working for themselves not just getting free money. Hearts and minds works here as they have no more in common with Arabs as Americans. Just make sure they know we go when the T's go.

The Afghans hate the T's as much as we do. They are fairly tired of every outsider.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match. It was only the second time the shooter had fired the weapon and reviews so far from the USAR rifle team have been very favorable. I just wanted to answer your question but stay out of the mud slinging. </div></div>

That's pretty freakin' good by any standard.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The EBR that was shot at Perry was not an issue rifle, it was a full match rifle built with a medium heavy SEI barrel, gas system and all the match mods and tweeks. The ammo was standard M118LR Lake City issue.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Lindy, they probably shot against Boltguns and the target was probably the Palma Target which has roughly a 44" ten ring. Best scores are usually close to perfect numerical score with many times X count deciding difference. Thats why the F TR Target is roughly half the size of the Palma target. Makes things a bit different
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Yeah, Mike, I looked at this year's scores, and in most of the matches, that score would have placed in the bottom third. You made the point I was trying to make - against a bolt gun, it's not a good score.

The M14 was a good battle rifle - and I like it, mostly because the Marine Corps handed me one in boot camp and I shot a high Expert score with it.

In a better stock, it's a better battle rifle. It is not and is not going to be a precision rifle.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I don't know...untested platform (on that stage) with an unfamiliar shooter...Does anyone remember how the ARs performed their first time at CP? I'm not saying the EBR can do any better but its hardly horrible.

I once placed in the bottom third against some of the best shooters on the planet and I was pretty ecstatic.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Being educated means to prefer the best not only to the worst but to the second best." -- William Lyon Phelps

You can put lipstick on a pig - but it's still a pig.
</div></div>

True but Phelps also said this so I don't think I'd quote him too often LOL...

"If at first you don't succeed, find out if the loser gets anything."

Oops, looks like I was slow on the draw.

 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bmt</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
032210at_mtnwolf168_800.JPG


TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan

</div></div>

Curious. . .

Is the scope on a cantilever mount?</div></div>

Just an FYI, that is probably a fake picture, because Rangers don't were patches in the field...not even in training so I highly doubt that is real, as well I have worked with all 3 BN and I have never seen an M14 with them... they can afford the better stuff. Maybe an assaulter line unit has a few, but the certainly not the sniper cells. So I can say they aren't even curious about it as it has never once came up. </div></div>
Doesn't look like a fake to me.

-Regular Army unit's are issued M14 rifles and that camo scheme.
-Soldier in that picture had a Ranger unit combat patch on his right sleeve. In no way shape or form does that conclude he is currently serving in Ranger Regiment

Looks to me to be a soldier who has served with Ranger Regiment in combat and is now serving in a Regular Army unit in Afghanistan.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match</div></div>

Years ago, some time in the mid 80s I was shooting a 1000 yard team match at 29 Palms.

We were shooting next to the AMU team. They were using NM M14s (irons). There combined score was 799/800 with a footlocker full of Xs.

More then once, in 1000 yard matches I beat my Any Rifle/Any Sight & Any rifle Iron sights, scores with my M1A. I was using a Model 70 bolt gun in 300 WM. Granted when the wind was being normal wind at 29 Palms the 300 did better.

I went to Sniper School and taught Sniper Schools with the M21. There is not a damn thing wrong with that rifle system.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match</div></div>


I think it can be argued that there is a bit of misrepresentation on the quote about the EBR. The fact that the "EBR" was extensively modified for accuracy much beyond an issue EBR wasn't mentioned until asked.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

There is a vast difference between the NM M14s used by the AMU, which were periodically rebedded and rebuilt by the AMU armorers, and the systems used in the field.

The M21 was a good system in its day. Its day is done.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Does anyone remember how the ARs performed their first time at CP? </div></div>

Irrelevant. The ARs were at the starting point of their development, and the M14 is at the end.



 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match</div></div>


I think it can be argued that there is a bit of misrepresentation on the quote about the EBR.
The fact that the "EBR" was extensively modified for accuracy much beyond an issue EBR wasn't mentioned until asked. </div></div>

There is no misrepresentation.

When I first mentioned the rifles appearance at Camp Parry I clearly stated a NM version would be there. LINK

NM version are issue rifles that have been extensively modified.

In this case the modification is basically an issue SEI crazy Horse M14 bolted into a new SAGE stock.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I don't recall anywhere in this thread that anyone said that the M14 would out-shoot a bolt gun. This is simply not the case and the reason we have the M24 and now the XM2010 and are working the requirments for the PSR, all bolt guns. Bolt guns and gas guns are used in different rolls and each have their strengths and weaknesses. This thread started out about the fielding of an upgraded M14 and turned into a battle of the egos. I have several of each platform and enjoy them all.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: kraigWY</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Years ago, some time in the mid 80s I was shooting a 1000 yard team match at 29 Palms.

We were shooting next to the AMU team. They were using NM M14s (irons). There combined score was 799/800 with a footlocker full of Xs.

More then once, in 1000 yard matches I beat my Any Rifle/Any Sight & Any rifle Iron sights, scores with my M1A. I was using a Model 70 bolt gun in 300 WM. Granted when the wind was being normal wind at 29 Palms the 300 did better.

I went to Sniper School and taught Sniper Schools with the M21. There is not a damn thing wrong with that rifle system. </div></div>

Snipers don't have to time the barrel and lap the bolt to get that magic headspace. Snipers don't need to easily change barrels because someone else is doing it. I was an assistant Armorer once (only because I was in HC company) and was only allowed to change hand guards, thats also pretty much sums up what a real Armorer does too, because he too was not even allowed to measure headspace and change a bolt on an AR! With AR's you just slap in a new bolt and barrel, no magic headspace needed. Replacing any part on the AR is pretty much plug and play.

Back when I was in, only "Special Guys" wore scopes on their guns. Now just about every Infantry Grunt has an ACOG or other magnified optic. The M14 does not make scoping easy.

Also Snipers don't have to manufacture guns, so they don't know the difficulties of making an M14. Go to any machinist (even the non-gun ones) and have him share his thoughts with you on what it will take to manufacture an AR and that of an M14, you will see the AR are way cheaper to produce. My buddy believes an AR only takes about $100 to make in mass quantities and that's even with labor involved. He said even a simple part such as a Car Alternator is much more complicated.

The AR is naturally more accurate, has a fixed mount on the upper, has locking lugs that does a good job with keeping things tight, and has a simple gas tube on top of barrel instead of quarter-honda-engine.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match</div></div>


I think it can be argued that there is a bit of misrepresentation on the quote about the EBR.
The fact that the "EBR" was extensively modified for accuracy much beyond an issue EBR wasn't mentioned until asked. </div></div>

There is no misrepresentation.
When I first mentioned the rifles appearance at Camp Parry I clearly stated a NM version would be there.

NM version are issue rifles that have been extensively modified.

In this case the modification is basically an issue S

EI crazy Horse M14 bolted into a new SAGE stock. </div></div>

Oh right and everyone is going to look through all the pages to see where YOU said it would be a NM version instead of just reading a representative from the builder. Not saying it was intentional, just that when someone says I did _________ at camp perry with my M14. You're leaving out some important info... if it is really a M21 or a highly modified, non standard issue EBR
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread started out about the fielding of an upgraded M14... </div></div>

A very successful fielding of an upgraded M14.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Oh right and everyone is going to look through all the pages to see where YOU said it would be a NM version...</div></div>

Maybe YOU should have gone back and looked at what was
said before YOU made YOUR claim about misrepresentation.

I'm just saying.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Oh right and everyone is going to look through all the pages to see where YOU said it would be a NM version...</div></div>

Maybe YOU should have gone back and looked at what was
said before YOU made YOUR claim about misrepresentation.

I'm just saying. </div></div>


Yup- it's the reader's job to ensure they look through 11 pages to see where someone not even a representative of the company clarified it was not an as issued EBR

I'm just curious, do you ever come up for air?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Did any of you guys come up for air or stop comparing weenies long enough to watch one of our boys receive the CMH a few minutes ago?

Men like that win wars.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did any of you guys come up for air or stop comparing weenies long enough to watch one of our boys receive the CMH a few minutes ago?

Men like that win wars. </div></div>

Yes, and was shocked at the way Obama acted. He was POTUS for once in my book.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did any of you guys come up for air or stop comparing weenies long enough to watch one of our boys receive the CMH a few minutes ago?

Men like that win wars. </div></div>

Yes, and was shocked at the way Obama acted. He was POTUS for once in my book. </div></div>

+1
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

It's honorable to see someone get the MOH, but we can't watch and contribute to this thread at the same time?

Why is it that every discussion is perceived as a "Dick Measuring Contest" to all you Hall-Monitors out there?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did any of you guys come up for air or stop comparing weenies long enough to watch one of our boys receive the CMH a few minutes ago?

Men like that win wars. </div></div>

lol I'm not servicing anyone or anything here.

Yes, I watched the entire thing. There should be more CMOH's awarded than there are. Historically, for the duration and number of troops served, we have a shockingly low rate of DSC's and CMOH's, even SSM's. IMO, this is not a result of a lack of actions deserving, but a combination of artificially raised standards of award and subjecting candidates to criteria not stipulated for the award (personal life conditions, criminal record, past military record).

The irony is, while they are making the DSC's and CMOH harder and harder to get, applying standards beyond that specified... they are cheapening the lower awards. Giving BSM's for simply doing your job as an E-7 or above and handing out ACM's like it's a campaign medal to E-6 and below.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's honorable to see someone get the MOH, but we can't watch and contribute to this thread at the same time?

Why is it that every discussion is perceived as a "Dick Measuring Contest" to all you Hall-Monitors out there? </div></div>

It was a rhetorical comment merely intended to draw attention to the event. Now put that thing away before you poke an eye out
grin.gif
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did any of you guys come up for air or stop comparing weenies long enough to watch one of our boys receive the CMH a few minutes ago?

Men like that win wars. </div></div>

Yes, and was shocked at the way Obama acted. He was POTUS for once in my book. </div></div>

I was very impressed with his conduct, his words and his genuine sincerity... and if that wasn't genuine, he's one hell of a good actor.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There should be more CMOH's awarded than there are. </div></div>

That's for certain.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...if that wasn't genuine, he's one hell of a good actor. </div></div>

+1
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Of all the guys responding to this thread, how many were really trained on M14's and M16's and carried them to war? I don't mean a 2-5 day course, I mean trained.
It's real easy to pimp one over the other if you have never been trained or carried/used both.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the guys responding to this thread, how many were really trained on M14's and M16's and carried them to war? I don't mean a 2-5 day course, I mean trained.
It's real easy to pimp one over the other if you have never been trained or carried/used both. </div></div>


Your point?

Navy SEALs can carry Garands to war and still win the battles. Were you ever in the service? We don't train as much with our personal rifles as you think we do. Most of the time it's all PT and Road Marches, and if we do train in warefare, the individual weapon is put on the back burner, as it should.
 
Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the guys responding to this thread, how many were really trained on M14's and M16's and carried them to war? </div></div>

Can you narrow it down to modernized M14s, M16s and M4s?

Old school M14s are not the same as the TACOM M14EBR-RI and
the current crop of M16s and M4s are better than Nam era rifles.



 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the guys responding to this thread, how many were really trained on M14's and M16's and carried them to war? I don't mean a 2-5 day course, I mean trained.
It's real easy to pimp one over the other if you have never been trained or carried/used both. </div></div>


Your point?

Navy SEALs can carry Garands to war and still win the battles. Were you ever in the service? We don't train as much with our personal rifles as you think we do. Most of the time it's all PT and Road Marches, and if we do train in warefare, the individual weapon is put on the back burner, as it should. </div></div>

That has to be one of the most incredibly off track posts I've seen yet.

Everything you do as an infantryman (assuming that is what you do) is for nothing if you don't have an individual weapon- an Rtard can go kill people without tactical training- a tactical expert can't do a whole hell of a lot without a weapon.

I really cannot believe I just read such ignorance.


EDIT: Really- that is perhaps the worst thing I've read on this entire page. How long have you been in? What branch? MOS? How do you expect to capture and hold an objective if you can't provide effective fire? Garand? REALLY??? That's only slightly less ridiculous than saying a Springfield 1903.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Time to take this topic off my watched topics list. Going in way too many different directions and some threads just need to die already.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of all the guys responding to this thread, how many were really trained on M14's and M16's and carried them to war? I don't mean a 2-5 day course, I mean trained.
It's real easy to pimp one over the other if you have never been trained or carried/used both. </div></div>


Your point?

Were you ever in the service? </div></div>

Recalled 3 times, you do the math. You?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you narrow it down </div></div>
Just wanting to know the training level respondents have had. I've always found folks that were never 100% trained on a system, may be missing more than they know. Plus unless you have had each system in the same environment how do you know what they will or won't do. A nice flat range has nothing to do with trying to tag someone behind cover.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you narrow it down </div></div>
Just wanting to know the training level respondents have had. I've always found folks that were never 100% trained on a system, may be missing more than they know. Plus unless you have had each system in the same environment how do you know what they will or won't do. A nice flat range has nothing to do with trying to tag someone behind cover. </div></div>

Have you posed the same question in other threads?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That has to be one of the most incredibly off track posts I've seen yet.

Everything you do as an infantryman (assuming that is what you do) is for nothing if you don't have an individual weapon- an Rtard can go kill people without tactical training- a tactical expert can't do a whole hell of a lot without a weapon.

I really cannot believe I just read such ignorance.


EDIT: Really- that is perhaps the worst thing I've read on this entire page. How long have you been in? What branch? MOS? How do you expect to capture and hold an objective if you can't provide effective fire? Garand? REALLY??? That's only slightly less ridiculous than saying a Springfield 1903. </div></div>

Yes I am sure you have your idea of what warefare is inside your head. However real life is a lot different.

If you get the other guy to keep his head down because your unit successfully laid down suppressive fire with the main MG, then you already won. Does not matter if most of the squad/platoon have M16s or Garands.

I am not in any more, I was a 12B and we sometimes get broken up and assign to 11B units. We did not really train with individual weapons as much as you think we did.

We trained tactics, trained conditioning, mostly conditioning... train fire and moving while most of the long range suppressor fire came from the M60's and Mah Deauces. M203, AT4's and LAWs were also emulated. We emulating firing mortars (I was not a mortar man) and moving after the mortar was fired.

Reality is this: you can lay down all the small arms fire you want, but for the most part what takes out an enemy position is a tank, mortar, or even tube launchers such as an AT4. Key is to get close enough to use these weapons.

"Cover me while I move" works just as well with all weapons but better if it is a 556 M4 because a gun that shoots a 556 round is lighter so you can move easier, and the 556 round is smaller so therefore you can carry more rounds to give more suppressive fire. More suppressive fire means more likely the other guy keeps his head down your unit can move easier and set up the next FOREWARD machine gun position. REPEAT until you are on top of the enemy.

The Garand is not going to provide as good as covering fire as say a M16 because of the decrease payload, but it can be done. Most of your covering fire will be coming from Machine Guns such as M1919's, M60, M240, and M2's anyways. If your tactics are sound, and you understand fire and moving, coordinated, disciplined, etc, it can be done. Tell these guys it can't be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%A9court_Manor_Assault. If they had mortars the job would have been easier.

However, again we are talking about DMR weapons here that shoot a .308 round to put longer range support in the hands of a few men at the squad level. Original question was M16 vs. M14 or if we carried it. But if you want to get off topic, I can, and I can do you the favor of even keeping it off topic. Not my job to get a thread back on topic.

Let me ask you this? If you are in, how much time do you spend PT comparing to firing real ammo? How much more blanks do you use compared to real ammo?

Edit: to make link hot
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Oh by the way, I can understand if you guys still think the way to fight a war is World-War-One style tactics of trench Warfare where we train heavily with our individual weapons and trade pot shots at 1000 yards. Nothing wrong with this kind of thinking at all (if you don't have to fight a war).

Lucky for Captain Winters and for America that Winters knew he was fighting in WWII and not WWI (See my link 2 post above).
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

That has to be one of the most incredibly off track posts I've seen yet.

Everything you do as an infantryman (assuming that is what you do) is for nothing if you don't have an individual weapon- an Rtard can go kill people without tactical training- a tactical expert can't do a whole hell of a lot without a weapon.

I really cannot believe I just read such ignorance.


EDIT: Really- that is perhaps the worst thing I've read on this entire page. How long have you been in? What branch? MOS? How do you expect to capture and hold an objective if you can't provide effective fire? Garand? REALLY??? That's only slightly less ridiculous than saying a Springfield 1903. </div></div>

Yes I am sure you have your idea of what warefare is inside your head. However real life is a lot different.

If you get the other guy to keep his head down because your unit successfully laid down suppressive fire with the main MG, then you already won. Does not matter if most of the squad/platoon have M16s or Garands.

I am not in any more, I was a 12B and we sometimes get broken up and assign to 11B units. We did not really train with individual weapons as much as you think we did.

We trained tactics, trained conditioning, mostly conditioning... train fire and moving while most of the long range suppressor fire came from the M60's and Mah Deauces. M203, AT4's and LAWs were also emulated. We emulating firing mortars (I was not a mortar man) and moving after the mortar was fired.

Reality is this: you can lay down all the small arms fire you want, but for the most part what takes out an enemy position is a tank, mortar, or even tube launchers such as an AT4. Key is to get close enough to use these weapons.

"Cover me while I move" works just as well with all weapons but better if it is a 556 M4 because a gun that shoots a 556 round is lighter so you can move easier, and the 556 round is smaller so therefore you can carry more rounds to give more suppressive fire. More suppressive fire means more likely the other guy keeps his head down your unit can move easier and set up the next FOREWARD machine gun position. REPEAT until you are on top of the enemy.

The Garand is not going to provide as good as covering fire as say a M16 because of the decrease payload, but it can be done. Most of your covering fire will be coming from Machine Guns such as M1919's, M60, M240, and M2's anyways. If your tactics are sound, and you understand fire and moving, coordinated, disciplined, etc, it can be done. Tell these guys it can't be done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brécourt_Manor_Assault. If they had mortars the job would have been easier.

However, again we are talking about DMR weapons here that shoot a .308 round to put longer range support in the hands of a few men at the squad level. Original question was M16 vs. M14 or if we carried it. But if you want to get off topic, I can, and I can do you the favor of even keeping it off topic. Not my job to get a thread back on topic.

Let me ask you this? If you are in, how much time do you spend PT comparing to firing real ammo? How much more blanks do you use compared to real ammo? </div></div>

I think you are only talking about one form of combat. Bottom line is it takes many different shapes on the battlefield and from what you did, that was how it was. I got out in 07 but due to the mission, we had to keep our skills very sharp with our battle rifles and carbines. Sure we PT a hell of a lot, but I remember putting down almost as much time at the range as I do remember shooting the sh*t out of my weapon. From your perspective you were the hammer. Dont forget the scalpel though. Those guys needed a lot of training with their small arms weapons systems. The whole spray and pray mentality developed in vietnam because a lot of times you couldnt see the enemy. In Iraq and AFG when you can see a little further out, something like an EBR will get the job done for now. Not to say something better will come along, but right now its a cheaper and faster solution for whats needed until a better system can be implemented.

PS, Ive got some friends at the 38th Rescue Sqd, 31st SOS, 320th STS and 17th SOS that use the EBR. They are the ones that turned me on to getting the system after they took it on some of their ops. A lot of them say its well worth it and coming from guys I respect and trust with my life, thats saying something.

EBR all the way. =P
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh forgot to add 12 BRAVOS LEAD THE WAY.. HUUUUUUAAAAHHHH! </div></div>

Actually... SOCOM leads the way... Along with paratroopers... but yeah sure if you want to believe that, be my guest
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EricCartmann</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh forgot to add 12 BRAVOS BLOW THINGS UP.. HUUUUUUAAAAHHHH! </div></div>

Fixed it for you . . . .
grin.gif