Allah's Waiting Room..........in Ole Fashioned Marine Speak

I do not understand our government's rationale behind replacing the M16, but there are many things about our government that I don't understand.

Tom, the M60E3 has a carry handle on the barrel. No gloves required.

Munk, the Beretta is actually quite accurate in my experience. That's actually my favorite thing about it. The double action first shot takes a bit of practice to manage but it can be done.
 
The Berreta is accurate enough for field use. The design will never make a target gun out of it- which is irrelevant for the military. I don't think the design will outlast the 1911 for durability.

As for replacing the M16, if it can't handle sand I can see a change. An AR 180 might make a lot of sense, but I've been saying the Military should have had a dual contract using that for some time.

It normally does not make any sense to replace a weapons system unless the advance is sufficient to warrant the expense. What advance has occured?


munk
 
The 30-06's ability to penetrate is vastly superior to that of the .223. I have no online data to support that, merely my own observations of the targets.

I do recall that the '06 was designed to be able to penetrate 16 inches of oak, The plan being able to get through to hiding opponents. Of course that is with hardball, not the soft points most folks find and fire in 30-06.

Brother Browning's design was to build a man portable, fully automatic broom that would sweep the fields between the lines of WWI Europe. I recall reading someplace that the original plan including teams of Browning Riflemen sweeping the field, firing burst each time their right feet hit the ground.

I've seen a belt that was described as a "BAR Belt" with mag pouches along the circumference, and a cup for the butt of the rifle. Although I can find no pictures of that particular belt, all I see are the WWII versions like This.

I figure a lot of the changes in US weapons had to do with changes in the world. Few of our soldiers are the hunters that their great grandfathers were. Fewer are the farmers that woke at sunup worked throughout the day on a field behind a horse doing hard labor.

A rifle that would penetrate though heavy walls and still have the energy to kill would be a benefit in their world, one without newspapers or news-crews constantly watching. A world where most of their adversarys and comrades were bearing bolt actions, where an M-16 can likely empty an entire magazine before a clip of 30-06 was run through. A time where the lighter recoil wasn't a neccessity, they had to jerk a bolt and ram it home before they could fire again. Hopefully something not required with a modern combat rifle.

Please also take a look at the weight of a BAR, it isn't a puppy you are just going to swing over your shoulder and enjoy carrying. To us, it's a bear to lug, although compared to it's contemporaries it is light

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm

I believe that the larger caliber, the longer range, and the greater penetrative power of the 30-06 would make it better suited to the open fields of much of Europe. However in close confines, short ranges, close contact a small gun, much like the SMG's and light carbines would be advantagous. I figure the M-4 is just the newest compromise weapon we've fielded. I bet we've all read of the M-14 being fielded again in afghanistan where the ranges are greater.

Jerry Pournelle wrote several books about the future, Prince of Mercanerys being a favorite. They bore rifles that wouldn't be that far out of the field of design that our fathers had. What goes around comes around.


(I'm off to work, first day back from vacation, forgive the typo's I'm running late again :( )
 
Military weapons compete at military matches. A new, tricked out Berretta can be accurate. Look at that design, however, and imagine 10 years field use, and then let us talk. The barrel roams into a shroud at the end of the pistol. That will open up.


munk
 
The BAR was designed for "walking fire", firing from the hip while striding across fields. It's a neat weapon, but the modern SAW (M-249 in US use) does the job better for an infantry squad, which needs more than the 20 round magazine of the BAR.

(Personally, I don't find the BAR that heavy. I carried an M224 mortar on about half the marches I did while at Fort Lewis. With the bipod- which my squad always carried attached- and M8 baseplate, the M224 weighs about 33.5 lbs.)

The Army did a study that found that 99% of all combat ocurred at ranges less than 300 yards. They also concluded that soldiers armed with bolt action rifles killed about as many of the enemy as the soldiers armed with automatics.
Click to expand...

I have heard the first part of that many times. I have never heard your second point. Could you give a source?

One aimed round kills one enemy.
Click to expand...
This sounds true, doesn't it? Is this your experience talking, or are you speaking from source material? (Again, if the latter, could I get a reference?)

Thanks,

John
 
A short bit of history as I remember , 35, 40 years ago.:D

Eugene Stoner went to Armalite first as I recall. Then some politicans pushed the M 16. It was not finished in development according to Stoner who was still working on the gas linkage design. It was too late, money under the table maybe?

So the "Stoner" was developed. It had the much improved gas linkage system. Unfortunately, no one would change the order and Eugene Stoner's desgn was "tabled".

The only people to get this new weapon system was the SEAL Teams. I remember the belt links were a supply problem. On many ocassions, they were policed, in order to reuse at the base camp. Eventually that was resolved. I would be curious to see if the porting linkage set up for the SAW was a M 16 type or a "Stoner" type.

The belt fed Stoner was a devasting weapon! I have some old pics I could dig out.
 
That reference seems to be more regarding psycho-social causes and impacts than hard data about munitions.

As an exploration of individual and social psyche, I'm certain it has value; as a supply of information about force multipliers and tools, it does not appear to be a genuine source.

Respectfully,

John
 
45-70 said:
The 30-06's ability to penetrate is vastly superior to that of the .223. I have no online data to support that, merely my own observations of the targets.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint: back at the Camp's indoor range, M80 7.62mm ball was kosher; M855 "green tip" 5.56mm was not, and could (and did) punch holes through the bullet trap when used.

Make of this what you will.

Munk? What is so bad about the Beretta's design that will hurt its accuracy?
 
I can understand why you would think that, but the Germans also had the very effective MG-42 with their units, along with the superb 88s, and a variety of other weapons systems, including the predecessor of the infamous and ubiquitous RPG-7, the Panzerfaust.

As I understand it, the typical US infantry squad in WWII had 1 automatic rifleman, armed with a BAR. Though each of the 11 riflemen had an M1 Garand, if such a squad was facing a German squad armed with Mausers and an MG-42, the Germans could certainly throw more lead than the Americans. An article by
Rich Anderson says, Finally, the basic tenant of U.S. Army Infantry doctrine was based on fire and maneuver at the squad level. The M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle and the BAR provided firepower at the squad level. However, in the ETO it was found that these were unequal to the job of suppressing the firepower of the German squad, which was equipped with the formidable MG42 light machine gun.

An article based on information from German Infantry Weapons 1939-1945 (Terry Gander) and German Automatic Weapons of World War II (Robert Bruce) says, by the time MG 42 entered service German infantry squads were built around the squad machinegun and its crew.

The point I'm making is that the Germans not only evolved to having infantry tactics revolving around their automatic support weapon, they- based on combat experience- went on to produce the world's first widely distributed assault rifle.

As far back as post-WWII, S.L.A. Marshall's Men Against Fire claimed that 1/4 or less of infantry in combat actually used their weapons. This book- since largely discredited as a scientific study- was influential in helping to change US Army training philosophy, to one that emphasized firing. Combine revised training, different terrain, and (fully) atomatic weaponry, and it is easy to see why so many more rounds were expended in 'Nam vs. WWII.
 
John I will go into the dark hole, the closet, to get those photos. ;)

Fire superiorty was the "word" in Viet Nam. You were assigned killing zones, depending on your location in the platoon. Lay as much ammo down as possible and don't stop.

So much for accuracy, :)
 
I hear you. I've always been more of a fan of aimed fire, but laid down a good bit of suppressive fire while acting as team leader in an exercise Saturday.

I'm embarrassed to say it worked- the specific OPFOR guy my team was mostly engaging was deliberately targeting me~ he said he could tell it was me through the protective gear because of how I hold my weapon. :rolleyes: :D

Anyway, through good communication and a lot of suppressive fire, we stopped him from flanking us or effectively engaging the actual assault element.


Heh. The first mission we ran Saturday was an ambush. The kill zone was only 10 meters or so away (very limited visibility due to high grass), and after about 10 seconds of everyone hosing down the two OPFOR, one started yelling, "I'm dead, dammit, I'm dead! Stop firing!" :D
 
This is one of those threads where I'm no longer sure what the question is or who I'm talking to.

Dave, gunsmiths and others were the first to point this out to me; the Beretta barrel comes to rest with it's muzzle in a circle of metal. That CNC machinery does a marvelous job of making this tight does not entirely elminate the inherent problem with such a design. Other semi autos have other problems, but a stronger lock up with a more consistant, repeatable in-battery position is essential to accuracy. I've no doubts the tricked out Berretta is fine.

Wiggle wiggle.

I'm enjoying this thread. Comparing the BAR to an assault weapon is not really possible.

I'm still a little perturbed about why it is we have a .223 military round.
This could have been corrected a long time ago, leaving the delivery systems intact but for a barrel and or different recoil spring.

Also, for all you techno firearm nerds out there, (a title that I can no longer earn with my terrible memory) I don't believe the German AW was actually the first, though it may have been the first with all the features currently used to define such things.

munk
 
Let's switch to 6.5x55! Up from varmit round to a deer round.

(Besides, ammo for my Swedes would become LOTS cheaper.)
 
I had 2 or 3 Swedes and sold them. I kept one for several years; a tack driver. Sold it too. Wish I still had it.

The Swede was a great military round and would be again.
I don't entirely understand the rationale for developing a 'heavier' Nato round to improve upon the 223 and then choosing one which by design uses the lighter range of bullets for calibre, and therefore does not take advantage of better ballistics found in the heavier weights. If you're going to shoot a .270 at least put 130 gr bullets in it. 110 is not as good, not even close. If you want to keep the weight range at about 100 grains then pick a calibre like 6.5 or even a 6 (243)

Can any of you modern gunnies explain this to me?




munk
 
munk said:
Dave, gunsmiths and others were the first to point this out to me; the Beretta barrel comes to rest with it's muzzle in a circle of metal. That CNC machinery does a marvelous job of making this tight does not entirely elminate the inherent problem with such a design. Other semi autos have other problems, but a stronger lock up with a more consistant, repeatable in-battery position is essential to accuracy. I've no doubts the tricked out Berretta is fine.
Click to expand...

This sounds like almost every semiauto made today that doesn't feature a fixed barrel or an O-ring. (Including the M1911 in all its iterations, whether or not they feature a bushing.) What is unusual about this arrangement?

I couldn't tell you about tricked out Berettas. I can only assume that some have been match conditioned but I have never handled one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top