Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saxman on May 27, 2008, 12:09:57 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets
It seems that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are complaining that the rounds fired by the M16 and M4 rifles that form the bulk of the individual weaponry issued to soldiers in the combat zone are inadequate for the nature of combat in these areas. The rounds were designed to penetrate the steel helmets and types of body armor typically worn by modern armies on a major battlefield. However against lightly-armed targets at the short ranges of urban combat, the rounds have a tendency to pass through the target, and lack the hitting power and lethality to drop an enemy combatant unless a major organ is hit.
IIRC this is the same situation as occurred when the US Military and local police forces switched over to the 9mm in preference over the larger M1911 and related .45cal sidearms.
-
M14's for everyone!
-
6.8 SPC and new barrels....
Or jacketed tungsten rounds for the .223 with double the impact energy past 500 yards compared to normal ball ammo.
Strip
-
Funny, I've been saying 5.56 sucks ever since they took the SLR (7.62) away from the British Army. And I was about 12 when that happened.....
-
Strip,
The problem pointed out in the article is not the impact energy at long distance, but the close ranges of the type of urban combat being faced by troops. Doubling impact energy outside 500yds is of no use if combat is taking place under that distance.
-
I think they mean that things that get hit with .30 caliber bullets stay down.
lazs
-
no, they just need one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/v/p4ebtj1jR7c&hl=en
-
I'll take 10 of those...
:D
-
What about mixed loadouts that included frangible/hollowpoint/etc rounds? It seems that it'd be cheaper, easier to roll out fast, wouldn't require re-quals, and could be done with existing infrastructure.
-
Yep that is one sweet shotgun. :aok That was the first weapon that jumped into my head when i read the post. When i pulled guard duty tours in the Marines they issued us semi-auto shotguns with double aut buckshot rounds and extended tubes that would hold 10 rounds. Since we did flight line patrols on the airfield we were taught to aim at the concrete directly in front of someone to disable them and avoid as much possible damage to planes and things as possible. Actually shooting directly at someone was to be a last resort.
-
I was talking to a marine who was showing me the SA-80 and he said the NATO 5.56mm bullet fragments inside the target, leaving a huge exit wound. AK-47 ammo leaves clean wounds that are more survivable (according to him).
-
Dowd mate.....the 5.56mm is supposed to fragment. In reality at short ranges it generally just goes straight through.
A 7.62mm will go straight through as well.....but it'll usually take a 6" wide lump with it when it does.
-
When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power. They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him. It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.
I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.
-
Ive read stories of S.F. guys lugging around Vietnam era M14's for that reason--the 2 guys who were awarded the MOH at Mogadishu come to mind
-
Put down the M4 and grab an AK.
-
What about mixed loadouts that included frangible/hollowpoint/etc rounds? It seems that it'd be cheaper, easier to roll out fast, wouldn't require re-quals, and could be done with existing infrastructure.
Hollowpoints violate the Geneva convention, I think.
BTW- I've known of a few fatalities at the hands of a 223, and some of them at close range- and I have never heard of a 223 round passing cleanly through the body. In fact it's why some police juristictions wou't use the 308- it WILL pass through a body, making collateral damage more likely.
-
When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power. They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him. It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.
I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you shoot at someone without intending to kill them?
-
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
-
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you shoot at someone without intending to kill them?
because of:
It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.
The basic thought behind that is:
- He's out of the fight
- He draws attention and lowers morale of his buddies (screaming in pain)
- Someone has to give him first aid, he has to be transported back for further treatment
-
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
Yeah, but that's not a REAL answer... that's just some sorry bellybutton excuse to explain away why you wouldn't kill someone when they get get shot. "oh... it takes more people to take care of someone injured."
If you're engaged... seems like you finish killing the folks shooting at you first... then go back & drag your wounded to treatment.
-
Yeah, but that's not a REAL answer...
It is.
Besides that, a war is more than just a single firefight. May sound cynical, but a dead soldier is often "cheaper" than a wounded one - at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.
-
He explained that in his post, because the opposing force would need to invest in two or three guys to take care of one injured guy instead of them being part of the effective fighting force.
Of course, that presumes your enemy places ANY sort of value upon staying alive--our newest adversaries weren't in mind 35ish years ago when the M16 was being debated
-
at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.
But that's not the kind of enemy we're dealing with here.
-
This is weird. I was the third person to post in this thread.
I know I posted because I remember exactly what I said.
"Would be easier just to issue some sort of fragmentation round. no?"
But the post is gone.
Very strange
-
It is.
Besides that, a war is more than just a single firefight. May sound cynical, but a dead soldier is often "cheaper" than a wounded one - at least in a society that cares for it's woudned & disabled.
Yup, that's also why anti-personnel mines are designed not to kill people, but only to blow their feet off.
-
Yup, that's also why anti-personnel mines are designed not to kill people, but only to blow their feet off.
I personally like the spring-loaded ones that spring up and explode at waist height. There are some real Jeffery Damer type weapons designers out there, aren't there?
-
This is weird. I was the third person to post in this thread.
I know I posted because I remember exactly what I said.
"Would be easier just to issue some sort of fragmentation round. no?"
But the post is gone.
Very strange
I grabbed those packets as they were coursing through the internet and squeezed the life out of them, Drediok. Then, with cool, methodical detachment, I sliced them open, extracted the salient ideas, then discarded their little, spent electronic corpses. My thousand meg stare piercing the dark void of the networks, I swung upwards through the routers and switches between me and the BBS then grabbed onto this thread. With nothing but my ol' Leatherman, I etched my 'frangible' message above, carefully stabbing out the dots above each "i" and surgically cutting the crosses into my "t"s.
Afterwards, like a ghost, I disappeared into the ether to stalk my next prey.
And that's how it's done.
-
For the type of house to house fighting that is going on in Iraq they need to just ditch the M-16's and M-4's completely. Issue everyone a 12 gage (00 buck) and a .45 pistol. Better yet go old school and give the infantry guys a weapon that has been proven in battle many times over for accuracy, stopping power, and reliability. The M1A1 Thompson .45.
The problem with the 5.56mm "ball" is that it sucks at close range. Anyone who has ever used it in combat can tell you that. Typical engagement range over in Iraq is less than 100 yards. A Thompson will drop anyone at 100 yards.
-
I say just keep the troops out and napalm the snot outta the place... But when the boots hit the ground to finish off survivors, thompsons and M-14s for everyone!
-
But then you, sir, are a nutter.
-
I say just keep the troops out and napalm the snot outta the place... But when the boots hit the ground to finish off survivors, thompsons and M-14s for everyone!
When you advocate killing all the non-combatants in the area, is it because you don't feel they're fully human for some racial or religious reason? Or is it because you hold them responsible for the actions of the soldiers/terrorists/guerillas/whatever you're fighting?
-
Texasmom i asked the same question you asked when i was going through bootcamp. Why not shoot to kill rather than wound? We were taught to aim center of mass, as in the belly to the neck, as this would definately wound and take down the guy. Every soldier you take out of combat, which the theory is that at least 1 or 2 would stop to help the wounded 1, is 1 less you have to fight up close and personal. Actually the primary goal isn't really to kill, but to disable the enemies ability or will to kill you.
-
Did anyone mention that it seemed like only 80% wanted a different caliber?
-
PS: Some interesting info on ballistics, etc.
http://ammo.ar15.com/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm
-
The M14 was, and still is the answer. There was no reason to replace it in the first place.
-
But then you, sir, are a nutter.
Nope, I just want to win, Period.
-
Nothing wrong with an M3 Grease gun for close combat.
-
That seems like a terribly inefficient strategy. A wounded enemy can still be a threat. Just kill the guy & move on to the next target. Moral will be low if their comrades are dead... not just wounded ~ and it's one less each time shooting back.
-
I thought the point of training to aim center of mass was because it means you're going for a target that's easier to hit?
Y'know if you're going to reissue the Thompson, bring back the Model 1911. Didn't they both use the same .45cal ACP round?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
7.62 version and problem solved.
-
That seems like a terribly inefficient strategy. A wounded enemy can still be a threat. Just kill the guy & move on to the next target. Moral will be low if their comrades are dead... not just wounded ~ and it's one less each time shooting back.
I've argued this many times on the internet.
While a 5.56 round may have a very low survivability rate, it also has a very low incapacitation rate. That means that while the target will die, for a little while he's still able to shoot back.
And the point made about the types of people we are fighting is also a good one. It is a very good assumption that 1 wounded soldier also takes out 2 healthy soldiers to take care of him, at least for a little while. This assumption stands IF (AND ONLY IF) we are fighting a First World Country. That is, a place that values life. We haven't fought a First World Country since Germany (and arguably, Japan wasn't a first either).
Now, as to the solution? Then we venture into personal opinion. Many people thought that the goal was to find a common weapon for every soldier. But to give everyone an average weapon was an epic failure that we have seen.
I believe the solution is to go back to specialized weapons for each soldier. I.E. Large caliber battle rifles for most, large caliber SMG's for some, and then large caliber MG's for a couple. While it does bring with it supply issues both for parts and ammo, it puts specialized weapons that are able to be used for when specialized situations arise.
-
Now, as to the solution? Then we venture into personal opinion. Many people thought that the goal was to find a common weapon for every soldier. But to give everyone an average weapon was an epic failure that we have seen.
I believe the solution is to go back to specialized weapons for each soldier. I.E. Large caliber battle rifles for most, large caliber SMG's for some, and then large caliber MG's for a couple. While it does bring with it supply issues both for parts and ammo, it puts specialized weapons that are able to be used for when specialized situations arise.
Exactly how far down the line of combat units do you figure this thing would go? Are you implying that every unit have a multitude of shoulder arms just in case they might find a use for a specialty weapon???:huh
-
Salute all
The m14 is an excellant weapon carried today by alot of special operators but the problems it is having in Iraq is head spacing issues and the new school army armourers arent trained to fix!! there is also the weight issue I humped the m16 with extra ammo for 5 years in light infantry ! the larger caliber means larger weight . They are looking at the 6.5 grendal and probably should look at the ar10 308cal. for the familiarty of the weapon to the 16! But for close quaters nothing beats a 12ga.. and im agreed with the return of the 1911 45acp ..
-
no, they just need one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/v/p4ebtj1jR7c&hl=en
:aok
-
The host of Future Weapons is a tool. Can't stand him and his whispering.
-
Rebarrel the M16s we have?
6.8mm SPC round
Cost a few hundred dollars per gun to switch over and the rounds are still fairly light compared to .308.
Strip
-
There has been far more politics in the Pentagon on this issue since WWII than most of us will ever know.
When the M-16 came into being and the Viet Nam Era saw it's extensive use, many troops (like my uncle) sent requests back home and GOT 12 gauge shotguns. He had ditched the wood restrictor and loaded it up with deer shot-bird shot every other shell.
Soldiers since then have complained that what they got were glorified 22's and had just as little stopping power. Answering an AK-47 with a M-16 seemed like a big let down.
I wish there would be a 21'st Century adaptation of the B-A-R. The round had huge stopping power and if it had a larger than 20 round magazine--so much the merrier. The Thompson, at 45 cal, was also a big target dropper and spawned fear into any enemy that heard one firing in their area...there HAS to be a way to deliver a 45 caliber round into a highly reliable weapon that was impervious to sand, dust, and moisture. This is 2008, right?
Our guys out there fighting terrorists need something better than what they have.
Also--the 30-0-06 shell is wonderful, even over long distances...why not something in that caliber with a 50 round magazine?
Just my 2 cents.
ROX
-
FN C1 in 7.62mm NATO, what Canada used to have (and still should). Extremely accurate and reliable. Killing shots at 600 yards are no problem for an average soldier, and the bad guy will not be getting back up.
http://www.eme421.com/fnc1a1.jpg
-
Seems this comes under the category of 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...'
I refer to the origin of the Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol:
http://www.m1911.org/full_history.htm (http://www.m1911.org/full_history.htm)
"The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thomson (inventor of the Thomson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.
"
Or is this an apples vs. oranges argument?
-
Exactly how far down the line of combat units do you figure this thing would go? Are you implying that every unit have a multitude of shoulder arms just in case they might find a use for a specialty weapon???:huh
I'm not suggesting that each infantry man have 4 different weapons he can choose from everytime he goes on a mission. I'm talking about going back to a WW2 / Korea type squad fit out.
-
The .45 has been one of the most effective combat rounds the US has ever fielded, be it in an SMG or pistol. The great thing about the M1A1 Thompson was the barrel was long enough to provide a great deal of accuracy at ranges out to 200 yards and still provide enough energy at impact to put a person down. Next in line would be the 7.62 NATO / .308 of M-14 fame.
The problem with those rounds however is weight. They are heavy and you can't carry as much ammo as you can with the 5.56mm. Also the problem isn't so much with the caliber of the 5.56 as it is with the type of bullet used. The Army still insists on using light weight armor piercing rounds when the 5.56 would be much more effective with a heavier hollow point round.
-
Well I don't want to refute all you ballistic experts, but I have shot a few rabbits with 5.56 55 GR. ball ammo at relatively close range(under 25 yards) and to say that the round just passes through is not correct. It does enter with a very small hole but the exit wound is the size of my fist. Granted the poor rabbit doesn't realize that it is dead for a second or two,( and that would be a definite negative in combat) but the wound is massive and traumatic. The 5.56 was designed to cause trauma, and iirc the biggest gripe against the M-16 in VietNam was that it would jam when it was needed most. Of course they were initially issued with out cleaning kits, because they didn't need to be cleaned, according to the Pentagon at the time.
Also the use of anything other than ball ammo is illegal, as per the Geneva convention. I'm surprised you ex-military types didn't say something. That is why our military does not use hollow points, or frangible ammunition.
-
Are you sure rabbits don't produce a different result than humans? Re: the fist size exit and internal damage.
-
M-14
-
Garands for everybody!
:aok
-
Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?
-
Are you sure rabbits don't produce a different result than humans? Re: the fist size exit and internal damage.
Yes rabbits would produce a differant result than humans, but you miss my point. Notice in my initial post I state that I was using 55 GR. ball ammo.
The biggest difference is that the military are being issued armor piercing rounds (M855). If they were issued standard ball ammo (M193) The wounds would be far more traumatic, and would not just pass through. As the original post stated.
You would however still have the issue of stopping power. Something the 5.56 has had difficulty with since it's introduction some forty-odd years ago.
I would also like to correct my statement in the previous thread: The use of anything other than ball or fully jacketed ammo is illegal per the Geneva convention. I don't want some of you more liberal types screaming that we are breaking international law by using steel jacketed armor piercing rounds.
-
Designing a weapon that will work accurately and reliably in every type of combat condition is problematic at best.
A weapon designed to be extremely accurate requites that barrel, stock, and receiver be fitted tightly with little play between each. An automatic weapon built to such a standard, such as the original M-16, will be prone to jamming from sand, grit, mud, and cold under battlefield conditions.
A weapon built to somewhat looser tolerances, such as the AK-47, will work reliably and be far less prone to jamming under similar conditions. Yet, the AK is a far from satisfactory weapon for engagements requiring extended range and accuracy, a battlefield venue for which the M-16 or M-14 is more aptly suited.
There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here. Either you can meet one set of requirements at the expense of the other, or vice-versa, but definitely not both. The only solution to meet the varying needs is to train the troops in the use of both types, and issue the suitable equipment when conditions call it, i.e., when troops are about to enter into street-sweeping combat, or open-field operations.
-
Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?
The M-14 has higher magazine capacity, it uses a 20 round detachable box magazine as opposed to an 8 round stripper clip for the Garand. The M-14 is a select fire weapon capable of full automatic fire, the Garand is semi auto only. The M-14 uses the 7.62x51 NATO round, The Garand uses the 30-06. Both are considered some of the finest battlefield rifles ever used in combat.
-
They do give our gunners shotguns to use as a backup in turrets for close range, and I love a good shottie, but I wouldn't want to carry one over here.
First off you'd have problems out at mid to long distance. Sadr City is about 100m across the road from us. I don't want to have to spray buckshot over there, or try to place a slug when I could have a rifle. Up close it would be nice to have 12ga power, but the ammo capacity and loading time could be a hazard in a close quarters situation.
I still like AKs. The round doesn't fly as well at range, but we don't do much shooting past 300m anyway. I think if I was to ask for something new I'd call for the 6.8. It's a good mix of range and power. Just please give me something other than an M4. I'm tired of the problems. There are better types out there.
-
Yes rabbits would produce a differant result than humans, but you miss my point. Notice in my initial post I state that I was using 55 GR. ball ammo.
The biggest difference is that the military are being issued armor piercing rounds (M855). If they were issued standard ball ammo (M193) The wounds would be far more traumatic, and would not just pass through. As the original post stated.
You would however still have the issue of stopping power. Something the 5.56 has had difficulty with since it's introduction some forty-odd years ago.
I would also like to correct my statement in the previous thread: The use of anything other than ball or fully jacketed ammo is illegal per the Geneva convention. I don't want some of you more liberal types screaming that we are breaking international law by using steel jacketed armor piercing rounds.
I meant that the scale of hydroshock etc may give different results, even if you scaled everything to equal proportions, the same way scale models of aircraft used for wind tunnel testing don't work if they're too small. Just curious.
-
I don't know.
I have seen some pics from the Vietnam era of wounds received by enemy soldiers with 5.56 rounds, and they are traumatic to say the least.
It was the same type of effect I saw on the rabbits. A small entrance wound with a large exit wound.
-
M-14
How about a M1A? :D
-
I have never understood how we can have lead pellets and slugs in 12 ga. shotgun but not in pistols..
I like at least a 45 for a handgun or back up to the .357 mag.
I would like the striker or alley sweeper revolver type shotgun in tense situations.
Not a big fan of subguns.
I think the 6.8 would be a big improvement but I would rather shoot 55 grain bullets in the m4 instead of the 62's
M14 is great for most things... a tad heavy and long.
I love my garand... I wouldn't feel badly armed with one on any field.
lazs
-
I'm not suggesting that each infantry man have 4 different weapons he can choose from everytime he goes on a mission. I'm talking about going back to a WW2 / Korea type squad fit out.
Please explain what you mean by this. You are not being clear at all.
-
Please explain what you mean by this. You are not being clear at all.
I think he's talking about each soldier having a role specific weapon with a certain job. By WWII style squad I think he means a squad with riflemen, with Garands keeping with the WWII example, someone with a BAR, someone with a Thompson, etc.
-
That's pretty much how it is now. Nothing has really changed with squad setups other than the weapons being issued now. M-16/M-4's for most of the guys, a couple of SAW's, and a couple M-203 grenade launchers. Might have a couple of guys with shotguns. Still have the heavy weapons platoons in most infantry companies with the M-240 .30 cal machine guns. M-2 .50-BMG's, mortars. Sniper teams within the companies and battalions.
-
That's pretty much how it is now. Nothing has really changed with squad setups other than the weapons being issued now. M-16/M-4's for most of the guys, a couple of SAW's, and a couple M-203 grenade launchers. Might have a couple of guys with shotguns. Still have the heavy weapons platoons in most infantry companies with the M-240 .30 cal machine guns. M-2 .50-BMG's, mortars. Sniper teams within the companies and battalions.
But the point of what I was talking about was to distance the soldiers from using 5.56 as a jack of all trades, and giving the troops ammo types that are specifically meant for a role.
I.E. A .45 SMG can definitely outperform the M16 at ranges under 100 yards. A .308 Battle Rifle can definitely outperform the M16 at ranges over 100 yards.
The problem with those rounds however is weight. They are heavy and you can't carry as much ammo as you can with the 5.56mm. Also the problem isn't so much with the caliber of the 5.56 as it is with the type of bullet used. The Army still insists on using light weight armor piercing rounds when the 5.56 would be much more effective with a heavier hollow point round.
This assumption stands true if and only if the each types are equal round for round. They are not.
The 5.56 was designed to cause trauma, and iirc the biggest gripe against the M-16 in VietNam was that it would jam when it was needed most. Of course they were initially issued with out cleaning kits, because they didn't need to be cleaned, according to the Pentagon at the time.
The problem with the first versions of the M16 were design flaws and stupid decisions in redesigning the AR15. The round's actual application effectiveness is debatable, but all of the problems were caused by the gun.
-
Is there a significant advantage to Garands over M14s?
Most of the differences are debatable as to which is better. Sure the M14 has a higher mag capacity, but the Garand is one of the fastest reloading weapons in the world. As to an aside, regardless of what people have said, it is relatively easy to reload a Garand Clip in gun up to 7 bullets. It's an acquired skill to load the clip to 8 bullets out of the gun in a decently quick manner.
The M14 does have Automatic Fire. But since it is lighter, most except the bigger guys will have difficulty controlling it. The Garand is heavier.
Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.
-
no, they just need one of these:
http://www.youtube.com/v/p4ebtj1jR7c&hl=en
Oh hell ya
-
Just please give me something other than an M4. I'm tired of the problems. There are better types out there.
You said you confiscated a '53 Tula the other day, What is stopping you from grabbing a Maadi AK and leaving the M4 at your base?
-
Close combat .... same as other wars, hard to beat a BAR 30/06, same as my Dad used at Guadalcanal .in WW2...
CHECKERS
-
The Garand and BAR are yesterdays news. Yes they were great but you couldnt compare the firepower of todays rifle companies with yesterdays. The amount of firepower a modern rifle company can lay out on an enemy is awsome.
-
Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.
Besides, you gotta love the "Pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-TING!" of that clip ejecting. :D
-
Bring back the Thompson and B.A.R. for urban assault/building clearing! :aok Then your squad can have long range weapons specialist to use the less effective far range weapons to pick off the runners. Tommy gun and B.A.R are 2 of the most deadly close in combination weapons you can find for in close fighting other than a shotgun IMO. :aok
-
The Garand and BAR are yesterdays news. Yes they were great but you couldnt compare the firepower of todays rifle companies with yesterdays. The amount of firepower a modern rifle company can lay out on an enemy is awsome.
This is true if AND ONLY IF each 5.56 Nato round is equal in power to each 7.62 Nato round. Since they are not, this statement isn't true.
-
Bring back the Thompson and B.A.R. for urban assault/building clearing! :aok Then your squad can have long range weapons specialist to use the less effective far range weapons to pick off the runners. Tommy gun and B.A.R are 2 of the most deadly close in combination weapons you can find for in close fighting other than a shotgun IMO. :aok
Isn't the BAR like 20 lbs? With a complicated-to-reload 20 round magazine?
According to Wiki:
Type Automatic rifle
Place of origin Flag of the United States United States
Service history
In service 1917–1960s (U.S.)
Used by United States
Wars World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War (limited), Palestinian Civil War
Production history
Designed 1917
Produced 1917–1940s
Number built See design
Variants M1918A1, M1918A2, M1922
Specifications
Weight 7.2–8.8 kg (16–19 lb) empty
Length 1,214 mm (47.8 in)
Barrel length 610 mm (24 in)
Cartridge .30-06 Springfield (7.62x63mm)
Action Gas-operated, open bolt
Rate of fire 300–650 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity 805 m/s (2,640 ft/s)
Effective range 548 m (600 yd)
Feed system 20-round detachable box magazine
VS. the AK (this is under the Wikipedia article for AK47... a modern variant like the AKM or AK103 would be lighter and more accurate with a higher rate of fire, IIRC)
Type Assault rifle
Place of origin Flag of the Soviet Union Soviet Union
Service history
In service 1949–present
Used by Warsaw Pact, Post-Soviet states, many others
Production history
Designer Mikhail Kalashnikov
Designed 1944-1946
Manufacturer Izhmash
Variants See Variants
Specifications
Weight 4.3 kg (9.5 lb) with empty magazine
Length 870 mm (34.3 in) fixed wooden stock
875 mm (34.4 in) folding stock extended
645 mm (25.4 in) stock folded
Barrel length 415 mm (16.3 in)
Cartridge 7.62x39mm M43
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire 600 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity 715 m/s (2,346 ft/s)
Effective range 100-800 sight adjustments m
Feed system 30-round detachable box magazine, also compatible with 40-round box or 75-round drum magazines from the RPK
Sights Adjustable iron sights, 378 mm (14.9 in) sight radius
-
Most of the differences are debatable as to which is better. Sure the M14 has a higher mag capacity, but the Garand is one of the fastest reloading weapons in the world. As to an aside, regardless of what people have said, it is relatively easy to reload a Garand Clip in gun up to 7 bullets. It's an acquired skill to load the clip to 8 bullets out of the gun in a decently quick manner.
The M14 does have Automatic Fire. But since it is lighter, most except the bigger guys will have difficulty controlling it. The Garand is heavier.
Both incredibly reliable weapons, really accurate, and pleasant to shoot.
What about if you weigh the total reloading time for a certain amount of bullets shot (e.g. the number of bullets in 1 M14 load), and if you designed some sort of ballast for the M14?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/battling_over_bullets
It seems that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are complaining that the rounds fired by the M16 and M4 rifles that form the bulk of the individual weaponry issued to soldiers in the combat zone are inadequate for the nature of combat in these areas. The rounds were designed to penetrate the steel helmets and types of body armor typically worn by modern armies on a major battlefield. However against lightly-armed targets at the short ranges of urban combat, the rounds have a tendency to pass through the target, and lack the hitting power and lethality to drop an enemy combatant unless a major organ is hit.
IIRC this is the same situation as occurred when the US Military and local police forces switched over to the 9mm in preference over the larger M1911 and related .45cal sidearms.
So what you saying exactly? We abandon the M16 and M4 for say uum... an AK-47?
-
M-14s for Everyone!!!
Or get those soldiers the new 6.8mm guns out there (which is I heard .270 Winchester)
-
When I was in basic training we heard a lecture from the guys who put on the US weapons demonstration about the M16 to address everyone's concern about a 5.56 steel bullet's lack of knock-down power. They said that the M16 was designed to wound the enemy not kill him. It takes more resources for the enemy to care for a wounded soldier than a dead soldier.
I didn't buy it then and I'm not buying it now.
That is correct.
The thing is, that philosophy only works in conventional warfare. Aka army vs army.
Thing is, against the muslim fanatics in the middle east... they dont care if they die and their leaders really dont care how many people they lose. There's plenty of screaming doofuses to replace their losses.
Personally, I say bring on the vaporizing ray guns.
-
Now THIS could be the solution:
The ultimate anti-personnel weapon (http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/moviesl/momdad1.mpg)
-
Agreed, we need light grenades... :D