Rear Lug Receiver, and SASS. - Page 2 - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M14

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-27-2015, 05:34 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
I thought that the Big Army was moving toward 3 shot burst instead of Full-auto to make up for the lack of range time required to learn short burst techniques? Sort of "Spray and Pray" is to expensive so let's restrict the Rodent Rifle even further and remove greater training requirements through advances in technology. That's still 12 Trigger Squeezes per EKIA, instead of 2. I'm thinking 35 Rounds of 5.56 NATO still weighs and cost more than 2 Rounds of 7.62 NATO. So I'm not to satisfied with the 5.56 NATO for General Issue. The 5.56 NATO for CQB with the proper projectile, NICHE Cartridge, that I can agree with. But for General Warfare I'm on the 7.62 NATO Bandwagon Kevin.
M118LR is offline  
Old 09-28-2015, 09:02 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
I thought that the Big Army was moving toward 3 shot burst instead of Full-auto to make up for the lack of range time required to learn short burst techniques? Sort of "Spray and Pray" is to expensive so let's restrict the Rodent Rifle even further and remove greater training requirements through advances in technology. That's still 12 Trigger Squeezes per EKIA, instead of 2. I'm thinking 35 Rounds of 5.56 NATO still weighs and cost more than 2 Rounds of 7.62 NATO. So I'm not to satisfied with the 5.56 NATO for General Issue. The 5.56 NATO for CQB with the proper projectile, NICHE Cartridge, that I can agree with. But for General Warfare I'm on the 7.62 NATO Bandwagon Kevin.
Big Army has moved away from the 3 shot burst and all the new M4's are now going back to a full auto setting. The way the M16's burst control was designed, it provided an ever increasing trigger pull weight each time the cam rotated, so you end up with 3 different trigger pulls which didn't really help accuracy.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 09-28-2015, 09:07 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
That and, WWII wasn't quite the "Automatic Weapon In Every Hand" paradigm of today's infantry. They had bigger rounds, and they were trained to Make 'Em Count rather than Spray-N-Pray.
Also have to consider how the numbers were tabulated. The famous statistic of 50,000 rounds was just a measure of expended ammunition, not hits in combat. That expended ammunition tabulation included rounds expended by Miniguns on AC-47's as well...An AC-47 with 6 miniguns can wreck your curve with a single mission. Compared to WW II we had a mass proliferation of machineguns as well as select fire weapons in the hands of soldiers. In the 90's soldiers scores have gone up, and I believe these days they're the best Big Army has ever had. We've learned a lot about training troops over the years.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
 
Old 09-28-2015, 01:43 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
Okay Kevin, let me just make sure I'm following you here.
Rifle squads will be equipped with the same 5.56 NATO M4A1 as the Assault Squad.
Link: M4A1 | US Special Operations | Weapons
We can even go so far as to make it a SOPMOD. They just won't have a SAPPER. Isn't that the failed Idea that caused the big army to come up with the Designated Marksmen Program during our current conflict?

Rifle Squads need to be equipped with 7.62 NATO SCAR MK 17's so that they can contend in open Battle, and the Assault Squad can contend with CQB. Don't forget that the SCAR is also select fire Full-Auto.

The Forward Observer Element will have the SCAR MK 20 and a precision rifle capable of a min 1500 Meters.

Along with most of the other elements of a Platoon.

That was the formula for a successful "Big Army" During WWII, and while conflicts of that scale aren't the current normal. Too the Grunt on the Ground conflict size is of little importance, it's still all out WAR.


Today's "Big Army" is suffering from the decision to use the M-14 instead of the FN-FAL in order to keep the Training Costs (Familiarity) down. The FN SCAR is the combination of Battle Tested User Functions with the Reliability of a Gas Tappet Rifle. Just like the 3 Shot Burst (Bean Counters Solution) has failed, The M110 Use the same platform in a larger caliber (M-14 vs FN-FAL) keeping the manual of arms the same also has failed. While it may sound a bit abnormal, arming Our Troops with the most effective Battle Rifle in the Field, just like WWII.(Garand) Is the Formula to continued success. Could you imagine what the outcome of WWII would have been if the Standard Issue Rifle would have been the 1903 for standardization? We could have even chambered it for a .22 caliber round like the Japanese!

Okay, someone kick the soap box out from under me.
M118LR is offline  
Old 09-28-2015, 03:09 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Well I don't know that any version of the SCAR has been adopted by Big Army, it's simply a special ops item thus far as far as I know. I hope it is adopted, or something quite like it.

I don't know that the M110 is what I'd call a failure. Surely it's not as reliable as the other .308's but it has served pretty well, and has a good accuracy edge. I think with further development and training, there's no reason it can't be as reliable as an M16/M4 Still the SCAR would be a real upgrade.

My recommendation would be to continue to use some form of 5.56 as the general issue infantry rifle, but to add in a dedicated DMR rifle at the very least, and have them in abundance. There may come a time when you might want MOST of your soldiers armed with a 7.62 NATO. It just doesn't make any sense to me to have everyone carrying a .308 all day every day; we did that, didn't like it and we moved on. But we need diversity in weapons for our soldiers.

Instead of the desire for a one size fits all that we've been doing for the past century, I'd like to see them offer a nice palate of options...

.45 handguns
9mm handguns
Shotguns
5.56 carbines
.300 Whisper (or something like it) carbines suppressed
7.62 NATO rifles
.300 Win Mag or .338 Lapua sniper rifles
5.56 squad auto's
7.62 NATO LMG's

Honestly, all these things are available to our spec ops people. Why not make them more available?
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 09-28-2015, 04:56 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
It's only been half a century Kevin, We still have yet to bury all those ghosts of WWII Past, but it is close. Even in their absence they call to real Warriors Kevin. But this is the forum of take a day to respond, and I like that. So I have responded earlier than I should have. Forgive me, tomorrow I will have a better response than I posted today.
M118LR is offline  
Old 09-28-2015, 06:57 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,777
Personally, I've long thought that part of initial weps training should be assessing what caliber and platform best fit the individual soldier--if you're better suited to a .45 you get a 1911, one of the various [s]Blocks[/s]Glocks or if there's a .45 Beretta variant one of those, whichever fits you best, 9mm ditto with the appropriate bore. Rifles, if you can better handle a .308 you get an AR10 variant or M14, whichever fits you; 5.56 you get an M16 or M4.

The problem is, like matching kids' learning styles with teachers' teaching styles, it takes WORK to do that... and if there's one thing the pus-sucking pogues are averse to it's "REMFs actually having to EARN their paychecks."
Diamondback is offline  
Old 09-29-2015, 08:40 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Yeah the problem with infantry marksmanship training is that it's looked upon purely as a cost center for Big Army, so they want an acceptable marksman for as cheap as they can possibly do it. For the past 40+ years "hitability" has been a very big factor in small arms evaluations. And while I think that is something of utmost importance, the reason Big Army wants it is to determine which rifle will save them the most money, not which rifle will be most effective.

So we've had the "war" in Kosovo which was "settled by air power" (BS), and the first Gulf War where infantry soldiers played a very small role. Other than that, EVERY real war has been settled by the infantry soldier on the ground. Yeah the equipment has to have it's battle to establish dominance, but eventually you have to have a grunt with a rifle come close the deal. I wish they'd understand that you just can't close the deal without your grunts, and treat weapons acquisition and training like they do with tanks. With armor or aircraft, we don't settle for acceptable; we demand dominance. We need to have that same attitude with our infantry*

*not to deride or infantry, I think today's infantry is the most effective the US military has ever fielded. I would not want to square of with US infantry, especially Marines.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 09-29-2015, 09:11 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,731
Kevin, I don't know what the Marines do today, but when I was still with the Big Army the Marines did it right. Every swinging d**k was a combat rifleman first then what other MOS they needed. I wasn't Infantry even though I qualified as Expert with every rifle I was issued, be it carbine, Garand, M14 or M16, but I always wondered why Big Army operated as it did. You're right, despite the hype given bombing, no conflict was ever won until Pvt. Snuffy was standing on the hill with his rifle and said, "This is mine!"

Now we can go back to regular programing and discuss the next battle rifle or handgun.
csmkersh is offline  
Old 09-29-2015, 02:08 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
It is a curiosity why the Navy has taken the Lead on the SCAR Program. Perhaps it's due to the relatively small quantity of Small Arms when compared to the USMC or even larger "Big Army".
I must agree that if there is to be a change in the "Big Army" Dollars vs sense, it will probably take an urging or incentive from the USMC. Should the USMC decide to start upgrading the inventory of 7.62 NATO Rifles, I would expect the "Big Army" to Piggy Back on some of the purchase orders the USMC initiated.
As the SCAR MK 20 7.62 NATO is already in service, the M-14 & M-110 are being phased out. Granted this is only for a small percentage of each of the Combined Services, but as the SCAR MK 20 is now the designated Sniper Support Rifle, (Sniper Support was a 5.56 NATO M-16) at least SOCOM has moved away from the Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only time and more Battle Field Exposure will tell if the SCAR is an improvement, but for now it appears that the FN SCAR is coming in multiple Mod's for all the 7.62 NATO Chores that the High Command have realized exist outside of the Urban Battle Field.

So while the Oxen moving the Big Army are slow, the Earth is patient. At least for now the 7.62 NATO has Supplanted the 5.56 NATO for Sniper Support.
M118LR is offline  
Old 09-29-2015, 02:25 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
It is a curiosity why the Navy has taken the Lead on the SCAR Program. Perhaps it's due to the relatively small quantity of Small Arms when compared to the USMC or even larger "Big Army".
I must agree that if there is to be a change in the "Big Army" Dollars vs sense, it will probably take an urging or incentive from the USMC. Should the USMC decide to start upgrading the inventory of 7.62 NATO Rifles, I would expect the "Big Army" to Piggy Back on some of the purchase orders the USMC initiated.
As the SCAR MK 20 7.62 NATO is already in service, the M-14 & M-110 are being phased out. Granted this is only for a small percentage of each of the Combined Services, but as the SCAR MK 20 is now the designated Sniper Support Rifle, (Sniper Support was a 5.56 NATO M-16) at least SOCOM has moved away from the Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only time and more Battle Field Exposure will tell if the SCAR is an improvement, but for now it appears that the FN SCAR is coming in multiple Mod's for all the 7.62 NATO Chores that the High Command have realized exist outside of the Urban Battle Field.

So while the Oxen moving the Big Army are slow, the Earth is patient. At least for now the 7.62 NATO has Supplanted the 5.56 NATO for Sniper Support.
Yeah, the various SCAR's really have the edge over the competition. Their use by SOCOM is VERY fortuitous for them because they get to have very busy US soldiers out there doing their testing, which allows them to de-bug the weapon systems, making them probably the most developed of the latest generations of military rifles. That will put them in a really good position if the US military decides to go out to bid for a new rifle/system.

And I don't know if the 7.62 NATO has supplanted the 5.56 NATO for sniper support, but they now have that option. I'm sure sniper support weapons are chosen for the particular mission; we are talking SOCOM here. Certainly there are times when you would want a 7.62 and times where you'd want a 5.56 for sniper support.

I'd just love to see those SCAR's filter down to the regular Army; I'm sure the grunts would appreciate it very much.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 09-29-2015, 02:33 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmkersh View Post
Kevin, I don't know what the Marines do today, but when I was still with the Big Army the Marines did it right. Every swinging d**k was a combat rifleman first then what other MOS they needed. I wasn't Infantry even though I qualified as Expert with every rifle I was issued, be it carbine, Garand, M14 or M16, but I always wondered why Big Army operated as it did. You're right, despite the hype given bombing, no conflict was ever won until Pvt. Snuffy was standing on the hill with his rifle and said, "This is mine!"

Now we can go back to regular programing and discuss the next battle rifle or handgun.
I can see a couple of scenarios for Big Army.

1 - the cheap route (I see this as least likely): A conversion of M16/M4's to a piston system similar to the H&K 416. While this may not be the best option, it's really not a bad option at all. Certainly I'd prefer a SCAR over the H&K 416, but if I was just handed the 416 and told to get over it, I'd be over it pretty darned quick.

2 - Going out to bid for a "system". Given the direction toward modularity, I could see an RFP for a weapon system that allows maximum flexibility for configuration, cartridges, etc. Thus giving options for one general "system" to fill pretty much every auto-loading "rifle" role we have now. That would be THE way to go, and the SCAR is most of the way there. I just hope they take this opportunity to can the STANAG magazine and go with a much better design.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 10-02-2015, 09:00 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
I think they already scrapped the cheap route "carrier tilt". Scrapped the FN-SCAR MK 16. (with the exception of the Navy) Scrapped the H&K 416. So it appears that the "Big Army" will charge forward with the (completely cheapest M-16 Replacement) M4A1 DI in 5.56 NATO. It will take something like an embedded reporter filming a Human Wave Overrunning OUR TROOPS while they blaze away with Rodent Rifles and can't stop the Charge, before the "Big Army" drops it's Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only Poor Public Publicity seems to have a Major Effect on the Upper Echelon. JMHO.
M118LR is offline  
Old 10-05-2015, 11:21 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
I think they already scrapped the cheap route "carrier tilt". Scrapped the FN-SCAR MK 16. (with the exception of the Navy) Scrapped the H&K 416. So it appears that the "Big Army" will charge forward with the (completely cheapest M-16 Replacement) M4A1 DI in 5.56 NATO. It will take something like an embedded reporter filming a Human Wave Overrunning OUR TROOPS while they blaze away with Rodent Rifles and can't stop the Charge, before the "Big Army" drops it's Dollars vs Sense Dogma. Only Poor Public Publicity seems to have a Major Effect on the Upper Echelon. JMHO.
Delta has the H&K 416 as their preferred rifle. Carrier tilt isn't a problem with that system, and my understanding is that carrier tilt is more of the theoretical problem for most piston rifles than an actual problem...again, that's most.

I don't see the US dumping the 5.56 pretty much ever at this point. If they do, it will be after I'm good and gone.

If Big Army would just adopt the Mk 318 Mod 0 cartridge, or something quite like it, then the 5.56 would be more than adequate to take down hoards of zombies. I'd love to see us abandon the whole Hague Accord thing.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 10-05-2015, 02:15 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
Socom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
Delta has the H&K 416 as their preferred rifle. Carrier tilt isn't a problem with that system, and my understanding is that carrier tilt is more of the theoretical problem for most piston rifles than an actual problem...again, that's most.

I don't see the US dumping the 5.56 pretty much ever at this point. If they do, it will be after I'm good and gone.

If Big Army would just adopt the Mk 318 Mod 0 cartridge, or something quite like it, then the 5.56 would be more than adequate to take down hoards of zombies. I'd love to see us abandon the whole Hague Accord thing.
Kevin, DELTA is just one of SOCOM's fingers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ations_Command

Yes I agree that the Mk 318 is the best thing that has happened so far to the 5.56, but XM 193 and Select Fire Full-Auto CQB is still the most efficient use of both rifle and cartridge.

In simple terms: "There is no replacement for cubic inch displacement"

The second you leave Urban Areas (CQB) 500 Meters and More becomes the engagement range. Pestilent Rodents and Folks that return fire are not in the same weight class. Battlefield Dominance follows the WWII Matrix, it has been proven. Once the "Big Army" get's back on board with the fact that they might have to fight a conflict of these proportions again, (Thanks to OUR current fearless leader) the STOPGAP measures that are keeping the current Combatants functional (DM Program) will need to be RE-Addressed looking forward, or We shall become second rate when putting "Boots on the Ground".

Politically, as dismal a failure as the Public see's the current Administrations Policies vs ISIS. Let them Kill each other off is the Best Tactic that OUR Currently Armed Ground Troops can employ. The 1 in 15 KIA Ratio of NAM (or worse) won't sit Well with the American Public. So the reverse Crusades is handled best by allowing all "Friendlies" to give thier lives for the cause, and eradicating the remainder upon the successful completion of the ISIS Caliphate. JMHO.
M118LR is offline  
Old 10-22-2015, 07:14 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
I researched some old info on the M-14 Forum giving Tank's Rifle Shop as a possible location for the M25 Steel Liner that allowed for repeatable zero after breakdown, but I can't find anything on the web-sight about it. Anyone got a Heads-up on the availability of the Steel Liner that was made for the M25? Thanks.
M118LR is offline  
Old 02-10-2017, 03:29 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
I'd suggest that Y'all just give up on the antiqued M-14, and all it's variations. It's a dated platform with limited usages and not worthy of your time and research. It isn't part of the future, it's time is long past. Treat the M-14 like any other "Historical Footnote". JMHO.
M118LR is offline  
Old 02-10-2017, 07:25 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
I'd suggest that Y'all just give up on the antiqued M-14, and all it's variations. It's a dated platform with limited usages and not worthy of your time and research. It isn't part of the future, it's time is long past. Treat the M-14 like any other "Historical Footnote". JMHO.
If mine didn't have such great iron sights maybe I'd......nah -- it's MINE! ALL MINE! And I'm keeping it! 'Cause I LIKE it!
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 02-11-2017, 06:38 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by M118LR View Post
It's a dated platform with limited usages and not worthy of your time and research. It isn't part of the future, it's time is long past.
You do realize that you're on a forum where many of the posters don't consider a firearm legitimate unless it's made from iron and has chunks of trees attached to it, right?

Any material invented or discovered since the Han Dynasty is an abomination. An occasional exception can be made for stainless steel, but that's really only for the avant garde hipsters among us.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 02-11-2017, 09:03 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
M118LR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 194
Old War Rifles and even Older Warriors, what an excellent combination. We can only hope that the avant garde and thier hip new weapons outperform US. Thank Y'all for your experience and wit.As to the current Generation of Warriors, I Salute You, carry on smartly.
M118LR is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M14

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Extra material, not milled, under rear of receiver stercraz M14 5 01-03-2009 07:29 AM
Punch marks on rear of receiver 62chevym1 M1 Carbine 5 09-04-2006 03:08 AM
Kramer SASS Print Gun Talk 2 05-24-2006 11:36 AM
Demilled M14 Rear Receiver Halves Confiscation m21 bulldog M14 2 10-30-2005 05:02 PM
Rear Lug Receiver and USGI Synthetic Stock ? Scoutster M14 14 05-24-2005 12:02 AM




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.