Gunhub.com banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,756 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
All this recent talk about CLP and the neverending arguments about the M-16 vs. the M1 or M14, etc., Has got me thinking again. (Not always a bad thing) I have never served in the military or fired an AR type rifle. Maybe those of you who have served and/or have experience can give me your opinions?

Is it a good weapon? Dose it suite the Modern Military's needs?


What about it Schmitt? Anyone else? I'd much rather have your opinions over the neverending drone on some other online fourms from Monday morning quarterbacks and Armchair/Wheelchair Generals.

Thanks

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
I've fired the M-16 and M-14

And they're both excellent weapons. But, when you've had an M-14 fully loaded over your shoulder for four hours on a steel deck, you DEFINITELY learn to appreciate the lighter weight of the -16. I did think the -14 was a more accurate weapon though...I put a :D on a pic of Bin Laden with one. But I would rather have SOMETHING to throw rocks with than nothing...I wouldn't turn either one down when it comes down to it.

Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Ed, I have now, and have had in the past, several examples of the civilian equivalent of both the M-14 and the M-16. I have also seen both used in 3 Gun competitions that I have competed in as well as promoted. So, I'm qualified to speak on both.
Just so I don't step on anyone's toes...both are neat and a lot of fun to shoot.
Having said that I prefer my AR. I have been shooting a DPMS "Sweet 16" for a while now and I can recommend it highly.
One of the major benefits to the AR style rifle is the ability to mount optics. Yes, this can be done to the M-14 system but I'm here to tell you it's not what I would call the "hot set up."
Are either one of them ideally suited for the military, since I have no military experience I certainly don't know for sure but I would say no. The M-14 is to heavy and the M-16 shoots a bullet that is to small.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter.

I am the first guy to jump on pie in the sky wonder weapons systems but the reality is that the steel and paper targets I shoot at never seem to know the diferance.:wink:
There are number of great rifles on the market but I would recommend one with a flat top receiver. Put an ACOG on it as soon as you can, find some good ammo and buy a bunch of it (I like Black hills 52 grain BTHP in the blue box). That combination will give you yeomen service on the range and, if you do your part, satisfy all but the most ridiculous "Red Dawn" scenarios.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,756 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If you wait long enough....

Thanks guys, I had given up on this post a couple months ago. I appreciate your comments. Anyone else out there care to comment? Some of you with military experience?
Sam?
CP?
Schmitt?

Thanks,

Ed
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Glen Wertle said:
That combination will give you yeomen service on the range and, if you do your part, satisfy all but the most ridiculous "Red Dawn" scenarios.
By the great stone balls of ol' Charlie Askins (pere ou fils, no matter), I do think you have the makings of a gun writer in you, m'boy! Yes, indeed I do!

Now, work on your "acceptable combat accuracies" and then me 'n' CeePee (and Chuckles Karwan if he even gets his ol' Mac cranked up again) will share with you some advanced gunzine clichés to start mixing into your posts. In no time at all you'll be getting admiring glances from long-legged women of dubious virtue, and the other guys at your range will be you new best friends, and you'll be asked by one and all for "carry load recommendations," etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
973 Posts
DeanSpeir said:
[ By the great stone balls of ol' Charlie Askins
It's a phrase like this that keeps me coming back to this forum.

I attended a Pat Rogers Carbine School last fall in which all 12 students used an AR, all Colts and Bushmasters, IIRC. We fired about 900 rounds each and I don't remember anyone having more than an occasional malfunction, several had none. I had one double feed, stopped using that well-worn magazine and had no other problems.

For some, the flat-top with a red-dot optic is the way to go, provided you don't buy a cheap one. You have to have the discipline to maintain fresh batteries, or buy an optic that uses a battery with a year's life. It's not unusual at the range to see a shooter uncase his rifle and find the batteries weak or dead.

My perception is that for 90% of military use, the M-16/5.56 works fine. If your enemy is using 7.62x39, you'll be out of range before he is.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
7,756 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
JRWnTN said:
DeanSpeir said:
By the great stone balls of ol' Charlie Askins
It's a phrase like this that keeps me coming back to this forum.
Me too!
My perception is that for 90% of military use, the M-16/5.56 works fine. If your enemy is using 7.62x39, you'll be out of range before he is.
That's really what I'm asking is how effective is it as a military round? Range? Stopping ability?

Thanks again,

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
I do think you have the makings of a gun writer

Dean, what a terrible thing to say! :barf:

In case you have forgotten I have been there done that got the crappy pay checks, a few times anyway. Besides PGK has told me several times that I do not have the life experience necessary to type words for a magazine. If you ask me, he was just jealous of my sexy behind, it's a good thing for him that SOF had a don't ask don't tell clause in his contract, and that Brown has an open door policy for ass holes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
But Glen, SOF doesn't actually count… those are real deal, get away, boys, you're botherin' me, kinda hard guys who make night jumps into "Sal" and get to publish positively heroic shots of themselves in APCs with a bunch of half-nekkid Indian lads surrounding them… they don't need to "write."

If ol' Peeeeeeeeete actually said that you don't have the necessary life experience, ask him if he's ever had to live it out with Jules in an Orlando restaurant!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Dean, I suppose you are right.

Regular guys like me will never be able to compete with the likes of real SOFers.

You know how you were wondering how much longer Peeeeeet would be around? I have been wondering that for some time now too. Of course, it would be a shame to have to give up a perfectly good grudge.

I was teasing him, behind his back, after his quad bypass in 98. Ya see, he had written a story about a Springfield M1A (naturally, it was an updated version of a story he had already written, some of the names were changed to fool Bob). In any case, he was consoling his readership about 11 pound rifles by saying that he had it way worse lugging the 26 lb. machine gun...I said last time I saw Peter it looked like he was having trouble humping his colostomy bag!
Anyway, word got back to him, he failed to see the humor.

Who Knew? :oops:

Half naked Indian lads...that's funny!

Remember him as he was...then write him off.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Kokalis once bitched about the .40 Firestar

being "so heavy". Loaded with Mag Safe ammo, it weighed EXACTLY the same as his Glock .45, loaded with his preferred 230 gr ammo. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
I suppose I'll chime in here. I have expereince with all of the rilfes and ammo mentioned, in the USAF.

The 5.56 round is a good round, if lightweight for human targets. Personally, I don't subscribe to the "lighter, faster" theory, but it's OK. For range work, it's great - the recoil is almost nothing, and AR's can be made very accurate these days. You MUST choose your ammo and rate-of-twist for your rifle very carefully, though - so that they're matched well, for best performance. Also, the AR series has a MAJOR design flaw: the gas system. Direct gas impingement is not a good way to operate a firearm. It's VERY dirty, throwing carbon and unburned powder & small metal fouling particles into the action, which needs to be as clean as possible for reliability. Everyone who owns an AR can attest to this: it is a B*TCH to clean out all of the carbon fouling from the gas system, and especially the bolt & bolt carrier. Also, the flimsy gas tube sucks - it's a major source of malfunctions and jams. A little redesigning would go a long way here, and it's already been done in Stoner's later designs, but it'll never happen.

Personally, I LOVE the M1 Garand/M1 (M14) rifles. Having said that though, I don't feel it's the best choice for actual COMBAT use anymore. The .30 M2 (.30-06) round tends to overpenetrate on humans, at modern battlefield ranges. The .308 is better, but it's recoil wants a heavier rifle than the AR's - like the M1/M1A/M14. However, anyone who's had to hump one of these, along with the heavier ammo (and less rounds for the same weight), will tell you that they'd rather have something lighter! Also, as I'm sure you've heard, the M14 is impossible to control in full auto (unless you're talented AND highly trained), which is virtually required in combat now. The round is just TOO powerful for the weight of the weapon, and the designs of the muzzle breaks/compensators. Clearly, something in-between is needed.

The 7.62x39 round is OK, but as some have said, it has less range than the 5.56 NATO. Still, it hurt like hell when I got a 7.62x39 bullet in my leg (ricochet)! While the Soviets did a decent job with this round, there are better alternatives out there now. The same can be said about the "downsized" Soviet round, the 5.45x39. I feel that the Sovs cranked the size down a little TOO much for this one. This round was a hurried attempt to compete with the US and NATO's switch to the 5.56, while keeping as much of the tooling and parts of the AK series as possible (hence, the same 39mm length and case head size). Now, the Sovs did a darn good job on the bullets - the fragmentation and tumbling effects destroy tissue pretty darn good - ask the Afghans about that! - but the accuracy just isn't there.

I personally believe that what is needed is a complete RETHINKING of military small arms. They need to start from SCRATCH with a clean sheet - no "reusing" of anything; ammo, parts, accessories, nothing. Since the US Military is going to transition to several new weapons/ammo types soon (the new H&K designed "system" whose designation escapes me right now, and the new "green" frangible ammo, and also the proposed plastic-cased ammo), now would be a good time to start the research, even though they should've started it a lot sooner. They need to do extensive testing on what exactly is the best all-around compromise between range, wounding capability, accuracy, weight, reliability, and recoil. This means finding the right caliber, construction, & shape of bullet, size of the case & its material, and THEN design a weapon around it, after they've done the research on the ammo (optimal rate of twist, barrel length, etc). The British did research similar to this back in the 50's, I believe. They determined, if memory serves, that a .26 caliber bullet is the best compromise between wounding effects, power, range, recoil, and individual soldier's carrying capacity - still carrying as much ammo as possible, however. I'd like the US Military to do the same thing - but this time, actually implement the research. They could start over, or continue from where the Brits left off, I don't care. But our troops would finally have the BEST weapons in the world, which they certainly deserve. The AR series just isn't good enough anymore - and they're doing what the Russians did for years: make the basic design last as long as possible, so they don't have to design an all-new weapon. That just isn't a good way to ensure people have the best available weapons anymore.

If you're looking for a rifle for your own personal use - at the range, for hunting, or for SHTF "scenarios", I'll give you a couple of recommendations. Personally, I like the G3/CETME rifles. They're in .308, but aren't nearly as heavy as a M1A. They're easy to work on, are great shooters, and accurate. The recoil is very manageable for semi-auto .308's. Ammo's plentiful, and cheap - and it'll be around for SHTF. The CETME's are ALMOST the same as the G3 - a few things like sights, are a bit different - but the important thing is, the mags are interchangeable between them. G3 surplus mags are very plentiful, and cheap - I see them all of the time for $3 each!

AK's are VERY reliable, and ammo's plentiful. For SHTF in the US, however, ammo may not be around (unless we're invaded by a country that equips their military with AK-types - unlikely). They're inexpensive, parts are plentiful, and easy to work on. Caliber is a toss-up: do your own research, and get whatever's more comfortable to you.

I personally would stay away from an AR. I love the looks of them, and I do plan to buy another one for my collection, but I'd get something else first, for the reasons already mentioned. If you must have a 5.56 rifle, I'd go with an AK in that caliber, or a HK variant - even though they're pricey. The reliability factor is worth the extra cost, in my opinion, and I'm a notorious tightwad!

The FAL is also a good choice, but they're heavier than the G3/CETME, and more expensive these days (the upper recievers cost the same as an entire CETME rifle, plus accessories!). The FAL is very popular, and parts are all over the world, but I feel that there are better rifles out there that are less expensive, just as reliable, and chambered for the same .308 round. Buy one if you must, but I'd look elsewhere.

If you can find one (and afford it), an AN-94 from Russia is a wonderful rifle. The Russians also have a plethora of great, advanced rifles that they've designed and built in the last decade, but they're scarce - especially in the US, as Class III firearms can't be imported (except for military/LE use). Another firearm I really, REALLY like (but I'll never own due to restrictions) is the P-90, from FN. It's technically a "PDW", or a sub-machinegun. But, I'd take one in a heartbeat if I could get my hands on one, even to the point of selling my car to pay for it! But that's me, and it's also wishful hoping...

If I can be of further assistance, I'll be glad to help. I have extensive experience with military small arms (shooting, maintaining, and fighting against most of them), and if I can't answer your question, I'll certainly try to find someone who can.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,935 Posts
Clark Kent said:
I hate to fart in church, but I like my Mini-14 just fine.
  1. Man who pass gas in church, sit in own pew. (think about it.)[/*:kzwlvy4g]
  2. Me, too! Series K184 with an unbelievable Jon Tank trigger, and an Ashley Emerson "slip-in" aperture rear sight insert. [/*:kzwlvy4g]
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top