HSLD State of the Art Rifle

[NousDefionsDoc]

We can agree to disagree, although I only disagree to a point.

You keep saying "I". That is the point. I will take my Green Hatted Brothers with a Garand over anybody with an M4.

Of course one should always use the best available weapon for the METT-T. But I will take mindset over technology any day.

[The Reaper]

Gene:

No doubt, you have taught more people with the M-4 than I, but I have never had any real problems with them in the thousands of rounds I have shot through issued and civilian M-4 variants.

I have seen bad ammo and bad mags, and am not a real fan of the gas impingement system, but most of the well-maintained M-4s I have used have done well over 1,000 rounds MTBF, in some cases, more than 5,000 rounds. I have easy access to an M-1, several M-1As/M-14s, and plenty of M16s/M4s. Unless I knew that I was going to an area with regular requirements to engage beyond 250 meters, I would opt for the M-4, some good mags with the green followers, and the Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo. Over 250 meters, I would take the SPR.

Are the problems you are noting due to maintenance, service life, ammo, mags, what? It appears to be Army policy not to maintain a round count or service life on small arms, and just shoot them till someone has the fortitude to turn it in to maintenance and refuse to take it back.

I have seen a LOT of M-9 failures, with most of the Berettas I recently saw on the range choking at least once per mag. That appeared to be a combination of bad mags and excessive use/wear.

Sorry to hear that your troops do not have good rifles. Five years into this war, you would think that we would have most of the small arms issues sorted out.

TR

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

We can agree to disagree, although I only disagree to a point.

You keep saying "I". That is the point. I will take my Green Hatted Brothers with a Garand over anybody with an M4.

Of course one should always use the best available weapon for the METT-T. But I will take mindset over technology any day.

I agree with this one hundred and ten percent.

It is training and mindset that makes a warrior, not a weapons system. With the proper training and mindset the warrior becomes the weapons system.

[CPTAUSRET]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

I agree with this one hundred and ten percent.

It is training and mindset that makes a warrior, not a weapons system. With the proper training and mindset the warrior becomes the weapons system.

Not piling on!

But having been shot down more than a couple of times...I initially relied on whatever projectile weapon I had (M-14, B-model, CAR 15-Cobra), eventually the projectiles run out, and I relied on my knife. It happened to be the Aviator issue knife, the one with the sharpening stone in the pocket, never thought much of it prior to that.

It so happened I needed to use a knife more than once.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I have seen bad ammo and bad mags, and am not a real fan of the gas impingement system, but most of the well-maintained M-4s I have used have done well over 1,000 rounds MTBF, in some cases, more than 5,000 rounds. I have easy access to an M-1, several M-1As/M-14s, and plenty of M16s/M4s. Unless I knew that I was going to an area with regular requirements to engage beyond 250 meters, I would opt for the M-4, some good mags with the green followers, and the Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo. Over 250 meters, I would take the SPR.....Sorry to hear that your troops do not have good rifles. Five years into this war, you would think that we would have most of the small arms issues sorted out. TR

TR:

I note you say that it would be either an M-4 or an SPR. Where is that Garand with its eight round clips of very poor ammunition? He, he, he. The new SPR is to me the top of the heap that an AR-15 design will ever become. I would actually spend money to buy one of those if it were original. They are that good and dependable. So I ask myself, if Crane can make this new SPR so damn good, why can't Rock Island make a service grade that functions?

I did not make my comments based on laziness of some Joes who refuse to clean their carbines or rifles. I make them based on brand new carbines or rebuilt M-16 A-2 Rifles.

I also realize something. You fellows shoot a whole bunch more ammo out of that carbine or A-2 than anyone from 1960 would have dreamed to shoot out of an M-14 or M-1. I once tried doing some CQM with a rack grade M-14. You simply could not shoot fast enough to match the amount of ammo guys were cranking out of their M-4's or A-2's. The recoil became unpleasant after about two magazines as well.

So I figure two things. First, the M-4 has genetic problems that can not be fixed. This means it is more prone to failure than a 20" BBL service AR. The ammo is very high pressure and is designed for a 20" bbl. It will wear out the M-4 faster. Second, it isn't the barrel length that guys piss and moan over, it is stock length. Put a collapsable on an M-16A2 or A4 and you would not have the mechanical problems or the complaining. We did it with a FA Battalion and Rock Island went ballistic even though there were absolutely no failures of any of these M-16A2's.

I do agree with the SOPMOD round counter thing. I think that weapons should be turned in and rebult based on round count, even though it will cost more money in Class IX. But then it is starting to sound like you guys are heading down the road of a competitive shooter!

Gene

[The Reaper]

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

[brianksain]

Great thread.

Note: Although it has been over 35 years since we went to the 16 ... There are a lot and I mean A LOT ... of M14s being issued these days.

Cracked stocks, no magazines or cleaning equipment, no mounts or glass ... no owner manuals.

Rifles are older than the parents of the soldier it is issued to. I hear it every day. Still doing good work when they can get the parts for 'em.

SAGE stocks popular. Collapsible, has rails.

Love those old girls ... was will'd the personal M1A of Bruce Robinson, the guy that invented the mildot master ...

But I sure like my 15/16s too.

BK