- Messages
- 713
- Reactions
- 411
No...they traded the last great battle rifle (the M14) for the M16.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
- Thread Starter Randini
- Start date
- Messages
- 10,374
- Reactions
- 29,745
I think the guns are not the problem. I have heard horror stories about the lack of armor given to our troops, especially in the beginning of this war.
I read about guys having their parents and friends buy them body armor and sending it to Iraq and Afghanistan for them.
That horrified me. Either way our troops are given sub-standard equipment all around and expected to do an impossible job. I've read books about problems arising from ROE, it never stops. And then our Vets get to come home to hippies and even worse care then the got in Iraq. What has out country come to.
I never served this country and could not Thank You Vets enough.
I read about guys having their parents and friends buy them body armor and sending it to Iraq and Afghanistan for them.
That horrified me. Either way our troops are given sub-standard equipment all around and expected to do an impossible job. I've read books about problems arising from ROE, it never stops. And then our Vets get to come home to hippies and even worse care then the got in Iraq. What has out country come to.
I never served this country and could not Thank You Vets enough.
- Messages
- 735
- Reactions
- 108
I haven't seen an xm-177 since I was in Ranger regiment back in 90. It was pretty awesome to have a full auto carbine with a 203 grenade launcher sticking out about an inch past your rifle barrel.
looks like a little late buy maybe a new weapon to them.
http://www.military.com/news/article/new-machine-gun-for-joes-in-afghanistan.html?ESRC=army.nl
http://www.military.com/news/article/new-machine-gun-for-joes-in-afghanistan.html?ESRC=army.nl
- Messages
- 383
- Reactions
- 29
well at least they realize the Cal.7.62 needed to be back in the forefront.Now put the M-14 in a couple configurations along side it.
- Messages
- 686
- Reactions
- 33
I read a bit somewhere recently (maybe SWAT magazine or Soldier of Fortune) by a Marine who said that while in Afghanistan they saw a suicide bomber coming. The bomber wasn't trying to hide anything. He just walked up to them. They started shooting at him a distance away with their M4's but he didn't stop until he was close enough to pull the pin. The blast cause several casualties among our people. This Marine ended saying something like "Make mine at least a 6.8 MM (.270)." I agree. I don't think I would want to try to protect my life or family with the 5.56 MM (.223).
- Messages
- 713
- Reactions
- 411
A few thoughts...
First, yes, I'd much rather have a .270 (6.8) than a .223, and I'd rather have .308 than either. But I don't have to carry my rifle over mountain, field, and stream, nor do I have to plan the ammo supply logistics or interact with NATO. My understanding is that the M16 was chosen because (a) infantrymen could carry more ammo, (b) in a lighter package, (c) common with NATO, and (d) some speculation that shoot-to-wound is better than shoot-to-kill in terms of inflicting headaches upon your enemy. The US military also seems to have gone from a sharpshooter mentality to a "spray and pray" mentality in Viet Nam, and the M16 is better than the M14 for that, because you can carry more ammo.
The M4 is handier, but you trade sound (it's louder) and heat (it runs hotter). The military mindset is that the rifle be "good enough at 100Y".
Honestly, I think the military went in the wrong direction. Ditto for handguns. I have no problem with 9mm in good HP loads, but if we're only issuing ball ammo due to the Geneva convention, then .45ACP ball is certainly better than 9mm. No reason to have moved from the 1911 in my opinion.
However...keep this in mind: we're better equipped at an individual soldier level than the typical foe we face (and vastly better equipped at higher levels). The typical terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq is using an AK-47. That's a reliable weapon - arguably more reliable than the M16, certainly so if the M16 is not well-maintained. And the ammo is more powerful than the .223...but good luck hitting anything with it. In ideal conditions - clean, lightly used semi-automatic civilian versions in the US, benchrest conditions, no wind, no combat stress, etc. - the gun does maybe 4" groups at 100Y. In the real world - dirty, banged-up, shot-out, resurplused AK-47 firing full-auto fire using surplus ammo in the desert while shouting Allah Akbar at the top of your lungs - good luck.
First, yes, I'd much rather have a .270 (6.8) than a .223, and I'd rather have .308 than either. But I don't have to carry my rifle over mountain, field, and stream, nor do I have to plan the ammo supply logistics or interact with NATO. My understanding is that the M16 was chosen because (a) infantrymen could carry more ammo, (b) in a lighter package, (c) common with NATO, and (d) some speculation that shoot-to-wound is better than shoot-to-kill in terms of inflicting headaches upon your enemy. The US military also seems to have gone from a sharpshooter mentality to a "spray and pray" mentality in Viet Nam, and the M16 is better than the M14 for that, because you can carry more ammo.
The M4 is handier, but you trade sound (it's louder) and heat (it runs hotter). The military mindset is that the rifle be "good enough at 100Y".
Honestly, I think the military went in the wrong direction. Ditto for handguns. I have no problem with 9mm in good HP loads, but if we're only issuing ball ammo due to the Geneva convention, then .45ACP ball is certainly better than 9mm. No reason to have moved from the 1911 in my opinion.
However...keep this in mind: we're better equipped at an individual soldier level than the typical foe we face (and vastly better equipped at higher levels). The typical terrorist in Afghanistan or Iraq is using an AK-47. That's a reliable weapon - arguably more reliable than the M16, certainly so if the M16 is not well-maintained. And the ammo is more powerful than the .223...but good luck hitting anything with it. In ideal conditions - clean, lightly used semi-automatic civilian versions in the US, benchrest conditions, no wind, no combat stress, etc. - the gun does maybe 4" groups at 100Y. In the real world - dirty, banged-up, shot-out, resurplused AK-47 firing full-auto fire using surplus ammo in the desert while shouting Allah Akbar at the top of your lungs - good luck.
- Thread Starter
- #28
- Messages
- 100
- Reactions
- 2
Uhm NO, WE/THEY dont!!! As a prior army 95B MP from 1997to just a few months back I can tell you the MIL SPEC which means alot to most civilians dont mean CRAP to me!!! Our weapons are good but not even close to the best, Id wouldve much rathered had my DTI built AR15 over seas then my issue weapon!! There were a few guys over the pond from an oregon reserve unit who brought thier own personal side arms, this is what I shoulve done!!!! I wasnt aware we could or how they had pulled it off but i forsurley wouldve like to had my HK USP 40 and My AR15... Not to mention ballistics vest and what not that I can buy as a civilian.. I cant speak for the marines but the US Army is still peddling junk.. A perfect example is this.. I remeber when I saw GoreTex for the first time at AIT.. It was a 2lt attachted to our company for xtraining.. Goretex ISNT issued or WASNT at the time atleast, you got a rain poncho that got soaked throu in 7 minutes.. But you could buy GorTex anywhere.... Just not issued... thats the best example of BS i could think of cause the M16A2 isnt bad, it just isnt the best!
- Messages
- 621
- Reactions
- 405
Wow...I got issued two sets of gortex as an old 11B, one wet weather, one cold weather...tops and bottoms....that was 20 years ago lol....wth is going on?!?!
- Messages
- 100
- Reactions
- 2
Yeah i dunno!! You guys also got them cool OD green jungle boots too!! I remember back in AIT that if you had the real jungle boot you were THE SHIZZLE!!! I personnaly liked my Jump boots, still havem and where'em when Im feelin all gung how and ramboish.
But Now that I think about it 11B's WERE issued GorTex and and were about the only MOS that were.. Youd think because of being an 95B and being held to even high standards then the run of the mill soldier (not an attack or insult by ANYMEANS) they would be issuing us MP's GorTex... But they didnt.. I actually bought 2 sets in Ft Polk LA (man that was a bubblegumhole) a few months into active..
- Messages
- 100
- Reactions
- 2
I didnt say bubblegum!
- Messages
- 621
- Reactions
- 405
Yeah i dunno!! You guys also got them cool OD green jungle boots too!! I remember back in AIT that if you had the real jungle boot you were THE SHIZZLE!!! I personnaly liked my Jump boots, still havem and where'em when Im feelin all gung how and ramboish.
But Now that I think about it 11B's WERE issued GorTex and and were about the only MOS that were.. Youd think because of being an 95B and being held to even high standards then the run of the mill soldier (not an attack or insult by ANYMEANS) they would be issuing us MP's GorTex... But they didnt.. I actually bought 2 sets in Ft Polk LA (man that was a bubblegumhole) a few months into active..
Jungle boots are gone?!?! How did I get this old? When I got to my first duty unit I even got OG107 Uni's....best utility uniform I ever had.
Sorry for the thread hijack
- Messages
- 735
- Reactions
- 108
He means the old OD green jungle boots. I had about 6 pairs when I was in. Then again in Ranger Regiment we didn't know what Gortex was back in 90. I didn't get my 1st set of Gortex until I got to Korea in 91. The only places I used a sleeping back was Korea and on aviation deployments. I never once used nor carried my sleeping bag with me. It took up too much room and weight. I already had to jump in with 300 lbs of gear, I sure as **** didn't need the extra 10 lbs. 11B = freeze your arse off every night 67S = sleep in a tent with a stove
- Messages
- 621
- Reactions
- 405
I thought a poncho liner was a sleeping bag, and bungie cords and a poncho was a tent. lol
- Messages
- 735
- Reactions
- 108
They were, if you were allowed to use them. We used to move all night then dig in just before dawn. We'd pull security at stand to/down then take turns eating, sleeping, personal hygene. On the rare occasions that we'd dig in for the night to send out patrols for probing/contact then we'd be shivering in our shallow graves. One can surivive shivering all night long with a space blanket under them and poncho liner over them even if it was raining.
- Messages
- 735
- Reactions
- 108
Yup, I was 11B and a platoon RTO for awhile before I was sent to Battalion to work in S-3 where I was an RTO then Driver/TAC security. I helped field the SINGARs in Korea as well as Bradley's when we got them. My ruck got alot lighter when I got to Battalion. I would be pissed when we'd go to jump into the field and they'd hand me 6 mortar rounds to put in my ruck. I would ask, so who's taking some batteries from me since I already have 6 in there at 5 lbs a piece. That's not including the 35 lbs of radio that had to fit in there. Add up all the food, ammo, water, clothes/gear, and chutes I was pushing 300 lbs alot. My LCE and K-pot weighed 97 lbs when it was weighed.
The difference between parachutists and paratroopers is parachutists jump from a perfectly good aircraft while paratroopers fall out.
The difference between parachutists and paratroopers is parachutists jump from a perfectly good aircraft while paratroopers fall out.
- Messages
- 102
- Reactions
- 33
I have a friend who had done that with his own handgun. He was confident about it for a while, and he wasn't the only one doing it. When he got a new handgun, i asked what happened to the other, which put him in a bad mood and he grumbled something about officers taking everyone's handguns. I'll have to find out how that happened.sinco54 said:
- Thread Starter
- #40
