Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

**The Reaper** · 10-02-2006, 23:20

Gene:

Funny you should mention the number of rounds fired. I was just thinking the same thing earlier today and believe that your point is well taken.

Look at the basic load for an M-1 or an M-14 rifleman (or for that matter, an AK), compared to an M-16 or M-4 shooter.

IIRC, the basic load for an M-16 is 210 rounds, for the M-14 was 100 rounds, and for the M-1 was 88-104 rounds.

When patrolling, I carried at least 17 mags for my M-16 or M-4. If I were going to be away from regular resupply, I would have a lot more in bandoliers. That would be over 500 rounds loaded.

I never carried an M1 in the field, but by my count, that same number of loaded rounds would be over 60 M-1 clips (5x M-1938 belts), or 25 M-14 mags (12x 2 mag pouches). I do not recall anyone humping that many mags for the M-14, and I doubt few did it with the M-1.

My 17 M-16 mags weighed less than 20 lbs., loaded. 63 M-1 clips weigh over 30 pounds, plus the weight of the extra belts or bandoliers. The 25 M-14 mags weigh well over 30 lbs.

In addition to humping around the ammo, you might actually have to shoot it.

I have fired more than 1,000 rounds of 5.56 in a day without feeling beat up from the recoil. I have never burned through more than 300 rounds of 7.62 from a rifle at one time, but it hurt enough that I would say that anyone shooting 1,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO or .30-'06 in one session from a variety of positions is going to be pretty badly bruised.

In short, I suspect that soldiers carried less ammo and did less shooting than we do today. We can ignore the argument over whether those rounds were more accurate or more effective than the ones fired today. As a standard issue rifle, the M-1 Garand lasted 20 years, the M-14 lasted seven years, and the M-16 has been with us for 42 years with no end in sight. Some units still have M16A1s. In that time, I am certain that our rifles have had more rounds cycled through them than any predecessor has ever had. I think that says something about the design of the weapon and the fact that many are simply shot up. I have seen no issue M16s or M-4s that did not run well out of the box, with good mags and ammo. I have a 10.5" CQB-R carbine that has shot everything from 40grain to 77 grain ammo without a hiccup. The 18" makes almost as much MV as the 20" M-16s. The 16" is not a bad length, but the 14.5" loses a lot of velocity and has the timing cut to a marginally reliable level if the mags and ammo are not up to snuff, and as they are made by the lowest bidder, caveat emptor.

Having said all that, I would not want to have Bob Howard, or Ola Mize, or Fred Zabitowski after me if I had an M-134 Mini-Gun with a trailer full of ammo and they had Krag-Jorgensons. I think that is the point that is being made. A good soldier gets max effectiveness out of whatever he is issued, but the best hardware in the world is less than effective in the hands of a bad soldier. It is the man, not the hardware.

The mandated round-count maintenence and rebuilds would save more money in SGLI and precision ordnance costs than it took to conduct it. If vehicles were operated under the same logic, we would do nothing but operator maintenance on them till they quit running.

Good discussion, hermano.

TR

10-02-2006, 23:20	#21
The Reaper Quiet Professional Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Free Pineland Posts: 24,827	Gene: Funny you should mention the number of rounds fired. I was just thinking the same thing earlier today and believe that your point is well taken. Look at the basic load for an M-1 or an M-14 rifleman (or for that matter, an AK), compared to an M-16 or M-4 shooter. IIRC, the basic load for an M-16 is 210 rounds, for the M-14 was 100 rounds, and for the M-1 was 88-104 rounds. When patrolling, I carried at least 17 mags for my M-16 or M-4. If I were going to be away from regular resupply, I would have a lot more in bandoliers. That would be over 500 rounds loaded. I never carried an M1 in the field, but by my count, that same number of loaded rounds would be over 60 M-1 clips (5x M-1938 belts), or 25 M-14 mags (12x 2 mag pouches). I do not recall anyone humping that many mags for the M-14, and I doubt few did it with the M-1. My 17 M-16 mags weighed less than 20 lbs., loaded. 63 M-1 clips weigh over 30 pounds, plus the weight of the extra belts or bandoliers. The 25 M-14 mags weigh well over 30 lbs. In addition to humping around the ammo, you might actually have to shoot it. I have fired more than 1,000 rounds of 5.56 in a day without feeling beat up from the recoil. I have never burned through more than 300 rounds of 7.62 from a rifle at one time, but it hurt enough that I would say that anyone shooting 1,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO or .30-'06 in one session from a variety of positions is going to be pretty badly bruised. In short, I suspect that soldiers carried less ammo and did less shooting than we do today. We can ignore the argument over whether those rounds were more accurate or more effective than the ones fired today. As a standard issue rifle, the M-1 Garand lasted 20 years, the M-14 lasted seven years, and the M-16 has been with us for 42 years with no end in sight. Some units still have M16A1s. In that time, I am certain that our rifles have had more rounds cycled through them than any predecessor has ever had. I think that says something about the design of the weapon and the fact that many are simply shot up. I have seen no issue M16s or M-4s that did not run well out of the box, with good mags and ammo. I have a 10.5" CQB-R carbine that has shot everything from 40grain to 77 grain ammo without a hiccup. The 18" makes almost as much MV as the 20" M-16s. The 16" is not a bad length, but the 14.5" loses a lot of velocity and has the timing cut to a marginally reliable level if the mags and ammo are not up to snuff, and as they are made by the lowest bidder, caveat emptor. Having said all that, I would not want to have Bob Howard, or Ola Mize, or Fred Zabitowski after me if I had an M-134 Mini-Gun with a trailer full of ammo and they had Krag-Jorgensons. I think that is the point that is being made. A good soldier gets max effectiveness out of whatever he is issued, but the best hardware in the world is less than effective in the hands of a bad soldier. It is the man, not the hardware. The mandated round-count maintenence and rebuilds would save more money in SGLI and precision ordnance costs than it took to conduct it. If vehicles were operated under the same logic, we would do nothing but operator maintenance on them till they quit running. Good discussion, hermano. TR __________________ "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910 De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline