Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

OK, let us go back for a minute hear. I have a question. I am old school as far as the m14 is concerned, however scope mounting is a PITA. In addition I am used to glass bedding. so hear are my questions.
if you drop a match grade m1a into a troy chasis stock will it shoot better or worse than if it was in a gi fiberglass stock.
what about the sage system.
are these stocks just there to add mounting flexibility or due they aid in accuracy?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

x-files-believe1.jpg
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His non-associate - associates gave him the inside scoop... and lord knows, 5000 units sold they are never wrong.

The M14 is IN ! those other, silly SR25 types, are OUT !

They are being replaced by the FN series... so eat it SRs
wink.gif


Long live the M14,<span style="font-style: italic"> just like good ole dad used.</span>

</div></div>

That was awesome.
 
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">
Comments:</div></div>

LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL!
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His non-associate - associates gave him the inside scoop... and lord knows, 5000 units sold they are never wrong.

The M14 is IN ! those other, silly SR25 types, are OUT !

They are being replaced by the FN series... so eat it SRs
wink.gif


Long live the M14,<span style="font-style: italic"> just like good ole dad used.</span>

</div></div>

He must have gotten the info from the same secret squirrel who taught him how to shoot from this awesome tactical modified sitting position, lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rs6Jj30TOk
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DAFAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... my questions.
if you drop a match grade m1a into a troy chasis stock will it shoot better or worse than if it was in a gi fiberglass stock.
what about the sage system.

are these stocks just there to add mounting flexibility or due they aid in accuracy? </div></div>

DAFAR, I'll take a wag at answering your question.

The rifle will have the potential to be more accurate when installed in the SAGE chassis. Tension bedding and a semi free floated barrel forward of the op rod guide block help with accuracy. The barrel band is replaced with a crush washer that unitizes the gas system.

The TROY MCS also offers tension bedding, but it uses some kind of barrel band similar to how a band is used on match grade M1A. The TROY can be made accurate, but it takes some tweaking.



The TROY is a usually heavier than the SAGE and it's full length top rail makes it a little easier to scope. However, your iron sights are no longer available... they are replaced by flip-up BUIS.

The SAGE owner can pick and choose from a few different methods to mount optics and you can still use the original iron sights.

I hope that helped.

H2O
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ADT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well seeing that FNH was dropped I'm not so sure about the Mk-17 </div></div>

Whats the story? Who droped it? When?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Prairie Dog Dundee</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ADT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well seeing that FNH was dropped I'm not so sure about the Mk-17 </div></div>

Whats the story? Who droped it? When? </div></div> SOCOM dropped the SCAR project
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The beat goes on...

As of 05/2010 TACOM Rock Island Arsenal had converted
5000 M14 rifles into the M14EBR-RI configuration.

TACOM now has funding to convert an additional 1,200 rifles.


Also, a standard M14EBR-RI and a NM version will be at Camp Perry 7-14 Aug.

IMGP0321.jpg
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Did the M14s win at Camp Perry?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The beat goes on...

As of 05/2010 TACOM Rock Island Arsenal had converted
5000 M14 rifles into the M14EBR-RI configuration.

TACOM now has funding to convert an additional 1,200 rifles.


Also, a standard M14EBR-RI and a NM version will be at Camp Perry 7-14 Aug.

IMGP0315.jpg
</div></div>
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LRI</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the M14s win at Camp Perry?
</div></div>

The results should be available on the NRA website, I don't know what class they shot in though.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: turbosa22c</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hey will that sage magpul stock swap with the telescopic one? </div></div>

It's not available in that form. The only way to get the SAGE EBR stock with the PRS2
butt stock is by having Smith Enterprise, Inc. build an M14 EBR-RINM-SEI rifle for you.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I'm coming to the conclusion I will have to buy an EBR, an AR10, and an FAL, shoot them for awhile and figure out what works best for me.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

You might wish to consider that a major deficiency which the military has with the M16/M4 is the inability to use expanding bullets, which does not apply to your personal use.

If expanding bullets would sufficiently extend the effectiveness of the M16/M4 system, it would sure be a lot cheaper to go that route than going up to a .308 system, not to mention the ability to carry a lot more ammunition for the same weight and ease of procurement for parts and accessories.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I've been following H20man's pro-MIA/M14 rant for some time and thought I would chime in. His fixation on that weapon system is a good indicator of his level of martial and/or shooting experience. He is obviously very drunk on the M1A/M14 cool aid.

I have used M14s while I was in the service and while they have their uses(the best of which is launching lines from ship-to-ship!), they have taken a backseat to the AR based .308 systems. I would give a slight reliability edge to the M14s but the inability to reliably mount optics, ergonomics, and REPEATABLE accuracy put them at a severe disadvantage. Weight is another issue, as the M1A in an aftermarket chassis system weights a shit ton(almost what a SAW weighs) and handles like a brick.

I've been at several commands where M14s were available to the troops, most of which were set up like M21s. We did fam-fires and trained with them but they got left behind...SPR type rifles were a better answer. Hell, you could hump an AR and two uppers and it would weigh the same as an M1A/SAGE system.

When I was an LE officer we bought a bunch of M14s and M16s from DRMO for something like $25 a piece. Guess which rifles got thrown in the corner and which ones got used.

Would I feel ill armed if an M14/M1a is all I had. Nope. But if I had a choice, give me a 5.56 or .308 AR.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Outerspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm coming to the conclusion I will have to buy an EBR, an AR10, and an FAL, shoot them for awhile and figure out what works best for me. </div></div>

Don't forget a Saiga in 308 that's been converted, I shot one the other day and it worked quite well (accuracy wasn't too bad with handloads).

If you have the money to buy them all and try them you might as well just keep them all
wink.gif


I don't have that kind of cash so I went with an AR308.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: secondstoryguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been following H20man's pro-MIA/M14 rant for some time and thought I would chime in. His fixation on that weapon system is a good indicator of his level of martial and/or shooting experience. He is obviously very drunk on the M1A/M14 cool aid.

I have used M14s while I was in the service and while they have their uses(the best of which is launching lines from ship-to-ship!), they have taken a backseat to the AR based .308 systems. I would give a slight reliability edge to the M14s but the inability to reliably mount optics, ergonomics, and REPEATABLE accuracy put them at a severe disadvantage. Weight is another issue, as the M1A in an aftermarket chassis system weights a shit ton(almost what a SAW weighs) and handles like a brick.

I've been at several commands where M14s were available to the troops, most of which were set up like M21s. We did fam-fires and trained with them but they got left behind...SPR type rifles were a better answer. Hell, you could hump an AR and two uppers and it would weigh the same as an M1A/SAGE system.

When I was an LE officer we bought a bunch of M14s and M16s from DRMO for something like $25 a piece. Guess which rifles got thrown in the corner and which ones got used.

Would I feel ill armed if an M14/M1a is all I had. Nope. But if I had a choice, give me a 5.56 or .308 AR. </div></div>

You can't carry an AR that doesn't owe its success to the successes and failures of the M1A or Garand. As much as I've been guilty of it myself, comparing the two is apples to oranges especially when you bring $25 DRMO guns into the room. The AR simply wouldn't exist in its current form if it weren't for its predecessors.

AR's on the battlefield have the luxury of logistical, technical, and aftermarket support that the Garand platform never had. The word "space-age" comes to mind when you compare them in that context. Do these old battlesticks fall short in some respects to an AR platform? Well Duh. Is it even close to a fair comparison? Not even remotely close.

Take an AR platform and throw it on a Garand-era battlefield, complete with accompanying logistical support and then compare the two side-by-side. Only then do you have any room to compare with any level of accuracy.

The M1A has survived hell on earth and will live on in numbers too large to determine accurately. Their predecessors will carry the torch until they too are retired for being...well...too unmodern. When that day comes all of the AR groupies will be singing a different tune as their beloved black rifles get pulled from service.

<span style="font-style: italic">Maybe </span>they'll have survived the same hell and deserve the same honorable funeral...a funeral they're NOT getting from the groupies. One thing is certain...you're unlikely to see an AR platform gracing the tomb of the unknowns any time soon.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can't carry an AR that doesn't owe its success to the successes and failures of the M1A or Garand. As much as I've been guilty of it myself, comparing the two is apples to oranges especially when you bring $25 DRMO guns into the room. The AR simply wouldn't exist in its current form if it weren't for its predecessors.

AR's on the battlefield have the luxury of logistical, technical, and aftermarket support that the Garand platform never had. The word "space-age" comes to mind when you compare them in that context. Do these old battlesticks fall short in some respects to an AR platform? Well Duh. Is it even close to a fair comparison? Not even remotely close.

Take an AR platform and throw it on a Garand-era battlefield, complete with accompanying logistical support and then compare the two side-by-side. Only then do you have any room to compare with any level of accuracy.

The M1A has survived hell on earth and will live on in numbers too large to determine accurately. Their predecessors will carry the torch until they too are retired for being...well...too unmodern. When that day comes all of the AR groupies will be singing a different tune as their beloved black rifles get pulled from service.

<span style="font-style: italic">Maybe </span>they'll have survived the same hell and deserve the same honorable funeral...a funeral they're NOT getting from the groupies. One thing is certain...you're unlikely to see an AR platform gracing the tomb of the unknowns any time soon. </div></div>

That's a great eulogy and there's no doubt the Garands and M14s were great <span style="font-style: italic">in their time</span>. But that's kind of irrelevant to the discussion of which one is more suited to today's combat environment. I'm not an AR fanboy - but as 2ndstoryguy said, there are a LOT of downsides to the M1A/M14 platform that the current AR .308s don't have. And I'd bet the reliability issue is fairly overblown if you ask the operators using them.

The REAL question is: Are the AR pattern .308 battle rifles and DMRs being overshadowed by newer designs like the SCAR 17?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: secondstoryguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been following H20man's pro-MIA/M14 rant for some time and thought I would chime in. His fixation on that weapon system is a good indicator of his level of martial and/or shooting experience. He is obviously very drunk on the M1A/M14 cool aid.

I have used M14s while I was in the service and while they have their uses(the best of which is launching lines from ship-to-ship!), they have taken a backseat to the AR based .308 systems. I would give a slight reliability edge to the M14s but the inability to reliably mount optics, ergonomics, and REPEATABLE accuracy put them at a severe disadvantage. Weight is another issue, as the M1A in an aftermarket chassis system weights a shit ton(almost what a SAW weighs) and handles like a brick.

I've been at several commands where M14s were available to the troops, most of which were set up like M21s. We did fam-fires and trained with them but they got left behind...SPR type rifles were a better answer. Hell, you could hump an AR and two uppers and it would weigh the same as an M1A/SAGE system.

When I was an LE officer we bought a bunch of M14s and M16s from DRMO for something like $25 a piece. Guess which rifles got thrown in the corner and which ones got used.

Would I feel ill armed if an M14/M1a is all I had. Nope. But if I had a choice, give me a 5.56 or .308 AR. </div></div>

I'm a newbee to M14's compared to many. I was issued my first one in 1964 and have use every family member it has, in most every shit hole this rock has to offer. My review would be a little different than yours.

Ever shoot a NM or XM21 in a E-2/A1 stock?
How about a review of working one on full at -38* or +125*. Ever reach threw a rubber tree and tag a guy after punching his AK as well. Or maybe racking it once to clear the patty water an mud it was stuck in after falling from a bird going in. Is it the best on this rock for everything, no it's not. Will it do everything ask of it, yes it will if the Operator, and supply chain are up to the task as well.

As Clint Smith always says, it's supposed to be comforting not comfortable. I've been issued real AR10's You know the ones with the cocking handle in the carry, trust me it's not all that.

I wonder where the 14's would be with 50+ years of updates, then again I don't hear the other sides bitching about their AK's. They seem to just use what they have and move out, could be a lesson for us in that as well.

We have won nothing big from 1945 on, and I don't think having a space age, shoulder fired, all boot issued weapon, will change that fact anytime soon.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: secondstoryguy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been following H20man's pro-M14 rant for some time and thought I would chime in. His fixation on that weapon system is a good indicator of his level of martial and/or shooting experience. He is obviously very drunk on the M14 cool aid.</div></div>

Only after about 30 years of being extremely drunk on AR/M16/M4 Kool-Aid did I come to embrace the M14.
2ndStory, you totally missed that indicator of my level of martial and/or shooting experience.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I wonder where the 14's would be with 50+ years of updates...</div></div>

IMG_3230.jpg


IMG_3231.jpg


High Resolution images are available on >> << <span style="font-style: italic">click on the logo.</span>
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might wish to consider that a major deficiency which the military has with the M16/M4 is the inability to use expanding bullets, which does not apply to your personal use.

If expanding bullets would sufficiently extend the effectiveness of the M16/M4 system, it would sure be a lot cheaper to go that route than going up to a .308 system, not to mention the ability to carry a lot more ammunition for the same weight and ease of procurement for parts and accessories.
</div></div>

Hey Lindy - do you include the 77 grn MK262 load in with "non-expanding bullets"? I know they are OTMs and not real expanding bullets like hunting bullets - but they do seem to be much more lethal than the M193 or M855 FMJ bullets. Just wondering because the 77SMKs seem to give not only a range advantage but a kill advantage over the regular NATO 5.56 rounds.
 
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: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I wonder where the 14's would be with 50+ years of updates...</div></div>

IMG_3230.jpg


IMG_3231.jpg
</div></div>

If that's all we get for 50 years, we got screwed.

How is getting to the selector changed?
All I see is an updated version of a X/M21, how about std battlefield issue?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do you include the 77 grn MK262 load in with "non-expanding bullets"?</div></div>

The 77 grain SMK is not a bullet which is designed to expand on impact. If it were, there would be a problem with using it in military applications.

I have seen only anecdotal evidence of increased lethality of the 77 grain bullet. If it actually is more lethal, the increased lethality may be attributable to other factors than expansion.

My point was that individuals have bullet choices which are not available to those in military service.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that's all we get for 50 years, we got screwed.
</div></div>

You see this misses the mark and shows what a short memory we have. Not 15 years ago if you wanted a US made long range precision combat rifle there weren't any other choices manufactured on any scale. Hightlight this with the fact that 15 years ago we were already <span style="text-decoration: underline">45 years</span> into AR production and only 2 questions come to mind...

1. Was the M14 really that good?
2. Or is it that manufactures were really that bad at finally getting the AR to its current level of perfection?

There is only one accurate answer to both questions.

Don't get me wrong, I have both .223 and .308 AR's. I absolutely love them and they're now my go-to guns but to speak of the M14/M1A as if they couldn't still get the job done is a bit naive. Suitability?...Clearly the AR platform has emerged as the better choice but it's hard not to ask...what on earth took so long?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

How is getting to the selector changed?
All I see is an updated version of a X/M21, how about std battlefield issue?
</div></div>

The vast majority of military M14s are semi-auto only.

The precision rifle pictured above is just the most recent variant of the modernized M14 currently available.
There are others with standard and medium heavy weight barrels in 18.0" and 22.0" lengths.

Keep in mind, the EBR stock and M14 modernization effort didn't come along until 2004 and it really didn't get going until about 24 months ago.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do you include the 77 grn MK262 load in with "non-expanding bullets"?</div></div>

The 77 grain SMK is not a bullet which is designed to expand on impact. If it were, there would be a problem with using it in military applications.

I have seen only anecdotal evidence of increased lethality of the 77 grain bullet. If it actually is more lethal, the increased lethality may be attributable to other factors than expansion.

My point was that individuals have bullet choices which are not available to those in military service.

</div></div>

I've seen gel tests at closer ranges that show pretty violent fragmenting- more so than you'd expect from M855... but then again, we're talking close range. The SMK's aren't used for close range lethality- rather long range ballistics. So it's likely a moot point.

As far as expanding goes- all of the interpretation documents I've seen thus far interpret the geneva conventions against "projectiles causing unnecessary pain or suffering" as bullets designed specifically to cause grievous wounding but not to further the lethal results of the projectile and this HP bullets are not prohibited. That is one argument supporting the use of SMK. Goes on to state that since expansion is not a design element of the hollow point, rather the hollow point being a result of production, any provisions against hollow point ammunition is not interpreted to apply anyway.

I guess my only point here is, the legal powers that be expressly acknowledge the fact that we are not restrained by any treaties we are a party to in using rounds designed expressly for higher lethality. I suspect our continued use of FMJ is more a result of two other factors- 1. international perception and opinion. 2. Cost considerations. Thus those using SMK rounds are limited and expansion design-HP is limited to counter-terrorism specific operations.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only, which it was never intended to do from the drawing board. It was to replace the M1 as a battlefield weapon only. Can it be made for long, yes. Can it work short, yes. Can it full fill a S.A.W. roll, again, yes. Does it do all jobs better than something else out there, no. Is there anything out there in US inventory that can step into it's shoes for all the same jobs it can preform, no.

You can beat this horse more, but in the end it's a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.

Do we want the best of the best, yes. Do we need that to win,...no. We need to relearn how to knife fight again and keep it from the public better,...
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clearly the AR platform has emerged as the better choice but it's hard not to ask...what on earth took so long? </div></div>

Manufacturers not making any effort to improve it, and then the assault weapons ban which was another roadblock. Consumers being reluctant to accept it didn't help either. There are a lot of reasons why and none of them really have anything to do with the design itself.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only </div></div>Not at all. I'm merely trying to prevent the denigration of the platform which is what this thread has become. I actually see eye-to-eye with you on many aspects of this arguement.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Manufacturers not making any effort to improve it, and then the assault weapons ban which was another roadblock. Consumers being reluctant to accept it didn't help either. There are a lot of reasons why and none of them really have anything to do with the design itself. </div></div>

I wouldn't argue that. The "why" behind it is surely speculation but the road travelled resulted in the M14 being a viable weapon system LONG after it should have died. This thread exists and lives not because the new 7.62 platforms are so good, but because they've (finally) slayed a true giant.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I'll throw in the fray here...

IMO, the M14 is much like the 1911... Great firearm, with the right, highly skilled hands giving them some TLC, they can be outstanding performers. They have a beauty lost on many of today's modern firearms- wood and cold steel, heft and size.

But, much like the predecessors of these iconic weapons, there comes a point in time to move on. Technology does not stand still- to believe a design finalized 50 or 100 years ago is the epitome of the industry is purely based on nostalgia and lacking in recognition of facts.

You have numerous causes that result in the effect of an enduring legacy being extended beyond it's useful days. No doubt the solid design of these arms are a driving factor. They performed well in functions not yet common in their day- to this the designs deserve respect. They were the pioneering venture in our services for their respected classes (Detachable Magazine Fed, Semi Auto). For these two fact they have managed to win the hearts of many. The arms have a well earned reputation and loyalties in arms are often very difficult to ignore. The end result is die-hard fans, commander's battlefield needs requests and custom built pieces easily costing north of $3000 and $5000.

All of the above ignores a very important fact. Just as the M14 introduced advancements to the M1, which itself replaced the bolt action repeater... and the M1911 replaced the service revolver... so too have the M14 and M1911 been surpassed. Those holding tight to the legacy of these arms, declaring their supremacy are pretending technological advancements have essentially been at a stand-still for the last half century or more. Respect the achievements and the elegance in their design... but recognize when their peak has passed.

It isn't to say they aught to be relegated to the metal furnace. But our men deserve better than designs half a century or a century in age. (yes, the same holds true for the antique M2 heavy. As much as I love Ma Deuce and she has a very special place in my heart- we could do better) To argue otherwise leaves question to the logic used to come to the conclusion being argued.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only, which it was never intended to do from the drawing board. It was to replace the M1 as a battlefield weapon only. Can it be made for long, yes. Can it work short, yes. Can it full fill a S.A.W. roll, again, yes. Does it do all jobs better than something else out there, no. Is there anything out there in US inventory that can step into it's shoes for all the same jobs it can preform, no.

You can beat this horse more, but in the end it's a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.
</div></div>

A Craftsman doesn't expect his circular saw to act as a table saw, a router, a jointer and a sander.

We are not in the practice of using one weapon for all purposes- that has proven ineffective in the past, and fortunately we learned from our mistakes. Placing emphasis on the ability to use the M14 in a large number of roles, each already tasked to weapons better suited is akin to attempting to sell a craftsman a circular saw and telling him... if you're a true craftsman, you'll make it work for everything.

Plain and to the point, it was designed as a battle rifle for engagements of moderate range. It did this well. Don't take away from that by attempting to sell it into uses for which it falls woefully short.
 
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">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">do you include the 77 grn MK262 load in with "non-expanding bullets"?</div></div>

The 77 grain SMK is not a bullet which is designed to expand on impact. If it were, there would be a problem with using it in military applications.

I have seen only anecdotal evidence of increased lethality of the 77 grain bullet. If it actually is more lethal, the increased lethality may be attributable to other factors than expansion.

My point was that individuals have bullet choices which are not available to those in military service.

</div></div>

I've seen gel tests at closer ranges that show pretty violent fragmenting- more so than you'd expect from M855... but then again, we're talking close range. The SMK's aren't used for close range lethality- rather long range ballistics. So it's likely a moot point.

As far as expanding goes- all of the interpretation documents I've seen thus far interpret the geneva conventions against "projectiles causing unnecessary pain or suffering" as bullets designed specifically to cause grievous wounding but not to further the lethal results of the projectile and this HP bullets are not prohibited. That is one argument supporting the use of SMK. Goes on to state that since expansion is not a design element of the hollow point, rather the hollow point being a result of production, any provisions against hollow point ammunition is not interpreted to apply anyway.

I guess my only point here is, the legal powers that be expressly acknowledge the fact that we are not restrained by any treaties we are a party to in using rounds designed expressly for higher lethality. I suspect our continued use of FMJ is more a result of two other factors- 1. international perception and opinion. 2. Cost considerations. Thus those using SMK rounds are limited and expansion design-HP is limited to counter-terrorism specific operations. </div></div>

I have seen some very interesting external ballistics reports on the MK262 Mod 0 77grn. It is actualy really rather impressive imo. The fragmenting is a result of it tumbling after about 6 inches of penetration vs the approx. 10 inches in a gelatin test of the M855 SS109 aka green tip 62 grn. All bets are off when you factor bone in there!
I can say from practical use in Baghdad in 05 and 06 that the MK262 is a great little round! I had used it in Baghdad and can say that it was very effective in the few times I needed it!
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Respect the achievements and the elegance in their design... but recognize when their peak has passed.</div></div>

The above statement also applies to the AR-10. To argue otherwise leaves question to the logic used to come to the conclusion being argued.
 
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">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only, which it was never intended to do from the drawing board. It was to replace the M1 as a battlefield weapon only. Can it be made for long, yes. Can it work short, yes. Can it full fill a S.A.W. roll, again, yes. Does it do all jobs better than something else out there, no. Is there anything out there in US inventory that can step into it's shoes for all the same jobs it can preform, no.

You can beat this horse more, but in the end it's a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.
</div></div>

A Craftsman doesn't expect his circular saw to act as a table saw, a router, a jointer and a sander.

We are not in the practice of using one weapon for all purposes- that has proven ineffective in the past, and fortunately we learned from our mistakes. Placing emphasis on the ability to use the M14 in a large number of roles, each already tasked to weapons better suited is akin to attempting to sell a craftsman a circular saw and telling him... if you're a true craftsman, you'll make it work for everything.

Plain and to the point, it was designed as a battle rifle for engagements of moderate range. It did this well. Don't take away from that by attempting to sell it into uses for which it falls woefully short. </div></div>

I'm not the one trying to sell it as that. Point I was trying to make, was it was made to do things it was never designed to do, by guys that did/do not sit around looking for outs, all the time. Those guys made their tactics fit the weapon, not the other way around.

Every time we go down this road we beat our lips about how we need XXX to win, but our enemy seems to get along just fine with stuff much older, heavy'er, an junky'er. Might be a lesson for us, in that. Then again we are real good at over paying for perceived needs, when better training might be the best/cheaper ticket all around.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

One problem I see with the anti-m14, pro AR argument is that the M14 is "too old".

Uh, the AR design is over 40 years old. From what I know, the only reason it is so "good" now is that it has been constantly refined from the beginning to the present day.

That hardly makes it a "better" platform, but a more refined one.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Outerspace</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One problem I see with the anti-m14, pro AR argument is that the M14 is "too old".

Uh, the AR design is over 40 years old. From what I know, the only reason it is so "good" now is that it has been constantly refined from the beginning to the present day.

That hardly makes it a "better" platform, but a more refined one. </div></div>


Don't forget, the M14 traces it roots back to the 1936 M1 Garand. Understand what that means- it is a solid 20 years behind even the most basic origins of the AR platform. And that isn't to say the AR is the book definition for technologically advanced firearms. I didn't argue that the M4/M16/M110's are the best thing available right now, but you cannot deny there is a significant difference in technology. Each platform has a basic design limit- the 20 years difference in design technology however does equate to a higher peak potential. This really does remind me of the "bring back the 1911" argument... which is really pure ignorance.
 
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: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only, which it was never intended to do from the drawing board. It was to replace the M1 as a battlefield weapon only. Can it be made for long, yes. Can it work short, yes. Can it full fill a S.A.W. roll, again, yes. Does it do all jobs better than something else out there, no. Is there anything out there in US inventory that can step into it's shoes for all the same jobs it can preform, no.

You can beat this horse more, but in the end it's a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.
</div></div>

A Craftsman doesn't expect his circular saw to act as a table saw, a router, a jointer and a sander.

We are not in the practice of using one weapon for all purposes- that has proven ineffective in the past, and fortunately we learned from our mistakes. Placing emphasis on the ability to use the M14 in a large number of roles, each already tasked to weapons better suited is akin to attempting to sell a craftsman a circular saw and telling him... if you're a true craftsman, you'll make it work for everything.

Plain and to the point, it was designed as a battle rifle for engagements of moderate range. It did this well. Don't take away from that by attempting to sell it into uses for which it falls woefully short. </div></div>

I'm not the one trying to sell it as that. Point I was trying to make, was it was made to do things it was never designed to do, by guys that did/do not sit around looking for outs, all the time. Those guys made their tactics fit the weapon, not the other way around.

Every time we go down this road we beat our lips about how we need XXX to win, but our enemy seems to get along just fine with stuff much older, heavy'er, an junky'er. Might be a lesson for us, in that. Then again we are real good at over paying for perceived needs, when better training might be the best/cheaper ticket all around.

</div></div>

I see what you're saying. But at the same time, that same enemy do not do too well in a gun battle against us. In fallujah, Ramadi and Sadr city we killed hundreds, most likely thousands of enemy in a very pitched battle. Could we focus a bit more on the basics of marksmanship? Sure, who couldn't? But the fact is, we are currently the best trained force this country has ever known. We have been running the same rifle for, as someone noted... 40 years. I wouldn't call a weapons upgrade a "perceived" need. Our current weapons are not desperately in need of replacement, they are serving us fairly well. But after 40 years... it's about time to look for something better. Just because our illiterate, tactically deficient enemy uses AK's barely holding together doesn't mean we should be happy with "good enough". 3rd world insurgents are not going to be our main enemy forever. At some point we will fight a competent, well trained and well equipped enemy enemy. I'd rather carry a more modern designed weapon with high tech coatings when it comes time to face an enemy that doesn't rely largely on luck and suicide as their main tactics.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...the 20 years difference in design technology however does equate to a higher peak potential. </div></div>

Maybe on paper, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way in the real world.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Aint we just a fucking know it all poet..Have you carried or used an M14 or 1911 within the last decade or so in harms way? I doubt it so your opinion means jack and shit.. BTW smart guy the Marines are picking up another 5000 1911's.
 
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">...the 20 years difference in design technology however does equate to a higher peak potential. </div></div>

Maybe on paper, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way in the real world. </div></div>

Yes, the AR is clearly a failure. I should call my grandpa and tell him to dust off his garand; if it can kill nazis and japs it'll kill terrorists too.
 
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">Respect the achievements and the elegance in their design... but recognize when their peak has passed.</div></div>

The above statement also applies to the AR-10. To argue otherwise leaves question to the logic used to come to the conclusion being argued. </div></div>


You're not that cleaver attempting to use my statements against me. I'm not aggressively promoting the .308 DI- AR platform. Simply stating a fact in that it is based on better technology. Keyword: BETTER. Notice "Best" never entered into the picture? No doubt there could be better.

I have <span style="text-decoration: underline">personally</span> met only <span style="text-decoration: underline">one</span> person who carried an M14, current day and was happy with it. Actually, most anyone I hear singing the praises of the M14 are either men who carried it in the past, or those who've never carried it at all. Actually... what I usually hear is "hey, you want to trade? (for my M110)" Anyway, that doesn't mean people aren't very happy with it- just that I've only met one of them.
 
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">...the 20 years difference in design technology however does equate to a higher peak potential. </div></div>

Maybe on paper, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way in the real world. </div></div>


And tell, how would you know this?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniper2ndrep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aint we just a fucking know it all poet..Have you carried or used an M14 or 1911 within the last decade or so in harms way? I doubt it so your opinion means jack and shit.. BTW smart guy the Marines are picking up another 5000 1911's. </div></div>

Aren't we just an ignorant, belligerent smart ass...

The fact that the marines are picking up 5000 1911's does not mean they are making a wise decision. We all know the corps are stuck on the 1911.

And nope, I haven't carried either in harms way. But I've been there often enough, and fired both often enough to know there are much better options. But hey, if you truly believe the best the firearms industry has to offer was designed in 1936 and 1910... and you've carried it in combat... Well you must be right.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Well since I have a small part to do with this and you dont it means i do know more than you fucking poser bitch..So stick your nose back in your little ticket book and fuck off you fucking limp wrist pogue.. And thats right "YOU HAVENT" and never will.. BTW know it all crispy creme stuffer you want to give me a lecture on the SCAR too?
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniper2ndrep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well since I have a small part to do with this and you dont it means i do know more than you fucking poser bitch..So stick your nose back in your little ticket book and fuck off you fucking limp wrist pogue.. And thats right "YOU HAVENT" and never will.. BTW know it all crispy creme stuffer you want to give me a lecture on the SCAR too? </div></div>

You're showing your intelligence young marine. I have no problem sending lowlight my credentials, deployment orders and schools certificates. You're directly attacking a member (which if you are not aware, is against the standards of conduct here at the hide)

Not to mention, you're barking up the wrong tree, with very inaccurate assumptions.
 
Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniper2ndrep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aint we just a fucking know it all poet..Have you carried or used an M14 or 1911 within the last decade or so in harms way? I doubt it so your opinion means jack and shit.. BTW smart guy the Marines are picking up another 5000 1911's. </div></div>

Some ODA teams are running around with 1911's.
I wouldn't say that the M9 9mm is inneffective as I have seen many a dead man who fell to the fatal end of that little 9mm round!
Its just that 230 grns of anger vs what the 9mm pulls out brings about a bit more happiness to those on the correct side of it.
Now, the benefits of the 9mm is that the pistol carries higher capacity. Many argue why? Some say it is because the military doesn't do a sufficient amount of pistol training so soldiers need the extra rounds to hit their target(which after watching people shoot pistols I could agree with),others say that it was a fad thing when the 9mm came out, and some say that the 9mm is easier to shoot accuratly vs the .45 because of less felt recoil.

I personnaly like the 1911! Great system with lots of goodies to add on and improve on it.
I wonder how much different the Beretta's are in the civilian market vs what we are issued? And the issue magazines, wtf?


Back to the M14. It is a system which is filling a technology gap for the time being until a reasonable solution or improvement comes along! It punches out a bit farther, hits harder and scares the shit out of the locals when they see you humping it around! They know what it means and what it is for. I personnaly love its mechanical build, functioning as it is cold, heartless and plain old mean!!!! and it scares the shit out of the locals (the bad locals). It has proven to be reliable in theater. I never had any issues with it and have fed everything from LR to crap ball ammo through it without failure.

Its a good system!!! Are there systems out there that are more accurate and more advanced? Sure there are, but at the time the military has not accepted them and/or has not fielded them to the extent that units feel they need! The M110 is out but not in large numbers, a BN only has a couple of M24's and M107's (which your not humping very far anyways). All your doing is adding some more tools to the kit bag for the soldiers to use! After that it is their judgement based on experience not just their own but of their peers that helps them to tailer which system to take on which mission.

Just my opinion/.02