To All:
Nobody at DoD cares about my opinion but imVho we made a HUGE mistake as the US Armed Forces when we quit using the M14.
(While the M16/M4 are fine for close-range fighting, neither, again impo, are suitable for well-aimed fire beyond 250M. - That's why the USA has "bought back" any number of M14 rifles that "wee willie klintoon" STUPIDLY sold to Taiwan.)
At "jungle-fighting range" either a 7 shot pump-gun with 00 buckshot or a SMG is just as useful for close-in fighting like that that was commonplace in RVN.
(I "adopted" an Ithaca Featherweight when I was OCONUS in those long ago days. = Some of my old comrades teased me, calling me, "Shotgun Slade". The same group called my buddy, who had "acquired by other than usual means" a Port Said SMG, "Buzz")
I also thought that NOT procuring a modern SMG was a mistake for issuance to the MPs & other security/LE personnel, as our "combat activities" are BRIEF, VIOLENT & generally at VERY close range. Engaging "long range targets" is normally with the MG. = Shoot-outs between MPs doing MSR security, traffic-control points & engaging local guerrillas in the "echelons behind divisions in contact" (in a traditional war with front lines) are REALLY short range actions in 99% of cases.
(In 1976 at USAMPS we had a "faculty working group" that looked into firefights between MP/MPI/CID personnel in the period 1965-74 & found that well over 75% of "shootouts" occurred at ranges of 50M with many being at 20M or less. The same "working group" found that most of those "small unit actions" lasted 5 minutes or less. - The group determined that the MOST important thing in such actions was the ability to return a large amount of firepower quickly to suppress the enemy fires and to successfully end the enemy contact.)
just my opinions, sw