For you folks who went to basic around 1959 like me - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Ammunition

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2016, 11:25 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,163
For you folks who went to basic around 1959 like me

I was at Ft. Ord and my Senior NCO at Infantry School was MSG Joe Delisio and he told us when we were firing the M1 that we were using reloaded or remade ammunition. I don't know if he was correct because I respected him so much that I just bought it. It does make sense to me that with the Army expanding so quickly during the war that some effort of reloading training ammo only would be attempted. This was at the time of the M1 being phased out and the M14 phased in.
threefeathers is offline  
Old 04-11-2016, 11:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: 29.4 Miles North (and slightly West) of Portland, OR.
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by threefeathers View Post
I was at Ft. Ord and my Senior NCO at Infantry School was MSG Joe Delisio and he told us when we were firing the M1 that we were using reloaded or remade ammunition. I don't know if he was correct because I respected him so much that I just bought it. It does make sense to me that with the Army expanding so quickly during the war that some effort of reloading training ammo only would be attempted. This was at the time of the M1 being phased out and the M14 phased in.
My sources tell me that the M1 Garand was officially superseded by the M14 in 1959. The training film I saw for the M14 was copyrighted in 1960.

I have no further information.

Last edited by Captain O; 04-12-2016 at 12:27 AM.
Captain O is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 03:02 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,256
As far as I know, the US Army has NOT used reloaded ammo, except for the Army Marksmanship Units.

There is a recurring rumor that the ammo is reloaded because the case mouths are annealed (heat treated) after the case is polished, to make Quality Assurance easier.

Geoff
Who heard the rumor as fact in basic training, 1972.
Skeptic49 is offline  
 
Old 04-12-2016, 05:25 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,738
RE: The M1

The M1 was replaced by the M-14 in 1957 but saw frontline service until 1965.

Can't say if reloaded ammo was used even for training.
csmkersh is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 09:01 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,769
We received the M14s when I was in Germany 1961-1962. We had the M60 machine guns before that. We were given no training on the M14. I guess they thought it was close enough to the M1 that we didn't need it. We had to qualify with it soon after they were issued.
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 09:48 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmkersh View Post
The M1 was replaced by the M-14 in 1957 but saw frontline service until 1965.

Can't say if reloaded ammo was used even for training.
And the M1 was used for basic training beyond even that date. My former father in law went to Paris Island in 1966 and he was trained on the Garand. Didn't like the M14, and really didn't like the M16.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 10:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
Didn't like the M14, and really didn't like the M16.
He's not the only one. I do think the M14 is a better choice over the M16 but with the spray and pray tactics I see in the news the extra ammo one can pack with the M16/M4 makes sense.
csmkersh is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 12:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: 29.4 Miles North (and slightly West) of Portland, OR.
Posts: 179
Once we were a nation of riflemen. It is a pity that we've lost our value of marksmanship. "Spray and pray" seems to be the day's mode of warfare.

Ridiculous.
Captain O is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 01:37 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
I tend to think the 5.56 is the right cartridge for a general issue infantry weapon today. Let me stress the general issue part. I also think there is room for the 7.62 NATO and something like the .300 Blackout which with certain loads is a near ballistic twin to the 7.62x39. The 7.62x39 has proven to be an excellent cartridge inside of 300m. And of course the .300 Blackout has the heavy bullet / sub-sonic option for suppressed weapons. For urban warfare something like the .300 Blackout would be a much better choice given its superior barrier penetration, and suppressed option. (I really think mass use of suppressed weapons is the future of infantry weapons)

I think the Russians really got things right when it came to arming an infantry platoon in the way they distributed weapons, and in a lot of ways, we're now finally copying what they've been doing for at least 40 years, because we've figured out (kinda the hard way) that diversity of weapons makes a whole lot of sense.

They have a mix of AK's, the magazine fed RPK, the PK LMG, and the Dragunov. In the past 20 years they added the very excellent special purpose suppressed VSS sniper rifle.

They recognized that one size most certainly does not fit all.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 04-12-2016, 06:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,163
No matter what the rifle chosen marksmanship is the key. I like that the KD range has been brought back by the Marine Corps. For the Army, we haven't had the K D range open for years at Ft. Huachuca.
threefeathers is offline  
Old 04-13-2016, 07:03 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,769
I was at Ft Huachuca in 1957, of course we still had the KD range then.
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 04-13-2016, 02:55 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,302
To All:

Nobody at DoD cares about my opinion but imVho we made a HUGE mistake as the US Armed Forces when we quit using the M14.
(While the M16/M4 are fine for close-range fighting, neither, again impo, are suitable for well-aimed fire beyond 250M. - That's why the USA has "bought back" any number of M14 rifles that "wee willie klintoon" STUPIDLY sold to Taiwan.)

At "jungle-fighting range" either a 7 shot pump-gun with 00 buckshot or a SMG is just as useful for close-in fighting like that that was commonplace in RVN.
(I "adopted" an Ithaca Featherweight when I was OCONUS in those long ago days. = Some of my old comrades teased me, calling me, "Shotgun Slade". The same group called my buddy, who had "acquired by other than usual means" a Port Said SMG, "Buzz")

I also thought that NOT procuring a modern SMG was a mistake for issuance to the MPs & other security/LE personnel, as our "combat activities" are BRIEF, VIOLENT & generally at VERY close range. Engaging "long range targets" is normally with the MG. = Shoot-outs between MPs doing MSR security, traffic-control points & engaging local guerrillas in the "echelons behind divisions in contact" (in a traditional war with front lines) are REALLY short range actions in 99% of cases.
(In 1976 at USAMPS we had a "faculty working group" that looked into firefights between MP/MPI/CID personnel in the period 1965-74 & found that well over 75% of "shootouts" occurred at ranges of 50M with many being at 20M or less. The same "working group" found that most of those "small unit actions" lasted 5 minutes or less. - The group determined that the MOST important thing in such actions was the ability to return a large amount of firepower quickly to suppress the enemy fires and to successfully end the enemy contact.)

just my opinions, sw

Last edited by stand watie; 04-18-2016 at 07:39 AM. Reason: typo/add
stand watie is offline  
Old 04-14-2016, 09:26 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
I personally think the move away from the M14 was the right thing to do. Now the timing and how they went about it; well that was done extremely poorly.

For a well seasoned rifleman a .308 main battle rifle can be a fierce thing. But for a bunch of raw recruits, the M14 is a horrible weapon. Scores are always much higher with the M16 over just about every other rifle in the world, but especially against .308 main battle rifles.

Again, speaking only for general issue. I think in the past wars we've seen that one sized just does not fit all. Sure I'd want the M14 on the open fields, but when you start kicking doors, the M14 would suck.

And considering that you can carry literally twice the ammunition, I'll take the extra ammo over the more powerful rifle every day of the week.

But I think it's important to have a military unit with BOTH types of rifles in that unit, so regardless of what they encounter, they have the ability to deal with it decisively.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 04-14-2016, 11:50 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: 29.4 Miles North (and slightly West) of Portland, OR.
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
I personally think the move away from the M14 was the right thing to do. Now the timing and how they went about it; well that was done extremely poorly.

For a well seasoned rifleman a .308 main battle rifle can be a fierce thing. But for a bunch of raw recruits, the M14 is a horrible weapon. Scores are always much higher with the M16 over just about every other rifle in the world, but especially against .308 main battle rifles.

Again, speaking only for general issue. I think in the past wars we've seen that one sized just does not fit all. Sure I'd want the M14 on the open fields, but when you start kicking doors, the M14 would suck.

And considering that you can carry literally twice the ammunition, I'll take the extra ammo over the more powerful rifle every day of the week.

But I think it's important to have a military unit with BOTH types of rifles in that unit, so regardless of what they encounter, they have the ability to deal with it decisively.
Agreed.
Captain O is offline  
Old 04-17-2016, 09:04 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,163
Thank you guys.. Personally I have a SOCOM16 which I think is sort of the best of both worlds.
threefeathers is offline  
Old 04-18-2016, 04:12 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by threefeathers View Post
Thank you guys.. Personally I have a SOCOM16 which I think is sort of the best of both worlds.
Seconded.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 04-18-2016, 09:12 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: 29.4 Miles North (and slightly West) of Portland, OR.
Posts: 179
Vote our gun rights, people! As a former Sailor, (Aviation Machinist's Mate, Jet) we need to remain vigilant so these "choices" will not be forced upon us.
Captain O is offline  
Old 05-02-2016, 09:44 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,163
You said it Captain O, we can't have gun discussions without guns.
threefeathers is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Ammunition

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I need some basic info on this K98 MAUSER? VALUE? PLEASE HELP! blackhawkr1 Rifles 2 07-03-2014 12:13 PM
some basic 1911 questions delloro Handguns 10 11-07-2005 02:08 PM
Need a basic Carbine KTR03 M1 Carbine 16 03-01-2005 04:36 PM
Basic gunsmithing tools Geoff Ross Gun Gear 5 01-23-2005 10:30 AM
Basic gunsmithing tools Geoff Ross Gun Gear 5 12-31-1969 07:00 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.