Army searching for a new rifle

Why would the U.S. Army waste the time looking for a battle rifle when they already have them in storage ?

The M-14.

The M-14 is the closest thing to a M-1 Garand and both can take a beating and keep on shooting and in the hands of a qualified rifle expert can reach out way beyond 600 yards and touch someone with open iron sights.

 

The M-14 would have to be extensively modified to make it functional for modern warfighters. Hence the EBR.

The idea of sending troops into combat today with wooden stocked rifles that are succeptible to humidity and without rail systems is absurd.

 

You make a good point about wood stocks and humidity.

Did you serve when the U.S. Army and Marine Corps standard issued service rifle was either the M-1 Garand or M-14 ? If you did you are familure with linseed oil. The M-1 Garand's stood up very well to the hot, humid, wet jungles in the Southwest Pacific during WW ll.



"Modern warfighters" ???
When the U.S. Army was forced to adopt the M-16 the Army said they took the U.S. Army back 100 years and had to adopt old tactics not used in over a hundred years.

Before the M-16 American soldiers and Marines took deliberate aim and squeezed the trigger killing the enemy who was trying to kill him. Today a soldier in a firefight is more like point aiming sending round after round down range in what is known as the "Beaten Zone." Usually it's not soldier vs. soldier but fire team or rifle squad vs. enemy soldiers who are in the beaten zone.

I served in the Marines during the late 1960's so I was trained using both tactics.

The current tactics are very effective but you must have a logistical support already in place to resupply the soldiers or Marines on the battlefield and while still in a fire fight.

Ammunition expenditure while in heavy combat:

During WW ll U.S. Marines would land on a hostile beach with only 80 rd's of ammunition for their M-1 Garands. Same was true for the Army.

I have a file on my other computer on ammunition expenditure by infantrymen in the Pacific theatre of war comparing two battles fought by U.S. Marines and two fought by U.S. Army infantrymen with their M-1 Garands. The soldiers expended maybe ten to twenty rounds more per day but the average in these four separate battles was usually between 48 to 60 rounds per day in heavy combat. Two of the battles were in the jungles of the Southwest Pacific and the other two on the coral islands in the Central Pacific.

In the European theatre of the war the average American soldier armed with the M-1 Garand would go through 150 rounds every 24 hours in combat.

In the Pacific ...

Today American soldiers and Marines go into combat with 7 X 30 round magazines. That's 210 rounds, 130 rounds more than an American infantryman went into combat with and the WW ll infantryman got more kills on the battlefield. Last night I was talking to a vet who was a grunt in both Afghanistan and Iraq and he said they would go through all 210 rounds in just one firefight and needed to be resupplied.

We could go further why AR's must have a pistol grip and rifles that use the short gas piston action don't need a pistol grip.

Weight: Rule of Thumb.
Every 10% increase in the weight of a rifle or handgun = 10% less recoil.

How is the maximum effective range of a rifle or handgun determined ?
A basic marksman will hit the torso of a human 50% of the time. Where as sharpshooter 70% to 80% of the time. An expert 90% to 100% of the time.

 

I imagine they are talking about 7.62×51mm NATO not X39..

So answer = AR-10 duh..

Search over..

 

If you go to the Military.com link I provided and then click on the article's comment section you see where others have said the same thing..."AR-10."

The Armalite's AR-10 production line is still open. The AR-10 is a good rifle.

I think PF member U.S.Conservative mentioned he was building an AR-10.

 

Noted the relatively low use of the .45 smg. I would have thought they would have used many more smg's in the Pacific, at least in the Philippines and other denser jungle and savannah terrains. I guess the BAR and .30 mg were more practical. They issued my father Thompsons for several jumps into rear lines, depending on what terrain they were going to walk into in sweeps, used his rifle for others into sparser terrain.

 

Really if the Army wants a 7.62 battle rifle, they have one already: the Mk. 17 SCAR.

If they instead just want a DMR, then use the AR-10.

 

The Mk. 17 SCAR like all FN and H&K battle rifles and all AR's are poorly balanced rifles unlike the M-1 Garand and M-14 which are well balanced rifles that comes into play making long distance shots and hitting moving targets and being able to make quick follow up shots.

Having a well balanced rifle makes all of the difference when shooting in the offhand position.

It was Eugene Stoner and using a straight butt stock and incorporating using a pistol grip on AR's. A straight butt stock with the rifle butt squarely in your shoulder reduces recoil and muzzle rise which allows for quick follow up shots. The recoil of the rifle with a straight butt stock is directly directed back into your shoulder not towards your cheek bone with a muzzle rise.

But unless you are of average weight or over and have square broad shoulders and a short neck, a straight rifle butt stock and pistol grip aint for you. Those who have sloping shoulders and or long necks find it difficult to place their cheek on the rifle stock comb using a straight rifle butt stock or a stock that has a pistol grip.

Women usually have sloping shoulders and longer necks don't do well with a straight rifle butt stock with a pistol grip. That's why in the most recent study by the Marine Corps putting females into infantry units the female Marines did poorly on the combat rifle range using the M-16 or M-4.

During the build up for the first Gulf war (Desert Storm) the Marine Corps was seriously thinking of taking away the Marines M-16's and issuing them M-14 rifles. The first thing you notice when you pick up a M-14 that it's a well balanced rifle then you look at the rear sight aperture and you notice that the M-14 is a long range rifle being able to reach out way beyond 600 meters and touching someone.

The M-14 was well suited for Iraq or combat in any desert or flat plains area. But the idea was quickly shot down because it would have taken months to retrain the Marines using the M-14 and also because most Marines at the time had no experience with a high power rifle only with the M-16 pea shooter that has little recoil compared to a real rifle and these Marines would likely become gun shy resulting in flinching.

 

Where the hell are you getting this idea that the SCAR is poorly balanced? Have you ever fired one? They are bullet magic.

 

Americans going back to Colonial America have been well known all over the world for their marksmanship skills, until very recently.

Fire discipline was the rule. Make every round count. Don't waste ammunition.

When the U.S. Army and then the U.S Marine Corps adopted the M-1 Garand to replace the 03-Springfield one of the fears was would the American rifleman lose fire discipline ? It didn't happen.

When the Army and Marine Corps were forced to adopt the M-16, fire discipline went into the crapper and it's still in the crapper today.

Sub machine guns and infantry rifles capable of full auto fire and assault rifles are suppose to be fired at three round burst.

The BAR was a squad automatic weapon and the rule was five round burst of fire.

General purpose air cooled machine guns up to ten, twelve round burst of fire. Unless you had the Browning water cooled M-1917 machine gun then you could fire the whole nine yards.

The way Hollywood shows a soldier using the Thompson is only in the movies. Even a Thompson can over heat leading to a stoppage.

If your father is still alive Strasser, he would have a better answer.

 

Just the civilian version the SCAR-17S

Pick up any SCAR or any other FN military rifle or H&K military rifle or any AR then set it down and pick up either a M-1 Garand or a M-14 and you'll notice what a balanced rifle is.

The SCAR isn't a well balanced rifle in fact it's bulky.

The U.S. Army dumped the SCAR, there were a few issues with it.

FN weren't happy campers and couldn't come up with any real PR damage control.

 

The Army dumped the *SCAR-L*. The SCAR-H is one of the standard weapons for SOF and the Rangers.

It's incredibly well balanced when you consider it's almost always going to have rails loaded down with sights, M203's/320's, lasers, etc.

How balanced is a M-14 when you stick a 203 under its barrel?

 

It's also standard for many 11bravos, not just Ranger. Unless that's changed.

I thought it's an awesome weapon

 

You don't need a 203, that's why you have a grenadier armed with the "Blooper" (M-79)

Everyone loved the Blooper because ever soldier and Marine was an expert with the Blooper.

FYI:
The M-79 maximum effective range is twice the range than the 203.

 

And now you have a guy who doesn't have a rifle, or who has to juggle two weapons in combat.

 

That may have been the thinking back then.

A grenadier was usually armed with the M-79 and the M-1911 A-1.

But the grenadier could carry a **** load more 40 mm grenades that a rifleman who has a 203 attached to his rifle can't.

 

Vietnam era M79 gunners carried 40 rounds. And only had a pistol as a backup weapon.

Modern 203 gunners carry 20 rounds and have a full size rifle. And most squads have two grenadiers. So 40 rounds and two rifles compared with 40 rounds and a pistol.

 

No they don't, they don't have a "full size rifle." They have a pea shooter.

 

Those peashooters kill pretty effectively every single day.

 

That all depends which kind of ammunition you are using or are being forced to use. PC ammunition or politically incorrect ammunition.

During the Vietnam War we used the politically incorrect M193 round.

 

What exactly is PC about wanting better long range performance and not having to use **** powder that causes tons of jams?

Are you saying Reagan and his DoD were PC?

 

I'm sure you have heard the myth that the bad guy is only trying to wound you believing that it will take three more soldiers out of the fight who have to carry you back on a stretcher to the aid station.

I'm pretty sure Charley wasn't just trying to wound me but was trying to kill me because I sure wasn't trying to wound Charley, I was trying to kill Charley before he killed me.

The PC 5.56 mm SS109/M885 round may be more accurate at longer ranges but lacks stopping power when you hit someone. Instead of killing the enemy instantly the bad guy doesn't die until he bleeds out.

The politically incorrect M193 bullet was a little lighter and traveled a little slower and there was more yaw in flight and when it hit someone and entered the tissue the bullet started tumbling ripping everything in it's pathway. If the bullet exited the body there was a huge nasty exit wound. But who gives a ****, the guy was dead.

What the U.S. Army and Marine Corps should be searching for is not for a new rifle but for a new rifle cartridge for the M-16's and M-4's.

Take a Winchester .270 and shorten the shell casing by 18 or so millimeters and you end up with an assault rifle cartridge that will outperform and be more deadlier than the current varmint cartridge the 5.56 X 45 mm being used today.

If the Army wants to go back using battle rifles chambered for the 7.62 X 51 mm why search ? We all ready have tens of thousands of battle rifles that are already bought and paid for sitting in armories, the M-14.

 

In 1962, we trained with the M-1 Garand during Basic. When in AIT we used the M-14. In Germany I was issued a new M-14 that I never fired. In CA we were configured to be able to fire automatic. In Germany the Arms Sgt would only make them like that if the CO ordered him to.

 

Modern 5.56 ammo kills just fine.

 

Like the politically correct lead free 5.56 that was forced upon our military by the Obama administration ?

There's a lot of good stuff that use to be on the internet that isn't there any more.

Came across this using the "Way Back Machine."

Why the American military fights the way it does today putting a whole lot of lead down range into the "beaten zone" unlike how we fought wars post American Civil War to 1966.

Good informative read.