|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 5, 2013 12:11:22 GMT -5
The BAR is an interesting weapon. It was used by quite a number of countries, in different variations and calibers. I put together pics of a few of them. At the top is the Colt Monitor, or R80. Colt was one of the manufacturers during WWI and after the war continued tweaking the design. The Monitor saw some use by law enforcement and I've read that this was the weapon used to kill Bonnie and Clyde. Second is the Fabrique National Model 1930. FN licensed the Colt design and modified it. It was sold to quite a few countries, and used by China against the Japanese. With some more modifications, it was adopted by the Polish Army. The Germans issued seized Polish weapons to police, anti-partisan and other second echelon troops. Third and fourth are Swedish BAR's. The Swedes did quite a bit of development, including heavier, quick change barrels. They even produced a belt fed version of the BAR, anticipating the FN MAG and US M240, which are based on the BAR mechanism. The question I have is this: what was US Ordnance doing while this was happening? They made a few tweaks to the design, but seem to have been oblivious to the advantages of the pistol grip, as well as the quick change barrel. What's particularly strange is that the pistol grip (afaik) was first added by Colt, an American company they should have been familiar with. Between the wars the US Army suffered from very tight budgets, but it still seems strange that no one seems to have thought it worthwhile to update the BAR.
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Sept 5, 2013 13:30:11 GMT -5
In that timeframe, the US was in love with the straight stock of their hunting rifles, and saw no need for anything different. It was more of a preference thing, kinda like certain people will only drive Fords, or only Chevys.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 5, 2013 18:31:08 GMT -5
I happened to thing after posting that the "deer rifle" stock of the M1918 BAR actually might work better than a pistol grip when shooting from the hip in what I think they called "walking fire" at the time. The idea was that you'd advance towards the enemy at a walk, directing fire at likely positions. The early BAR mag belts had a metal cup on the right side to hold the butt of the BAR. One of those "looks good on paper at the time" ideas, but when I joined ROTC in 1967 one of the manuals still had a variation of this called "assault fire technique." I don't know if anyone took it seriously, since we never actually practiced it or talked about it.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 16, 2013 18:51:02 GMT -5
You would see the walking fire demonstrated in the old black and white training videos with troops wearing steel pots covered in burlap and m14s if you will recall. I remember and old nco getting us on line for. Mock assault (blanks) and telling us to fire each time our left foot went forward as we advanced. It seemed quite silly at the time. He was a ww2, korea and vietnam vet so one of the few CIBs with two stars at the time. Certainly never did it for real. The stock on the US Variant had a more straight back posture then the Garand or M14. Remember that there was a SAW variant of the M14 (very briefly) that featured a pistol grip. the M14 was supposed to replace the BAR, carbine and Garand all in one gun.....Hmmmmmmmm? ?
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Sept 16, 2013 19:32:45 GMT -5
Not to mention, the m14 was also planned to take the place of the m3 grease gun as well as the other rifles. Makes no sense to me. If anything should have replaced the old Smg's, it should have need the m2 carbine, set to full auto.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 17, 2013 1:28:44 GMT -5
The carbine M2 in Korean and Vietnam era was set up to fire full auto. I never could figure out how the M14 was supposed to fill all those roles and in fact it never actually did. the M3 Grease gun was still in vehicle racks mounted if Us Army APCs all the way up to and beyond the first Gulf War.
The M14 was a very short lived main battle rifle while the M16 family of main battle rifles has soldiered on longer (by far) then any other main battle rifle in US Military History. The Ma Deuce .50 Cal having an even longer service life. With the Colt .45 M1911 right up there with it.
I interviewed returning soldiers from the early stages of the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars as a project for the DoD and the older weapons were consistently the favorites among the troops in those theaters. .50 Cal, M14, and .45 Pistol.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Sept 17, 2013 13:56:53 GMT -5
Isn't the m14 still in use with the military as a scoped rifle I think?
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Sept 17, 2013 16:27:58 GMT -5
Yeah, as a DMR.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 17, 2013 21:25:28 GMT -5
In Vietnam they started using the M14 as a sniper rifle, which later became the M21. I think there was a follow on version later. They dusted them off against for Iraq/Afghanistan for DMR rifles. It's a solid, reliable action, but like the FN FAL it's too expensive to manufacture compared to M16 variants or, especially, the AK family. The other drawback is that the design doesn't allow for easily hanging all the bells and whistles on it, though the numerous versions of Enhanced Battle Rifle stocks resolves that problem somewhat.
Way back when, I found an M14E2 stock at the property disposal office at Ft. Richardson and picked it up for a couple bucks. Later I gave it to a guy in my national guard unit who was shooting M14's in competition. Never did see what he did with it.
That idea of "one weapon to do everything" never seems to die, even though it's never worked.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 18, 2013 0:54:55 GMT -5
The primary reason troops like the m14 in the current theater according to consistent comments in my official debrief was improved accuracy at the longer engagement ranges encountered in Afghanistan and their ability to punch through cinderblock and mud walls which the 5.56 just can't do. I have to admit anything beyond 300 meters i couldn't hit with either rifle but i did have an easier time with the m14 although my sore shoulder at the end of a range day with the m14 was much different than no sore anything after a day with the m16.
In Alaska we always said if the poop hit the fan we'd just issue the Privately owned Weatherbys and Rugers from the arms room and leave the M16s and .45s in the racks. It was good to see elements from the 172nd Alaskan Light Arctic Inf Brigade in Afghanistan as the Alaskan terrain was no doubt good preperation for that Theater.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Sept 18, 2013 17:09:04 GMT -5
It was good to see elements from the 172nd Alaskan Light Arctic Inf Brigade in Afghanistan as the Alaskan terrain was no doubt good preperation for that Theater.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 18, 2013 19:06:01 GMT -5
4/9th Inf., Ft. Wainwright, 1973-74. While the M16 was fun to carry, if we'd had to fight the Russkies up there I'd have much preferred an M14.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Sept 18, 2013 20:06:18 GMT -5
It seems most troops in Vietnam and even up till now apparently preferred the M14 over the M16, so why was it replaced? I know that those who are considered our enemies at the moment pretty much all use some variant of the AK, but why did we change our main battle rifle to counter that assault rifle when the older one was actually the preferred out of the two? From what I read, it seems the M16 might have been liked better in Vietnam where combat distance was closer, but in the current theatre now the longer range of the M14 might be preferred. What do you guys think?
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 18, 2013 23:36:37 GMT -5
The intial introduction of the m16 in Vietnam was quite shakey but mostly due to Military procurement issues. (non spec powder and a cheaper material in the breech then was called for by Stoner/ Colt.) Once that was sorted out and a forward assist added the M16 really did a fine job.
It was quite in vogue to ridicule the weapon with unflattering nicknames and derogatory comments but truth be told the reason the m16 has persisted so long is it is an excellent weapons system. For me the lighter weight and ability to haul far, far more ammo was literally a life saver. 7.62 ammo is big bulky and heavy. The improved accuracy and hitting power at range is seldom significant enough to offset the m16s upsides. On those rare occassions where it is having a few on hand along with other even more lethal "reach out and touch someone" can usually take up the slack.
There are many reasons I loved the M14 but many many more reasons I liked the M16 better.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Sept 19, 2013 21:04:14 GMT -5
The M16 has a lot of good points. My main complaint is the direct impingement gas system, which is an excellent design for a rifle that isn't going to have to go through extended use without a chance for thorough cleaning. Also has too many close tolerances that can get clogged up. The Israelis ran into the same problem in the Sinai and then again in the 6 Day War with the FN FAL. All that fine desert dust tended to jam the actions, which led them to design the Galil, which is basically an AK. But anyway, for a primarily jungle war, where the fighting was often at close quarters and controllable full automatic fire was highly desirable, the M16 had more advantages than drawbacks, and the M14 was really not appropriate.
There was a competitor to the AR15/M16 that just had bad timing, the Winchester Light Military Rifle. It was basically a cross between the M1 carbine and a rifle Winchester had been developing in competition with the M1 Garand. It was (if I remember what I read) developed around the .222 Remington cartridge (close to but not the same as the .223 that became the 5.56mm). They were still getting the bugs out from switching to the .223 when it was time for the shoot off with the AR15 and they lost out. It's a shame they didn't continue development. It would have been a neat little rifle. It would have been perfect for the average 100 lb ARVN trooper.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Sept 20, 2013 12:33:24 GMT -5
Hmmmm fascinating. Actually the average ARVN soldier was about a buck twenty! Of course back then I weighed 148! w/ a 28 inch waist. YIKES! Will my waist size ever get smaller then my inseam again? unfortunately I doubt it. I am assuming the .222 was extremely high velocity like the .223 at 3200 FPS. the 7.62 asI recall was 2800 FPS. Weird that I would remember that after 40 years? it certainly puts airsoft into perspective doesn't t?
|
|
|
Post by lando on Dec 13, 2013 12:40:20 GMT -5
The main reason we (Infantry in Iraq '06-'08) liked the M14 was because it would put people down. With the M4 or M16, if you didn't hit the brain or the heart, they were still moving, and still a threat. When we plugged a few guys with the M14 or the M240B, they dropped. Without the tumbling characteristics that the 5.56 used to have, and the 5.45 still has, it's like getting hit with an ice pick. Straight in and out. Yeah, I'm sure it hurts, but it doesn't do the devastating damage that the 7.62x51mm does. That's not an ice pick, that's a sledge hammer.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 13, 2013 15:42:13 GMT -5
Indeed stopping power is critical in combat and much more pronounced in the ranges you encounter frequently in the sand box and mountains of afghanistan. In vietnam ranges were not much greater then airsoft engagement ranges and random, high volume, spray and pray was more common then aimed shots. when itcame to cutting through the foliage the M60 was far more effective then the M16 but given how quickly you blast through 600 rounds in even a brief firefight I'm glad all the guys didn't have M14s and 300 rounds.
The high velocity ballistics of the .223 did weird things when they struck bodies at close range. Its true that many of the guys you hit kept running and you didn't know you actually got them till later (if at all). The .30 Cal Garand, BAR and M1903 and British 303 typically generated a much more immediate response. Even more so then the 7.62. in a WW2 training film they show 30 cal ammunition at 200 yards down range going through a 14 inch tree and puncturing a metal water bucket. Yikes!
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Dec 13, 2013 15:58:23 GMT -5
Indeed the amount of stopping power that .30-06 ammo has is scary. My friend's grandpa who was a Marine in the pacific told me when he was a patrol leader he always carried a Garand because of the stopping power. He once took out 3 IJA troops at once. The narrow trails of Guadalcanal certainly accentuated the effectiveness of the Garand.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 13, 2013 18:58:38 GMT -5
I would have thought such a story was nonesense but having fired a Garand a great deal and having surveyed the impacts the story is entirely plausible. With airsoft the fact that concealment (even if it is thin brush) creates cover does create a lot of BAD tactical habits. It's one of the reasons I advocate for 3:1 load capacity and think ricochetes should always count along with gun hits and equipment hits.
|
|
|
Post by CPL. Mills 2nd Rangers on Dec 14, 2013 12:55:21 GMT -5
Its true that many of the guys you hit kept running and you didn't know you actually got them till later (if at all). The .30 Cal Garand, BAR and M1903 and British 303 typically generated a much more immediate response. Even more so then the 7.62. in a WW2 training film they show 30 cal ammunition at 200 yards down range going through a 14 inch tree and puncturing a metal water bucket. Yikes! I seem to remember a documentary on military guns that one idea behind the smaller round and stopping power was when a man was wounded that would take 1-2 other guys out of the fight to help that wounded man. Thus giving our side fire superiority. Whether or not in practice that is true is another story.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 14, 2013 13:51:40 GMT -5
Wounded soldiers do reduce your enemies fighting strength more then killing them for the reasons you cited but I know of no deliberate engineering of a main battle rifle whose goal was to generate wounds and in action it would be a rare engagement where soldiers deliberately aimed to wound. Humans are amazingly more resilient then most movies would have you believe and it is the rare shot that drops someone instantly. Death is usually a grizzly and often slow process. Thankfully with airsoft it is all theater and make believe. Brush creates protection and we can all be heroic and brave at every battle.
|
|