In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
There will never be a firearm that meets all needs, really you have to pick and choose something that meets your mission's basic requirements without comprimising your ability to effectively close with and engage your enemy. I would choose something that puts 'em down and keeps 'em down. Many of the new Mission Adapdable Systems are heavy and have too many parts. I hated carrying the M16/m203 because it had to much weight on the forend for hasty off-hand shots. I would rather carry a seperate light wieght grenage launcher. Check out H&K, they have a couple of light weight options. If I had to go into a bad situation tommarrow I'd say it would be an M-14 SOCOM, I know alot of people say the whole "socom" stuff is for gear queers but thats not why I like it. It points fast and is compatable with many different optics, plus it has a round with some power and the balistics for some down range actiona and has tried and true reliablity. You could even mount a picatinny rail compatable grenade launcher on it. I would also carry a Sig Sauer P220 in .45acp or 1911. Who needs alot of rounds when a few well placed ones will do? If anybody hollers about needing high cap mags for suppression, I'm just saying this selection is for the rifleman only or a singlely armed individual not for a whole platoon who has to do fire and maneuver.
You bring up a good point about the Socom 16 and the 1911 but I have to disagree with you on a few points. 1st I would want the 1911 in a high capacity, and with a traditional double action, thats your ohpoop weapon, and usually you don'y have too much space for pouches which is where hicap comes in handy. 2nd Yes, well placed shots are important, but capacity is important too especially when space is at a premium and you are going out for weeks at a time not knowing what you will be up against. You don't have to use all the ammo because you have it, but its certainly nice not to run out and have to rely on luck to get back alive. 3rd I HATE picatinny rails, I cut my hand open real good with one and spent 2 weeks trying to keep it from getting infected in one of the dirtiest places on this earth. I would rather tape everything to my weapon. One rail on top is not bad but I have seen gear queers with rails everywhere. I would rather not have it if its not permanently attached.
You bring up a good point about the Socom 16 and the 1911 but I have to disagree with you on a few points. 1st I would want the 1911 in a high capacity, and with a traditional double action, thats your ohpoop weapon, and usually you don'y have too much space for pouches which is where hicap comes in handy. 2nd Yes, well placed shots are important, but capacity is important too especially when space is at a premium and you are going out for weeks at a time not knowing what you will be up against. You don't have to use all the ammo because you have it, but its certainly nice not to run out and have to rely on luck to get back alive. 3rd I HATE picatinny rails, I cut my hand open real good with one and spent 2 weeks trying to keep it from getting infected in one of the dirtiest places on this earth. I would rather tape everything to my weapon. One rail on top is not bad but I have seen gear queers with rails everywhere. I would rather not have it if its not permanently attached.
[/quote]
Well, I'd stick with the Spingfield M1A Socom. There are multiple versions, ideally I'd have the intermediate barrel with a compensator. The other thing I like is that the picatinny system is modular and not necesarry for operation. So, take it off if you don't like it. I'm sure you've seen guys qualify with M4s or other shorter M16 platform rifles. There are a lot of people who are starting to rethink barrel length. That's why I say Intermediate barrel length for maximum MOUT performance and good out to 500 meters or more. When you start to talk highcap in .45 it leads to alot of carbine talk. I see the need to have extra ammo for your side arm and have it excessible but I knew a guy in Iraq who had 8 mags for his 1911 on a chest rig as well as his M16amgs and more M16 mags on a droprig on his left leg. Now you kinda have to talk gear because with the proper distribution you could make it work. I would rather pack more ammo for my primary weapon with it;s extended range and in the case of the M1A1, it's knockdown power. Would you use you side arm that much in your expirience that you would want that much more weight? I know the load out is different for the missions you did but I always sufficed with 6mags on my flak 1mag in the weapon 6mags in a bandoleer in my daypack and 4mags for my side arm if I was carrying a rifle. That's 390rds for the rifle and 60 for the sidearm!
Just curious Wittynbear, what do you think of MARSOC instead of Force Recon? Do you think they're throwing away history or it's just the natural progression of things? I know it's a little off topic but I had to ask.
I think that the SOCOM M14 is a great choice for a senior rifleman or designated marksman. Good range in the open, good power to stop a car up close if you need to. I never liked the picanary rail so I did not have one on my M4. All I had on it was a PAQ4 which I used to mark targets at nite. It was mounted with the old style barrel clamp under the top handguard. As far as ammo goes you will always find a way to carry the ammo that you need. I usually carried 6 rifle mags on the front of my vest then 6 more in a saw ammo pouch on the back. It helped me keep my balance. I also carried 4 pistol mags, 1 smoke, 1 frag, binos, compuss, pistol holster, etc, all on my vest. Then a radio, water, and whatever else I needed for the mission in my Assault pack. Once you get use to the weight of your vest why would you take anything out of it? If my mission came down to me actually having to use my pistol as a primarry firearm. It is time for me to take my toys and go home. So I do not see the need for a high capacity or even double action pistols to be used. They are not your primary weapon and should remain as simple as possable.
quote:Originally posted by wildeman.7.62nato
Just curious Wittynbear, what do you think of MARSOC instead of Force Recon? Do you think they're throwing away history or it's just the natural progression of things? I know it's a little off topic but I had to ask.
On the surface it looks good, but when you really think of it the Corps is getting buttraped. Marines have been sent to SOCOM before the problem was after the mission they were required for SOCOM didn't want to let them go back to FMF. It was really a hassle, so much so that every Commandant since has refused to put Marines under SOCOM. The Marine Corps does more with less, and it is a considerable cost to train Marines to be Recon Marines, Force Recon, then going blackside into DA. That equates to a considerable amount of money, time, experience, and expertise that is being wasted by the Marine Corps by sending them to SOCOM, because when that happens The Corps loses operational control of those Marines. Granted they are an asset to SOCOM, but it also represents an asset that is lost to the Marine Corps. It would be the same as building 3 helicopters and then just giving one away, same concept for your average Force Recon Marine woking blackside, everytime one is lost thats time, money, training, and ability that is worth $7M flushed down the tubes because SOCOM will not give them back. That is experience and capability that is lost to the FMF and to whichever MEU they would have been assigned to. Is the Marine Corps getting away from Special Operations Capability with every MEU? I certainly hope not. I seriously doubt if they can pull Marines from SOCOM to go on a float for 6 months. That degrades the ability of the MEUSOC. It means rushing Recon Marines through training, or cutting out some courses, in the name of speed to be able to field enough to cover SOCOM and operational commitments. In the long run it means lower quality, for higher quantity, and I don't like it at all. I just want to know who was smoking what kind of batshat to ok this.
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
If my mission came down to me actually having to use my pistol as a primarry firearm. It is time for me to take my toys and go home. So I do not see the need for a high capacity or even double action pistols to be used. They are not your primary weapon and should remain as simple as possable.
I'm guessing you were never going through the caves of Afghanistan looking for the ever elusive, very rich, 7 foot arab on dialysis and his buddies. It gets very cramped and too small for a rifle. Many times we only went in with a stripped vest, a knife, a pistol, 4 extra mags, and flashlight.
quote:Originally posted by wildeman.7.62nato
Well, I'd stick with the Spingfield M1A Socom. There are multiple versions, ideally I'd have the intermediate barrel with a compensator. The other thing I like is that the picatinny system is modular and not necesarry for operation. So, take it off if you don't like it. I'm sure you've seen guys qualify with M4s or other shorter M16 platform rifles. There are a lot of people who are starting to rethink barrel length. That's why I say Intermediate barrel length for maximum MOUT performance and good out to 500 meters or more. When you start to talk highcap in .45 it leads to alot of carbine talk. I see the need to have extra ammo for your side arm and have it excessible but I knew a guy in Iraq who had 8 mags for his 1911 on a chest rig as well as his M16amgs and more M16 mags on a droprig on his left leg. Now you kinda have to talk gear because with the proper distribution you could make it work. I would rather pack more ammo for my primary weapon with it;s extended range and in the case of the M1A1, it's knockdown power. Would you use you side arm that much in your expirience that you would want that much more weight? I know the load out is different for the missions you did but I always sufficed with 6mags on my flak 1mag in the weapon 6mags in a bandoleer in my daypack and 4mags for my side arm if I was carrying a rifle. That's 390rds for the rifle and 60 for the sidearm!
We went out for weeks at a time, resupply was not always reliable. Typically I carried on my vest 12 rifle mags, 6 grenades, 4 pistol mags, a small flashlight, a knife, a dump pouch, a pistol with a mag, 4 quarts of water, and NVGs. I also carried a pack with, 2 camel backs, a water purifier, 18 extra rifle mags, a radio, 6 batteries, a few pounds of c4, a couple claymores, an extra set of clothes and boots, 2 sets of polypros, Cold weather gear, and probably about 30 field stripped MREs. Then I would have my rifle with a magazine. I had my pistol dropped on my right leg and the dump pouch on my left.
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
quote:Originally posted by wildeman.7.62nato
Just curious Wittynbear, what do you think of MARSOC instead of Force Recon? Do you think they're throwing away history or it's just the natural progression of things? I know it's a little off topic but I had to ask.
On the surface it looks good, but when you really think of it the Corps is getting buttraped. Marines have been sent to SOCOM before the problem was after the mission they were required for SOCOM didn't want to let them go back to FMF. It was really a hassle, so much so that every Commandant since has refused to put Marines under SOCOM. The Marine Corps does more with less, and it is a considerable cost to train Marines to be Recon Marines, Force Recon, then going blackside into DA. That equates to a considerable amount of money, time, experience, and expertise that is being wasted by the Marine Corps by sending them to SOCOM, because when that happens The Corps loses operational control of those Marines. Granted they are an asset to SOCOM, but it also represents an asset that is lost to the Marine Corps. It would be the same as building 3 helicopters and then just giving one away, same concept for your average Force Recon Marine woking blackside, everytime one is lost thats time, money, training, and ability that is worth $7M flushed down the tubes because SOCOM will not give them back. That is experience and capability that is lost to the FMF and to whichever MEU they would have been assigned to. Is the Marine Corps getting away from Special Operations Capability with every MEU? I certainly hope not. I seriously doubt if they can pull Marines from SOCOM to go on a float for 6 months. That degrades the ability of the MEUSOC. It means rushing Recon Marines through training, or cutting out some courses, in the name of speed to be able to field enough to cover SOCOM and operational commitments. In the long run it means lower quality, for higher quantity, and I don't like it at all. I just want to know who was smoking what kind of batshat to ok this.
My little brother's a real motivator, he is thinking about taking the indoc. I told him he has to put some real thought into it, he just got the unit and duty station he wanted for reenlisting. Nothing wrong with it as a career choice. Any advice for the kid?
My little brother's a real motivator, he is thinking about taking the indoc. I told him he has to put some real thought into it, he just got the unit and duty station he wanted for reenlisting. Nothing wrong with it as a career choice. Any advice for the kid?
I dont know much about the Marines since I was in the Army. It seems to me that the Marines need to look at a multiple level special operations system like the Army has. At the top SF/Delta then below them Ranger then below them as mission dictates Airborne. The advantage of this is that there is a clear priority for personel, and if a unit needs people there is a very defined way to get augmentation of personel or atachment from lower units. These atachments may not have as much training, but are still highly trained. I think that this is better than just pulling people out of any random unit, and letting them have a go at it. Another thing that I have never understood about the Marines and Navy is why do they wait until last for jump school, when everyone knows that ussually people sustain more serious injuries during there first 10 jumps than they do after 10 jumps? Seems like before you invest all of the money in them you would want to know that they can step out of a airplane with out getting hurt at least 5 times.
What do you Marines think?
About going into caves after the bad guys. They need to bring back the Tunnel Rats. I was in Iraq not Afganastan, but I would never go into a cave with just a pistol. I would figure out a way to take a M4, sub machine gun, or shotgun.
One more thing about the Marines: They need to take Prior service, and lateral transfers from the Army. At least at the Airborne level and above. I understand not wanting all of the trash from the rest of the Army but Look at how the Air Force fills its Para rescue and gorund SAR, from the Army and Marines. Save money on training and get quality personel, that come from the best units that the Army has. I wouldnt personaly do, I would rather be in a plane a few hours, than a ship for 6 months, but some soldiers would.
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
One more thing about the Marines: They need to take Prior service, and lateral transfers from the Army. At least at the Airborne level and above. I understand not wanting all of the trash from the rest of the Army but Look at how the Air Force fills its Para rescue and gorund SAR, from the Army and Marines. Save money on training and get quality personel, that come from the best units that the Army has. I wouldnt personaly do, I would rather be in a plane a few hours, than a ship for 6 months, but some soldiers would.
NO THEY DON'T! The Marines are not just skill orientated. In boot camp they instill the Core values and build on a sense of tradition and pride that is often times lacking in the Army. The common bond that all Marines have is that they have endured the same trials and accomplishments as every other Marine. When you look at any Marine in his Cammies you can't tell if he is an airwinger or in a line company. The Army breeds division in it's ranks. Hell, the Army units I've worked with had so much rivalry between units they would fight each other. I, on several occasions have seen a Soldier get into a fight and when I asked the soldiers watching if they were going to get in there, they said, "Na, he's not in our company." If I saw a Marine fighting several soldiers and not holding his own I'd jump right in there regardless of unit, he's a Marine, part of the family. I think most Marines feel that way. The Army doesn't get that. They are very preoccupied with badges, patches, gidons, and any other way they can futher differentiate themselves. You look at Airborne units, they are no better than a basic trained Marine out of 13 weeks of boot camp. The only difference is that they were dumb enough to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Airborne is not special, that's like giving extra distinction to the boat company in a Battalion Landing Team. There are only two ways to EARN the title United States Marine, go through boot in MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island. That's it.
Originally posted by jsuggs
I dont know much about the Marines since I was in the Army. It seems to me that the Marines need to look at a multiple level special operations system like the Army has. At the top SF/Delta then below them Ranger then below them as mission dictates Airborne. The advantage of this is that there is a clear priority for personel, and if a unit needs people there is a very defined way to get augmentation of personel or atachment from lower units. These atachments may not have as much training, but are still highly trained. I think that this is better than just pulling people out of any random unit, and letting them have a go at it. Another thing that I have never understood about the Marines and Navy is why do they wait until last for jump school, when everyone knows that ussually people sustain more serious injuries during there first 10 jumps than they do after 10 jumps? Seems like before you invest all of the money in them you would want to know that they can step out of a airplane with out getting hurt at least 5 times.
]
It's been proven that we do more with less. The Marine Corps is streamlined, why would they want to become a logistic nightmare like the Army? There are really talented individuals in every unit, just because you are part of an Airborne unit doesn't make you the best canidate. The Marine Corps allows any Marine to take the indoc to ensure that they are getting the best personnel from through out hte Corps. Wittynbear could elaborate on this better than I could, maybe he sees it defferently?
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
What do you Marines think?
About going into caves after the bad guys. They need to bring back the Tunnel Rats. I was in Iraq not Afganastan, but I would never go into a cave with just a pistol. I would figure out a way to take a M4, sub machine gun, or shotgun.
I'd like to see that, there is not enough room in some of them caves. You take in a m4 you will destroy your rifle, get stuck, or be unable to fire on the enemy, or all three.
While the Marines will allow any MOS to go to indoc. Any Marine can not go, you must meet requirements, high first class PFT, CWS1 swim qual, 4.6 pro/con marks, Lcpl with 1 6 months on station in FMF, and high expert on rifle range. To have the best chances to suceed you should be on your 2nd elistment, at least 1 combat deployment, and be a Sgt. Any MOS can go to indoc but they must have a good understanding of infantry skills and tactics. Every Marine is an infantryman but the skills are perishable if not used and refined.
Not to knock the army, I have met some good people who are soldiers, but the army units themselves are really unprofessional, and for lack of a better word, NASTY.
The Army does let any NCO with a high pt score and expert rifle qual attend SF or Delta selection but most of the selections are from the Airborne and Ranger units. While these units get there fair share of bad recrutes they are like the Marines and send them home. I have always respected the Marines because they have forced entry capabilities, like a Airborne or Ranger unit. While the Marines require a beach, the world is a drop zone. Like I said before alot of soldiers dont like to jump out of planes, they only do it because it is required and they are dedicated enough to do it. Many of them would probably leave the Army for the Marines if the Marines would take them. I never said to take them directly into Force Recon, I just said to take them into the Marines. Many times when in a Airborne unit I wished that we had the fire power of a MEU. Insted the heaviest suport that we had were unarmored gun trucks with tow missles, 105mm guns, and Kiowa attack helocopters. No tanks, APCs, LAV's, or Cobras. I do admit that the Army has more fights, this is because it is a self sustaining force. There is a very wide diversity of jobs which does not exist in the Marines. How many Marines have you seen get into fights with the Navy that supports you? No different than a Army grunt getting into a fight with a supply soldier is it? Taking your agressions out on another branch dosent make the Marines any better than the Army. Then there is always the east coast vs. west coast fight. I have trained with the Marines, against the Marines, and worked with the Marines many times. I never encountered, or heard of any problems between the units that I was in and the Marines that we were associated with. But we did often encounter problems with leg Army units. Probably for the same reasons that you had problems with them. They are fat, lazy, and undisiplined.
By the way I am only 5ft 9in, 145lbs I can carry a rifle and use it in a lot of places that someone 6ft 2in 220lbs can not. If I cant get threw with my rifle than I would be convinced enough that the bad guys couldnt get threw with there rifles that if needed I would continue with a pistol. But my choice of pistol would not change.
The Marines are not just confined to beaches, we have some of the best helo and airlift squadrons in the military. You should look into the MAGTAF. We are a self contained fighting force, this is why unit cohesion is so important. It has to be a combined effort. I have met several prior service people who joined the Marines. I have no problem with any soldier who wants to be a Marine, as long as he completes bootcamp. If they are special forces it should be easy for them.
I am glad to see that there are some objectionable people on here that can express there opinion without using insults. I really wanted to see how you would react to me bringing the subject up more than anything.
To change the subject Did you see where over 44,000 recrutes were denied enlistment last year due to being overweight? What is going on that over 1/2 of the US is overweight?
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
I am glad to see that there are some objectionable people on here that can express there opinion without using insults. I really wanted to see how you would react to me bringing the subject up more than anything.
To change the subject Did you see where over 44,000 recrutes were denied enlistment last year due to being overweight? What is going on that over 1/2 of the US is overweight?
Hey I always try to be professional. Except when talking about the current administration. Which leads me to the fact that this country has gone soft. It's more important to have piece of paper saying you went to school for four years than to actually have expirience. They say that it's wrong to tell a kid he's fat. Instead we want to artificially make kids feel good about themselves. Telling kids that winnings not important, it's about doing your best. In the real world, outside of the US the losers die. Second place is a body bag. I don't see any need to lower standards. I feel that the Amry command is comprimising the safety of those who are already serving.
It makes me miss the days of the cold war, where it was always us against them. Back then winning was everything, and the US would do whatever it took to win. I agree with you about lowering the standard, it will get people hurt. Look at the increase in stress fractures in the military over the past 5 years. If you cant run without falling over you should not be there. Last week on the news I saw a segment about becoming a Dallas cop. There PT requirements are a joke 4 push ups, 15 sit ups, and a 1.5 mile run in 18min. We need to get back to teaching kids that winning is important and parents need to take the video games away.
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
It makes me miss the days of the cold war, where it was always us against them. Back then winning was everything, and the US would do whatever it took to win. I agree with you about lowering the standard, it will get people hurt. Look at the increase in stress fractures in the military over the past 5 years. If you cant run without falling over you should not be there. Last week on the news I saw a segment about becoming a Dallas cop. There PT requirements are a joke 4 push ups, 15 sit ups, and a 1.5 mile run in 18min. We need to get back to teaching kids that winning is important and parents need to take the video games away.
I couldn't agree more, I hate vidoe games. I am normally a very level headed person but video games tick me off. I get caught by my wife all the time yelling at the video game or punching or throwing it across the room. I finally quit and say screw it I'm going fishing. I do much better at things that I actually do with my hands, or using tools to do things. I think its a generation thing, we had an atari when I was a kid but were only allowed to play it if there was nothing on TV, all the chores were done and all homework was done. Even then it was like space invaders, frogger, and a word game that scrambled rge words and you had to guess it. I maybe played 24 hours a year, now kids play video games 24 hours a day. Kids can't even complete basic tasks today, when was the last time you seen a kid pull weeds, edge a sidewalk with a shovel, trim bushes, rake the leaves, mow the grass, rake the cut grass, and wash off the sidewalks on a saturday morning. When was the last time you seen a kid paint his house, wash and wax the family cars, or even take out the trash. Now kids don't have to do anything but sit around and play video games. Kids now expect an allowance for cleaning their own rooms. When I was a kid your allowance was food and a place to stay. Now kids expect everything and give nothing, they think they can mouth off to adults, run through stores, and treat their parents as their equals. When I was a kid if I gave my parents a dirty look, yelled in public, or got in someone's way in a store I would have got my butt worn out. If I would have mouthed off I would have been picking myself and my teeth up off the floor. The standards for everything have been relaxed because people think the standards are to difficult for children to achieve and when they fail it might damage their little self esteem. Forget picking yourself up and trying again, oh heck no, it has to be made easier so that anyone and everyone can succeed the first time. Then you wonder why the military has become to quote Geico "So easy a caveman can do it."
I carried the M-16 around for about 10 years...we should never of gave up the 7.62! The put down power alone was worth it. Lets go back to the M-14 or to an M1A
quote:Originally posted by *_r_done
The M-16 has to tight of tolerances for out in that sandy part of the world. If you can't keep it clean on a regular basis (and in combat you can't). That is why I have allways fely the U.S. needed to develop something more like an AK for the military. It can get dirty and keep on going bang every time you pull the trigger.
One shot has it right with the M-60. When I was there the 60 performed very well with very minimal jams. But the 60 doesn'y have the tight tolorances the 16 has either.
When I was there I had more fire power on my truck than I could ever use. Between me and my co-driver we had M-16, M-60, M-203, two AK's, with the ammo for all of it, plus 2 cases of gernades. So we were ready for what ever was thrown at us.
WOW... now that's impressive. As an active duty infantryman ( Aco 3/505. 82nd airborne) I only carried a SAW..1 weapon and 4 grenades... I guess I should have been a reservist truck driver... an M16, 203, m60 2 ak-47 and an entire case of grenades. Jesus you would need a truck just to carry all those weapons....BS comes to mind
quote:Originally posted by 82nd airborne infantry
quote:Originally posted by *_r_done
The M-16 has to tight of tolerances for out in that sandy part of the world. If you can't keep it clean on a regular basis (and in combat you can't). That is why I have allways fely the U.S. needed to develop something more like an AK for the military. It can get dirty and keep on going bang every time you pull the trigger.
One shot has it right with the M-60. When I was there the 60 performed very well with very minimal jams. But the 60 doesn'y have the tight tolorances the 16 has either.
When I was there I had more fire power on my truck than I could ever use. Between me and my co-driver we had M-16, M-60, M-203, two AK's, with the ammo for all of it, plus 2 cases of gernades. So we were ready for what ever was thrown at us.
WOW... now that's impressive. As an active duty infantryman ( Aco 3/505. 82nd airborne) I only carried a SAW..1 weapon and 4 grenades... I guess I should have been a reservist truck driver... an M16, 203, m60 2 ak-47 and an entire case of grenades. Jesus you would need a truck just to carry all those weapons....BS comes to mind
I guess the philosophy is if you can't truck it, mess it. Or something like that. Not my personal mantra but hey, what ever.
It's not that you can't use "hollowpoint ammo", it's that you (law abiding countries) are not allowed to use fragmenting or expanding ammunition. We could theoretically legally use polymer tipped rounds as long as they did not expand or fragment. The Russians got around this with the 5.45x39 by having a hollow cavity under the tip of the round, inside of the copper jacket. Causing the round to deform and tumble when it strikes something.
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
i have a question about the ammo you guys use these days. i know under the Geneva Convention you aren't supposed to use hollowpoint ammo--but are you allowed to use polymer tipped rounds?
.223 remington, or 5.56 mm Nato. It was designed for shooting varmints like ground hogs. Most humans, even Vietnamese are quite a bit larger. Anything else?
quote:Originally posted by JTacticalFirearms
M14 or M240B.
I am no fan of the 5.56 or M4 but i wouldnt trade it for a M14 and full combat load, you can keep that. M4 design with some modifcation and a 6.5MM rd would be perfect. the days of a combat rifles that weighed 10-12 lbs are over, no need to have 30.06 and 308 rds either they are overkill. A study done after world war II found that most soldiers were shot and killed within 75 yards
quote:Originally posted by osiris69
I carried the M-16 around for about 10 years...we should never of gave up the 7.62! The put down power alone was worth it. Lets go back to the M-14 or to an M1A
Bro, I am with you. The M-16 is a perfectly fine weapon, for ground hogs and such. but it is a SOB to Clean, I mean time consuming and you had better know what you are doing. In the desert, it is less than desirable. I carried an M-14 in Ranger School, no one else knew how to use or clean it. Man that thing would just keep shooting no matter what. Took me 20 minutes to clean it as clean as a whistle, when I graduated. Over an hour later, other rangers were still cleaning weapons.
quote:Originally posted by SGMBalz
quote:Originally posted by osiris69
I carried the M-16 around for about 10 years...we should never of gave up the 7.62! The put down power alone was worth it. Lets go back to the M-14 or to an M1A
Bro, I am with you. The M-16 is a perfectly fine weapon, for ground hogs and such. but it is a SOB to Clean, I mean time consuming and you had better know what you are doing. In the desert, it is less than desirable. I carried an M-14 in Ranger School, no one else knew how to use or clean it. Man that thing would just keep shooting no matter what. Took me 20 minutes to clean it as clean as a whistle, when I graduated. Over an hour later, other rangers were still cleaning weapons.
I like the M1A or M14. It's to bad they're so expensive and so is the ammo. They aren't as modular but some of the stock systems out there really bring them up to date. Vltor and Troy Industries make a pretty good upgrade.
I've used the suppressed M4/M203 with 4x ACOG to engage 900meter pop up targets on Ft. Carson's 1000m sniper range. I'm sure the 5.56 had no real stopping power at that range but the projectiles travelled that far and had hits within 4-5 rounds. The only problem with 5.56 is stopping power. Have seen an insurgent hit 10 times and still be crawling away.Admittedly he looked like total hell though. The 5.56 had him thoroughly wounded but didn't finish the job. Match 7.62 has the ability to end your life in one well placed shot and does mighty fine on bones and muscle/organs. Have gone black on match M14 ammo during a running firefight/ambush and had to switch back to an M16 from a QRF HMMV driver in order to have a weapon with plenty ammo to finish clearing a village and the rest of the mission. The problem with the M240B is finding guys that don't complain when humping 800 rounds. Lovely to have as much ammo as you can physically carry. PS - never go black on ammo. You never know whats waiting for you around the next corner. Also, to run and shoot the M240B from the shoulder you need to be a sexual tyrannosaurus.......like me...(Spitting dip). [;)]
In Pat Sweeneys book, Tactical Rifle, he likened the M14 I used to a museum piece. Saying they were re re re re builds from the Vietnam era. Saying that the soldiers who were lucky enough to find and use them probably didn't realize how rare the last ones are to find and that most were destroyed during the Clinton era without being sold through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Mine was a totally base model with a Leupold Mark 4 LR/T scope and harris bipods taped onto the front of my brown synthetic stock with a mono loc to hold on my PVS 14 up to my scope for night time engagements and I was proud to have and use her. Match grade ammo was hard to round up in theater though. The rifle worked fine on moving targets at night out to 500-600m. Had the PVS10 dy night scope too but its was too heavy and bulky to be mounted to the M14.
Also don't forget about the 40mm grenade launcher on the bottom of the M4/M203. Those HE rounds are a blast. Great for blowing up lots of organic material out to a few hundred meters. Thats why the MK19 vehicle mounted grenade launcher also rates high in my book. Good amount of belt fed 40mm HE going downrange at any given time. You can imagine the psych factor of a foot soldier slinging those things around especially if you had a good 12-15.
quote:Originally posted by bambambam
Do any of you military personel use FNH weapons? If so how do they work/ do you like them?
Yes, currently the M249 SAW and M240G or M240B are used by our military. The saw is alright, not my favorite, but the M240G is awesome. The M240G is a 7.62 belt fed weapon with a quick change barrel system that is pretty accurate. I love that weapon! The military was looking at the FN SCAR but I've heard they favored the ACR instead.
Comments
There will never be a firearm that meets all needs, really you have to pick and choose something that meets your mission's basic requirements without comprimising your ability to effectively close with and engage your enemy. I would choose something that puts 'em down and keeps 'em down. Many of the new Mission Adapdable Systems are heavy and have too many parts. I hated carrying the M16/m203 because it had to much weight on the forend for hasty off-hand shots. I would rather carry a seperate light wieght grenage launcher. Check out H&K, they have a couple of light weight options. If I had to go into a bad situation tommarrow I'd say it would be an M-14 SOCOM, I know alot of people say the whole "socom" stuff is for gear queers but thats not why I like it. It points fast and is compatable with many different optics, plus it has a round with some power and the balistics for some down range actiona and has tried and true reliablity. You could even mount a picatinny rail compatable grenade launcher on it. I would also carry a Sig Sauer P220 in .45acp or 1911. Who needs alot of rounds when a few well placed ones will do? If anybody hollers about needing high cap mags for suppression, I'm just saying this selection is for the rifleman only or a singlely armed individual not for a whole platoon who has to do fire and maneuver.
You bring up a good point about the Socom 16 and the 1911 but I have to disagree with you on a few points. 1st I would want the 1911 in a high capacity, and with a traditional double action, thats your ohpoop weapon, and usually you don'y have too much space for pouches which is where hicap comes in handy. 2nd Yes, well placed shots are important, but capacity is important too especially when space is at a premium and you are going out for weeks at a time not knowing what you will be up against. You don't have to use all the ammo because you have it, but its certainly nice not to run out and have to rely on luck to get back alive. 3rd I HATE picatinny rails, I cut my hand open real good with one and spent 2 weeks trying to keep it from getting infected in one of the dirtiest places on this earth. I would rather tape everything to my weapon. One rail on top is not bad but I have seen gear queers with rails everywhere. I would rather not have it if its not permanently attached.
[/quote]
Well, I'd stick with the Spingfield M1A Socom. There are multiple versions, ideally I'd have the intermediate barrel with a compensator. The other thing I like is that the picatinny system is modular and not necesarry for operation. So, take it off if you don't like it. I'm sure you've seen guys qualify with M4s or other shorter M16 platform rifles. There are a lot of people who are starting to rethink barrel length. That's why I say Intermediate barrel length for maximum MOUT performance and good out to 500 meters or more. When you start to talk highcap in .45 it leads to alot of carbine talk. I see the need to have extra ammo for your side arm and have it excessible but I knew a guy in Iraq who had 8 mags for his 1911 on a chest rig as well as his M16amgs and more M16 mags on a droprig on his left leg. Now you kinda have to talk gear because with the proper distribution you could make it work. I would rather pack more ammo for my primary weapon with it;s extended range and in the case of the M1A1, it's knockdown power. Would you use you side arm that much in your expirience that you would want that much more weight? I know the load out is different for the missions you did but I always sufficed with 6mags on my flak 1mag in the weapon 6mags in a bandoleer in my daypack and 4mags for my side arm if I was carrying a rifle. That's 390rds for the rifle and 60 for the sidearm!
Just curious Wittynbear, what do you think of MARSOC instead of Force Recon? Do you think they're throwing away history or it's just the natural progression of things? I know it's a little off topic but I had to ask.
On the surface it looks good, but when you really think of it the Corps is getting buttraped. Marines have been sent to SOCOM before the problem was after the mission they were required for SOCOM didn't want to let them go back to FMF. It was really a hassle, so much so that every Commandant since has refused to put Marines under SOCOM. The Marine Corps does more with less, and it is a considerable cost to train Marines to be Recon Marines, Force Recon, then going blackside into DA. That equates to a considerable amount of money, time, experience, and expertise that is being wasted by the Marine Corps by sending them to SOCOM, because when that happens The Corps loses operational control of those Marines. Granted they are an asset to SOCOM, but it also represents an asset that is lost to the Marine Corps. It would be the same as building 3 helicopters and then just giving one away, same concept for your average Force Recon Marine woking blackside, everytime one is lost thats time, money, training, and ability that is worth $7M flushed down the tubes because SOCOM will not give them back. That is experience and capability that is lost to the FMF and to whichever MEU they would have been assigned to. Is the Marine Corps getting away from Special Operations Capability with every MEU? I certainly hope not. I seriously doubt if they can pull Marines from SOCOM to go on a float for 6 months. That degrades the ability of the MEUSOC. It means rushing Recon Marines through training, or cutting out some courses, in the name of speed to be able to field enough to cover SOCOM and operational commitments. In the long run it means lower quality, for higher quantity, and I don't like it at all. I just want to know who was smoking what kind of batshat to ok this.
If my mission came down to me actually having to use my pistol as a primarry firearm. It is time for me to take my toys and go home. So I do not see the need for a high capacity or even double action pistols to be used. They are not your primary weapon and should remain as simple as possable.
I'm guessing you were never going through the caves of Afghanistan looking for the ever elusive, very rich, 7 foot arab on dialysis and his buddies. It gets very cramped and too small for a rifle. Many times we only went in with a stripped vest, a knife, a pistol, 4 extra mags, and flashlight.
Well, I'd stick with the Spingfield M1A Socom. There are multiple versions, ideally I'd have the intermediate barrel with a compensator. The other thing I like is that the picatinny system is modular and not necesarry for operation. So, take it off if you don't like it. I'm sure you've seen guys qualify with M4s or other shorter M16 platform rifles. There are a lot of people who are starting to rethink barrel length. That's why I say Intermediate barrel length for maximum MOUT performance and good out to 500 meters or more. When you start to talk highcap in .45 it leads to alot of carbine talk. I see the need to have extra ammo for your side arm and have it excessible but I knew a guy in Iraq who had 8 mags for his 1911 on a chest rig as well as his M16amgs and more M16 mags on a droprig on his left leg. Now you kinda have to talk gear because with the proper distribution you could make it work. I would rather pack more ammo for my primary weapon with it;s extended range and in the case of the M1A1, it's knockdown power. Would you use you side arm that much in your expirience that you would want that much more weight? I know the load out is different for the missions you did but I always sufficed with 6mags on my flak 1mag in the weapon 6mags in a bandoleer in my daypack and 4mags for my side arm if I was carrying a rifle. That's 390rds for the rifle and 60 for the sidearm!
We went out for weeks at a time, resupply was not always reliable. Typically I carried on my vest 12 rifle mags, 6 grenades, 4 pistol mags, a small flashlight, a knife, a dump pouch, a pistol with a mag, 4 quarts of water, and NVGs. I also carried a pack with, 2 camel backs, a water purifier, 18 extra rifle mags, a radio, 6 batteries, a few pounds of c4, a couple claymores, an extra set of clothes and boots, 2 sets of polypros, Cold weather gear, and probably about 30 field stripped MREs. Then I would have my rifle with a magazine. I had my pistol dropped on my right leg and the dump pouch on my left.
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
quote:Originally posted by wildeman.7.62nato
Just curious Wittynbear, what do you think of MARSOC instead of Force Recon? Do you think they're throwing away history or it's just the natural progression of things? I know it's a little off topic but I had to ask.
On the surface it looks good, but when you really think of it the Corps is getting buttraped. Marines have been sent to SOCOM before the problem was after the mission they were required for SOCOM didn't want to let them go back to FMF. It was really a hassle, so much so that every Commandant since has refused to put Marines under SOCOM. The Marine Corps does more with less, and it is a considerable cost to train Marines to be Recon Marines, Force Recon, then going blackside into DA. That equates to a considerable amount of money, time, experience, and expertise that is being wasted by the Marine Corps by sending them to SOCOM, because when that happens The Corps loses operational control of those Marines. Granted they are an asset to SOCOM, but it also represents an asset that is lost to the Marine Corps. It would be the same as building 3 helicopters and then just giving one away, same concept for your average Force Recon Marine woking blackside, everytime one is lost thats time, money, training, and ability that is worth $7M flushed down the tubes because SOCOM will not give them back. That is experience and capability that is lost to the FMF and to whichever MEU they would have been assigned to. Is the Marine Corps getting away from Special Operations Capability with every MEU? I certainly hope not. I seriously doubt if they can pull Marines from SOCOM to go on a float for 6 months. That degrades the ability of the MEUSOC. It means rushing Recon Marines through training, or cutting out some courses, in the name of speed to be able to field enough to cover SOCOM and operational commitments. In the long run it means lower quality, for higher quantity, and I don't like it at all. I just want to know who was smoking what kind of batshat to ok this.
My little brother's a real motivator, he is thinking about taking the indoc. I told him he has to put some real thought into it, he just got the unit and duty station he wanted for reenlisting. Nothing wrong with it as a career choice. Any advice for the kid?
My little brother's a real motivator, he is thinking about taking the indoc. I told him he has to put some real thought into it, he just got the unit and duty station he wanted for reenlisting. Nothing wrong with it as a career choice. Any advice for the kid?
I sent you an email.
What do you Marines think?
About going into caves after the bad guys. They need to bring back the Tunnel Rats. I was in Iraq not Afganastan, but I would never go into a cave with just a pistol. I would figure out a way to take a M4, sub machine gun, or shotgun.
One more thing about the Marines: They need to take Prior service, and lateral transfers from the Army. At least at the Airborne level and above. I understand not wanting all of the trash from the rest of the Army but Look at how the Air Force fills its Para rescue and gorund SAR, from the Army and Marines. Save money on training and get quality personel, that come from the best units that the Army has. I wouldnt personaly do, I would rather be in a plane a few hours, than a ship for 6 months, but some soldiers would.
NO THEY DON'T! The Marines are not just skill orientated. In boot camp they instill the Core values and build on a sense of tradition and pride that is often times lacking in the Army. The common bond that all Marines have is that they have endured the same trials and accomplishments as every other Marine. When you look at any Marine in his Cammies you can't tell if he is an airwinger or in a line company. The Army breeds division in it's ranks. Hell, the Army units I've worked with had so much rivalry between units they would fight each other. I, on several occasions have seen a Soldier get into a fight and when I asked the soldiers watching if they were going to get in there, they said, "Na, he's not in our company." If I saw a Marine fighting several soldiers and not holding his own I'd jump right in there regardless of unit, he's a Marine, part of the family. I think most Marines feel that way. The Army doesn't get that. They are very preoccupied with badges, patches, gidons, and any other way they can futher differentiate themselves. You look at Airborne units, they are no better than a basic trained Marine out of 13 weeks of boot camp. The only difference is that they were dumb enough to jump out of a perfectly good airplane. Airborne is not special, that's like giving extra distinction to the boat company in a Battalion Landing Team. There are only two ways to EARN the title United States Marine, go through boot in MCRD San Diego or MCRD Parris Island. That's it.
What do you Marines think?
About going into caves after the bad guys. They need to bring back the Tunnel Rats. I was in Iraq not Afganastan, but I would never go into a cave with just a pistol. I would figure out a way to take a M4, sub machine gun, or shotgun.
I'd like to see that, there is not enough room in some of them caves. You take in a m4 you will destroy your rifle, get stuck, or be unable to fire on the enemy, or all three.
Not to knock the army, I have met some good people who are soldiers, but the army units themselves are really unprofessional, and for lack of a better word, NASTY.
By the way I am only 5ft 9in, 145lbs I can carry a rifle and use it in a lot of places that someone 6ft 2in 220lbs can not. If I cant get threw with my rifle than I would be convinced enough that the bad guys couldnt get threw with there rifles that if needed I would continue with a pistol. But my choice of pistol would not change.
To change the subject Did you see where over 44,000 recrutes were denied enlistment last year due to being overweight? What is going on that over 1/2 of the US is overweight?
I am glad to see that there are some objectionable people on here that can express there opinion without using insults. I really wanted to see how you would react to me bringing the subject up more than anything.
To change the subject Did you see where over 44,000 recrutes were denied enlistment last year due to being overweight? What is going on that over 1/2 of the US is overweight?
Hey I always try to be professional. Except when talking about the current administration. Which leads me to the fact that this country has gone soft. It's more important to have piece of paper saying you went to school for four years than to actually have expirience. They say that it's wrong to tell a kid he's fat. Instead we want to artificially make kids feel good about themselves. Telling kids that winnings not important, it's about doing your best. In the real world, outside of the US the losers die. Second place is a body bag. I don't see any need to lower standards. I feel that the Amry command is comprimising the safety of those who are already serving.
It makes me miss the days of the cold war, where it was always us against them. Back then winning was everything, and the US would do whatever it took to win. I agree with you about lowering the standard, it will get people hurt. Look at the increase in stress fractures in the military over the past 5 years. If you cant run without falling over you should not be there. Last week on the news I saw a segment about becoming a Dallas cop. There PT requirements are a joke 4 push ups, 15 sit ups, and a 1.5 mile run in 18min. We need to get back to teaching kids that winning is important and parents need to take the video games away.
I couldn't agree more, I hate vidoe games. I am normally a very level headed person but video games tick me off. I get caught by my wife all the time yelling at the video game or punching or throwing it across the room. I finally quit and say screw it I'm going fishing. I do much better at things that I actually do with my hands, or using tools to do things. I think its a generation thing, we had an atari when I was a kid but were only allowed to play it if there was nothing on TV, all the chores were done and all homework was done. Even then it was like space invaders, frogger, and a word game that scrambled rge words and you had to guess it. I maybe played 24 hours a year, now kids play video games 24 hours a day. Kids can't even complete basic tasks today, when was the last time you seen a kid pull weeds, edge a sidewalk with a shovel, trim bushes, rake the leaves, mow the grass, rake the cut grass, and wash off the sidewalks on a saturday morning. When was the last time you seen a kid paint his house, wash and wax the family cars, or even take out the trash. Now kids don't have to do anything but sit around and play video games. Kids now expect an allowance for cleaning their own rooms. When I was a kid your allowance was food and a place to stay. Now kids expect everything and give nothing, they think they can mouth off to adults, run through stores, and treat their parents as their equals. When I was a kid if I gave my parents a dirty look, yelled in public, or got in someone's way in a store I would have got my butt worn out. If I would have mouthed off I would have been picking myself and my teeth up off the floor. The standards for everything have been relaxed because people think the standards are to difficult for children to achieve and when they fail it might damage their little self esteem. Forget picking yourself up and trying again, oh heck no, it has to be made easier so that anyone and everyone can succeed the first time. Then you wonder why the military has become to quote Geico "So easy a caveman can do it."
The M-16 has to tight of tolerances for out in that sandy part of the world. If you can't keep it clean on a regular basis (and in combat you can't). That is why I have allways fely the U.S. needed to develop something more like an AK for the military. It can get dirty and keep on going bang every time you pull the trigger.
One shot has it right with the M-60. When I was there the 60 performed very well with very minimal jams. But the 60 doesn'y have the tight tolorances the 16 has either.
When I was there I had more fire power on my truck than I could ever use. Between me and my co-driver we had M-16, M-60, M-203, two AK's, with the ammo for all of it, plus 2 cases of gernades. So we were ready for what ever was thrown at us.
WOW... now that's impressive. As an active duty infantryman ( Aco 3/505. 82nd airborne) I only carried a SAW..1 weapon and 4 grenades... I guess I should have been a reservist truck driver... an M16, 203, m60 2 ak-47 and an entire case of grenades. Jesus you would need a truck just to carry all those weapons....BS comes to mind
quote:Originally posted by *_r_done
The M-16 has to tight of tolerances for out in that sandy part of the world. If you can't keep it clean on a regular basis (and in combat you can't). That is why I have allways fely the U.S. needed to develop something more like an AK for the military. It can get dirty and keep on going bang every time you pull the trigger.
One shot has it right with the M-60. When I was there the 60 performed very well with very minimal jams. But the 60 doesn'y have the tight tolorances the 16 has either.
When I was there I had more fire power on my truck than I could ever use. Between me and my co-driver we had M-16, M-60, M-203, two AK's, with the ammo for all of it, plus 2 cases of gernades. So we were ready for what ever was thrown at us.
WOW... now that's impressive. As an active duty infantryman ( Aco 3/505. 82nd airborne) I only carried a SAW..1 weapon and 4 grenades... I guess I should have been a reservist truck driver... an M16, 203, m60 2 ak-47 and an entire case of grenades. Jesus you would need a truck just to carry all those weapons....BS comes to mind
I guess the philosophy is if you can't truck it, mess it. Or something like that. Not my personal mantra but hey, what ever.
quote:Originally posted by ruger41
i have a question about the ammo you guys use these days. i know under the Geneva Convention you aren't supposed to use hollowpoint ammo--but are you allowed to use polymer tipped rounds?
M14 or M240B.
I am no fan of the 5.56 or M4 but i wouldnt trade it for a M14 and full combat load, you can keep that. M4 design with some modifcation and a 6.5MM rd would be perfect. the days of a combat rifles that weighed 10-12 lbs are over, no need to have 30.06 and 308 rds either they are overkill. A study done after world war II found that most soldiers were shot and killed within 75 yards
I carried the M-16 around for about 10 years...we should never of gave up the 7.62! The put down power alone was worth it. Lets go back to the M-14 or to an M1A
Bro, I am with you. The M-16 is a perfectly fine weapon, for ground hogs and such. but it is a SOB to Clean, I mean time consuming and you had better know what you are doing. In the desert, it is less than desirable. I carried an M-14 in Ranger School, no one else knew how to use or clean it. Man that thing would just keep shooting no matter what. Took me 20 minutes to clean it as clean as a whistle, when I graduated. Over an hour later, other rangers were still cleaning weapons.
quote:Originally posted by osiris69
I carried the M-16 around for about 10 years...we should never of gave up the 7.62! The put down power alone was worth it. Lets go back to the M-14 or to an M1A
Bro, I am with you. The M-16 is a perfectly fine weapon, for ground hogs and such. but it is a SOB to Clean, I mean time consuming and you had better know what you are doing. In the desert, it is less than desirable. I carried an M-14 in Ranger School, no one else knew how to use or clean it. Man that thing would just keep shooting no matter what. Took me 20 minutes to clean it as clean as a whistle, when I graduated. Over an hour later, other rangers were still cleaning weapons.
I like the M1A or M14. It's to bad they're so expensive and so is the ammo. They aren't as modular but some of the stock systems out there really bring them up to date. Vltor and Troy Industries make a pretty good upgrade.
Do any of you military personel use FNH weapons? If so how do they work/ do you like them?
Yes, currently the M249 SAW and M240G or M240B are used by our military. The saw is alright, not my favorite, but the M240G is awesome. The M240G is a 7.62 belt fed weapon with a quick change barrel system that is pretty accurate. I love that weapon! The military was looking at the FN SCAR but I've heard they favored the ACR instead.