M-14, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand

[getitdone1]

Just been reading about these great guns in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

I know many of you have read these articles but for those here who have not--Highly recommend them.

Read our military, in 2009, did a study and found the 5.56 ineffective at 300 yds and beyond in Afghanistan and this caused them to round-up and use lots of M-14's.

That M-14 is a great gun ! Used it during my time in the Army.

Don

[AJMD429]

Unless one is too petite to handle and carry an M1 Garand or M1-A, I can think of no other more versatile battle-rifle(s), nor home-defense firearm(s); they even double as a game-getters for most of the world.

Either of these pairs of firearms could successfully guide any man through the Gates of Hell...







However, since this is a 'leverguns' forum, I have to admit, I'd not feel all that handicapped with THESE...

[jeepnik]

Long, long time ago an M16 failed me. I rounded up an M14. Flash forward over thirty years, and my eldest found out that his M4 wasn't worth a darned in Afghanistan. So what did the little copy cat do, he "found" an M14. Sucks when history has to keep repeating itself (remember they replaced the .38 colt with the old .45 colt when the .38 failed miserably) and the folks who make the decisions can't learn from it.

Though I must admit, it would have been kinda neat if I had been able to find what my dad preferred. That would be the Thompson.

[MrMurphy]

Ammo deficiency, not caliber deficiency. The M855 ball (current issue) was intended for 20" barrels. Most guys are currently using 14.5" barrels.

Past 200m the M855 will certainly do the trick, but it's mostly poking a hole. The Mk 262 and the SOST load the USMC uses penetrate better and perform better once they hit someone.


The military brought back M14s not because they were awesome, but because they were in the inventory and thus free. Most guys I've known who were using M14s in Afghanistan and Iraq used them in a very limited role due to ammo availability (good stuff, not delinked M80 ball, which isn't overly accurate compared to the sniper loads) and either carried an M4 for close-in work or left the M14 in the vehicles the majority of the time.

Most units have replaced the M14s with M16A4's using ACOG scopes and good ammo, and the effects on target are no different. At 500-600m both the M14 and M16 with correct ammunition and a scope will drop someone without too much problem.

I wouldn't turn one down myself, but as my job primarily was concerned with close-in engagement likelihood and our longer ranges were covered by machine guns and grenade launchers.....the M4 was the correct tool for 'our' job.

[OldWin]

I own all 3 of these rifles (2 M1A's) and love them all. Haven't owned an AR in years and probably won't again. I will probably offend many but I just don't drink the AR cool-aid. It's had more updates, money spent, and excuses than is believable but in the end is still a .223. If that much effort had been spent on the M1 carbine we'd still be using it too.

Anyway, sorry everybody for the blasphemy.

[handirifle]

I own all 3 of these rifles (2 M1A's) and love them all. Haven't owned an AR in years and probably won't again. I will probably offend many but I just don't drink the AR cool-aid. It's had more updates, money spent, and excuses than is believable but in the end is still a .223. If that much effort had been spent on the M1 carbine we'd still be using it too.

Anyway, sorry everybody for the blasphemy.

Old wind, I agree 100%. Carried both the 14 and 16 from 72-75 and hated the 16. Stoners first version in 308 was closer to ideal, and in fact something newer in the form of a piston driven, 6.8 or 6.5 caliber with the compactness of the M4 would probably be ideal. I still wouldn't like it but it would serve many rolls for our troops.

Mr murphy's experience, to me, means TONS more than my opinions from peacetime carry, so I will give his opinion much more weight. I know the newer chrome lined barrels, and easier to use cleaning systems make a big difference I am sure.

Not my cup of tea and it will never come to me to be a choice so what ever they choose, I hope they like it.

[OldWin]

I agree with you Handirifle. It just seems it's full of contradictions. Everyone praises the accuracy but as I see it it's mostly academic. By the time the distance is great enough for the accuracy to matter, the cartridge is ineffective. Then you always here about it for close combat but the truth is there are more reliable and effective options in my opinion. That said, I'm not a combat veteran or have I played one on tv. I have however, talked to as many end users as I could over the years.
I think this is the success of the AK. Its the same as the 94 carbine in 30wcf. Its accurate enough for the distance its used at with the right amount of power for that distance. And of course, its stone-drag reliable.

[AJMD429]

By the time the distance is great enough for the accuracy to matter, the cartridge is ineffective.

If that much effort had been spent on the M1 carbine we'd still be using it too.

I think the 223 is OK as a military weapon, because it is more desirable to wound the enemy than kill him, and the 223 WILL do that, out to 800 yards or more.

I also think the Mini-14 would be a better 'combat' rifle than the M1 Carbine, though I'd shorten and stiffen the barrel a bit, and might chamber it in 300 Blk instead of 223 Rem...

[Blaine]

I can tell you that through 20 years of M-16 use, on the range only, I would usually get more than one jam per session. This was with clean, non-mucked up rifles. I can only imagine what combat use would do to the reliability factor. The M60 seemed to go bang each and every time....This is, of course, in my limited experience.

[Sixgun]

I grew up at the tail end of the VN war and that's all I ever heard from my older brother and other returning vets.....M-16's are junk......so, as I got older and was able to buy guns of my own I always turned my nose up at any AR, considering them junk.

Then..... A weird thing happened, my own son grew up and as a generation Xer, who was exposed to old leverguns along with the attitude of "M-16's are junk"' from me, decided to experiment on his own, paying no attention to me.

He told me I should open my mind up a bit and try one of these AR's. Well, I did and bought me a Colt 6940 LE with a 16" barrel with a 1-7 twist. I put a semi-high end Nikon on it and used my reloading knowledge to see what this Colt could do.

Using good old common sense, I settled on the 69 gr. Sierra Matchking HP with a dose of RL-15.

Looking at my log, I now have 1700 rounds out of it......95% reloads.......NO failures of any kind to
feed or eject. I shot it dirty, clean, cold and smoking hot. About 75% of my shooting was at 300 to 500 meters away at clay birds sitting on the bank. It is rare to miss at 300 meters and at 400 and 500, if I did miss, it was not by much or was my mistake of trigger control or the wind.

I should add that this is not just one rifle talking, but the majority of the guys at the gun club who shoot these newer AR's, and my best bud,"The Gunny", who has an arsenal of these type of guns talking.

My other bud, who owns Targetmaster has a mess of Class 3 stuff that we play with from time to time. One day we took out a Colt M-4 Enhanced, which was semi, full, and 3 rd. burst. We shot up a couple of cases of 500 rounds each and we never did experience any hiccups, and I tell ya, that barrel was HOT.

I've got a National Match Garand from the fifties and a NM m-1A and yes, they are both very accurate and dependable, but......if this revolution thing or some other kind of civil chaos ever materializes, I'm grabbing the AR.-----6

[Blaine]

Six, IM(un-expert)O the fine semi-auto you have, while sort of the same basic design, is not the same as a military M-16...Can you imagine a rifle put together with X amount of parts all made by the lowest bidder?

[jeepnik]

[quote="AJMD429"]I think the 223 is OK as a military weapon, because it is more desirable to wound the enemy than kill him, and the 223 WILL do that, out to 800 yards or more. /quote]

When dealing with an enemy that values the life of his compatriots wounding and thus necessitating use of manpower and resources is a viable idea. But, when you deal with folks who are fanatical enough to not care about these things, and when wounded even mortally will use their last breath to kill you, it isn't.

What say you MrMurphy? I wonder if your experience is similar to my boys.

[Sixgun]

Blaine,
We need expert expertise here.....Mr. Murphy.....I always thought that Colt had the majority of the military contracts in the old days ......just going by what I'm told here.......I hear there were little changes here and there that made these guns ultra reliable. Once again, I only hear...that today's AR-15 is not your daddy's AR. Mr Murphy? Please chime in.----6

[Blaine]

Blaine,
We need expert expertise here.....Mr. Murphy.....I always thought that Colt had the majority of the military contracts in the old days ......just going by what I'm told here.......I hear there were little changes here and there that made these guns ultra reliable. Once again, I only hear...that today's AR-15 is not your daddy's AR. Mr Murphy? Please chime in.----6

Agreed...I suspect a professional (MOS) Armorer could keep them running WAY better than whatever REMF was taking care of ours....

[AJMD429]

I think the 223 is OK as a military weapon, because it is more desirable to wound the enemy than kill him, and the 223 WILL do that, out to 800 yards or more.

When dealing with an enemy that values the life of his compatriots wounding and thus necessitating use of manpower and resources is a viable idea. But, when you deal with folks who are fanatical enough to not care about these things, and when wounded even mortally will use their last breath to kill you, it isn't.

That is unfortunately very likely true; good point raised.

There ARE a couple good modernizations of the Garand/M1A, for those who don't like the 'old versions'...

• 1. Garand - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49681
  
  2. M1A - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48632

[OldWin]

The "wounding" theory is fine if you aren't the one doing the fighting. A wounded combatant can kill you as quick as any. See Somalia for reference. I've never talked to anyone armed with a 7.62 that wished they had something smaller.

[MrMurphy]

1. Not a combat veteran. Just the way luck turned out, i didn't get the right deployment. Nearly every single friend I have and most of my relatives, however, are. My dad carried the M14 and M16 as well as M16A1 in Vietnam, and the A2 in the Gulf War. I have friends who carried the A1, A2, M4 and now the M4A1 in combat (in one guy's case, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War and then OIF 1-3) before he retired. However, I worked for a major manufacturer and saw a whole lot of rounds downrange in testing.

For reliability: http://www.slip2000.com/blog/s-w-a-t-ma ... filthy-14/

That's an extreme case, but any AR built right, lubed, with decent ammo, will run. With (very filthy) blanks, I've put 14 magazines-plus (over 420 rounds) on semi and full auto through an M16A2E3 (M16A2 with full auto package, not 3 round burst) that was completely dry. It hiccuped once, when the blank firing adapter came loose from about five mags on full auto in a hurry (we were simulating insurgent forces attacking a convoy, and not having any belted 5.56 handy, i was 'the machine gun' at the time) which isn't a problem with the rifle. The gun had been rack-stored in the 'holy stuff the Soviets are invading' emergency issue racks and bone dry for several years. Much to all of our surprise, even dry it ran just fine, even with blanks.

B.
Most of the early problems with the M16 were not the fault of the design, but of the Army itself. The Army test group deliberately tried to make the tests fail in the mid 60s (especially the arctic tests). The ARMY specifically asked for a smaller-caliber rifle, and because it was MORE lethal, not less. The early 5.56 loads, when used by trained troops (Special Forces, who aimed, not a panicked conscript emptying a mag on full auto) had excellent lethality reports, and they wanted more of them, fast. The Army (and DOD) changed the requirements to no chrome lining, to save money, and put the word out that it was 'self cleaning'. At various times, all the branches have gotten the idea in their heads that lube=unreliability, despite the fact that Stoner and the Army itself heavily advocated lubing the gun. A lubed AR will run, and run, even in sandy conditions.

The well-distributed wounding theory is just that, a theory. The Army wanted maximum lethality with lots of rounds carried. The fact that a wounded guy would (assuming civilized troops) tie up a couple other guys was simply a nice add-on, but it wasn't the point. Dead troops don't come back to battle. Wounded troops only tie up resources in a long, grind-out war like World War 1, which has so far, only happened once.

AK's can jam as well. Especially fine, silty sand. Harder to do, but not impossible. Seen it. The standard Soviet 7.62 load used by much of the world is also not the world's most lethal round, which is why the Russians switched to 5.45mm, for the same reasons we did (lighter, easier to control, more lethal). I know, personally, a guy shot during the Rhodesian war in the thigh with an AK who was back in action (limited scale) a week and a half later. It was a through-and-through. That said I also have a friend who's in a chair for life because an AK round hit him in the spine.

The M-14's a fine design, but it's long and heavy, which these days, where guys spend a lot of time in vehicles, is a major factor. Even the standard M16 is long. The fixed stock, with body armor, is a problem for anyone under about 5'9. I can make it work, but for the most part, the collapsible stocks are more user adjustable. Except for the match models, most M14s aren't any more accurate than a factory M16 (2-3 MOA). Both have similar sights, the M14 has a bit better trigger.

Modernized ammo selection with shorter barrels and optics make the AR a very handy, lethal option out to some amazing distances. Problem is many troops are stuck with the M855 (which we adopted in the mid 80s) made for 20" barrels, not the shorter barrels now in use. Making a couple rapid hits in a hurry is more likely to drop someone than a single hit in any caliber. Even 7.62 fails. Friend of mine in the early Iraq invasion had a guy hit by a burst of .50 BMG, nearly blown in half still try to roll over and pick his RPG back up. Burst #2 fixed that problem.

Just like 9mm/.45, you'll get proponents for both. There is definitely a role for the 7.62, and we have them (the M-110, which is a KAC SR-25 in 7.62mm), the Brits use the LMT .308 AR equivalent for the same role. But for a general issue weapon, the AR series works just fine. They're easy to maintain, easy to hit with in a hurry, carry a lot of ammo, and if you're carryign the right ammo, can put people down at some crazy ranges. Early on in Afghanistan, a SF sergeant with a 14.5" M-4 carbine using an ACOG dropped a guy hilltop to hilltop at approximately 600 meters. Due to the short barrel and ammo in use, he had to shoot the guy about six times since they were just poking holes. Said insurgent still died. It'd be like making a 300m hit with an M-1 carbine. Out of it's intended envelope, still worked when it had to.

The M16 has evolved through multiple generations in forty years. This isn't 1964 anymore, and by the time of the A2 (late 80s) it became very reliable when lubed and used with good magazines. Even the A1 didn't have issues if it was treated correctly, there's still a ton of A1's in use around the world. The M16A4 is just a modernized A2, and the M4 carbine is just a M16A2, shortened with rails.

As to who makes M16s.... Colt had the contract for many years. FN (who also makes the M249 and M240 machine guns) began making M16A2s in the 90s. Colt had the M4 contract till recently, and a couple other companies have been competing for it lately.

[Griff]

I grew up at the tail end of the VN war and that's all I ever heard from my older brother and other returning vets.....M-16's are junk......so, as I got older and was able to buy guns of my own I always turned my nose up at any AR, considering them junk.

Then..... A weird thing happened, my own son grew up and as a generation Xer, who was exposed to old leverguns along with the attitude of "M-16's are junk"' from me, decided to experiment on his own, paying no attention to me.

He told me I should open my mind up a bit and try one of these AR's. Well, I did and bought me a Colt 6940 LE with a 16" barrel with a 1-7 twist. I put a semi-high end Nikon on it and used my reloading knowledge to see what this Colt could do.

Using good old common sense, I settled on the 69 gr. Sierra Matchking HP with a dose of RL-15.

Looking at my log, I now have 1700 rounds out of it......95% reloads.......NO failures of any kind to
feed or eject. I shot it dirty, clean, cold and smoking hot. About 75% of my shooting was at 300 to 500 meters away at clay birds sitting on the bank. It is rare to miss at 300 meters and at 400 and 500, if I did miss, it was not by much or was my mistake of trigger control or the wind.

I should add that this is not just one rifle talking, but the majority of the guys at the gun club who shoot these newer AR's, and my best bud,"The Gunny", who has an arsenal of these type of guns talking.

My other bud, who owns Targetmaster has a mess of Class 3 stuff that we play with from time to time. One day we took out a Colt M-4 Enhanced, which was semi, full, and 3 rd. burst. We shot up a couple of cases of 500 rounds each and we never did experience any hiccups, and I tell ya, that barrel was HOT.

I've got a National Match Garand from the fifties and a NM m-1A and yes, they are both very accurate and dependable, but......if this revolution thing or some other kind of civil chaos ever materializes, I'm grabbing the AR.-----6

My persoanl experience exactly.

In 1970 the Navy was still using the M-1. My first experience with the M-16 was in advanced training, and I didn't like it... It just felt weird, to light after training and learning to shoot the M-1. In my first deployment I got the opportunity to grab a mdl 1928 Tommygun... Never looked back. After a short stint in VN I was then was posted to a Pacific isle... was a rifleman as my secondary duty... issued another M-1. After just luggin' that thing and two bandoliers of ammo around that island during a couple of training/familarization practice drills... I was happy being transferred to a ship! But, my given prior training, I found myself in several security details... but, once again found a Tommygun as my long gun!

Then I won a mdl 64A Winchester in a shipboard raffle. And my love of that design and cartridge blossomed. The start of a 40 year romance! That continues, but...

A year ago I bought a A4 inspired AR-15. Absolutely life altering. Well... ok, certainly altered my thinking about the AR platform. I've since built a 2nd one; and have two more receivers to build on.

In the interim I got a DCM M-1. An excellent example with a new NM barrel and sights. All in all, a great shooter. But still, for serious work, the AR has replaced the mdl 94s I used to rely on.

[Sixgun]

Thank you Mr. Murphy for imparting your knowledge to us civvies. You too Griff! Interesting to hear these words of experience.-----6

[MrMurphy]

Disclaimer, I am not an expert, a gunsmith, or even an armorer.

I'm just a regular end-user. Been shooting or carrying the AR my entire adult life. At this point, literally 1/2 of my life (18 years) and a bit, I shot my first AR at age 15 and I'm 36. They're not perfect, and not for everything, but they are highly modular and handy to use, fit effectively everyone and come in multiple calibers.


I 'grew up' on milsurp bolt actions. Other than the AR, they're still what I'm most comfortable with. My first rifle was a No.4 Mk1, and between the Lee-Enfield and the Mauser platform I'm perfectly happy with them for most purposes. But for serious work, the AR is still my first pick. There's a few others that would come to mind if I didn't have an M4 or M16 available, namely the Sig 551 (the real one, not the Sig 556), the Russian AK-74M or AK105, and in the bullpup crowd, the Steyr AUG (not a fan of the bullpups but the AUG works), and the FAL or G-3 or M14 are all pretty interchangeable to me in the 7.62 crowd.


Since most of my work involved working around vehicles and structures doing counterterrorism and security work, having a package that's 29.75" long with 30 rounds ready to go with night vision capability, able to hit out to 300m+ yet be as handy as a submachine gun had a lot going for it. I still keep an AR for serious purposes handy these days. As nice as a pump shotgun is, I didn't grow up with one in hand like a lot of guys.

[Blaine]

Sorry, my experience of 20 years vis-a-vis Army Issue M16s must not count...I'm glad you like your make believe, civilian semi-auto versions . I do believe you'll find that most, including all services, coming out of the sandbox would have liked something else I will say this: The Army FM wants you to shoot it dry. I found that a generous squirt of WD-40 kept it running much, much reliably. But, it was not really worth the butt chewing you got if you were caught doing so.

[MrMurphy]

The original issued Army instruction manual (the cartoon form one) from 1967 or so said lube the gun, a lot. I've had Army, Air Force and Marines from E-2 to O-6 or so insist both ways, nobody will ever convince either side, but personally, always lubed the gun well.

Never had issues with issued M16A2s, M4's or anything else since I generally care for my weapons unless there was a crappy magazine or two (have had a few floorplates blow out). Everyone's experiences are different, and nobody will ever convince everyone. I never had to fire on anyone, though I had a lot of close calls, but having spoken at length over years to multiple members of Special Forces, SFOD-D, current/former SEALs, various experienced infantrymen.....they were all perfectly happy with it's performance on bad guys. You'll always get someone who wants someone different, but that's why there's so many kinds of guns out there..


As awesome as most people think 1911s are, through much of it's 70-plus year service life, there were a lot of people who didn't like it. Most of them didn't know much about maintenance or shooting, but you'll never convince some of those guys the 1911 isn't some hand-chewing-up fire snorting monster that can't hit anything.

[AJMD429]

Hating to throw a wet blanket on a good fight, I'd surmise that either platform (M1A or M4) would do a good job of stopping bad-guys in experienced hands.

Probably the M4/'AR' system is easier to learn for the never-shot-a-gun-before recruit.

Definitely the 308 is more lethal, though in a close-in urban firefight, someone with ten 30-round magazines and a suitable M4 would be a pretty tough adversary.

The M1A/308 platform would benefit from a lighter weight stock and shorter barrel for more 'maneuverability', and even though it is pretty 'ideal' to many of us, would be even better if it had at least some 'modularity' like the 'AR' systems do.

I do like my 'Springfield Scout Squad' rifle, which is a shorter-barrel version of the regular M1A, including a 'scout' scope mount. The mount on mine was just a tiny bit crooked, and I didn't like the cut-out fiberglass handguard, so I replaced it with an aluminum one that had a built-in rail on top, plus ones on the sides (which I don't use myself, but IS one of the things the M4 offers that combatants seem to like).

Ideally, I think a military outfit would have some of BOTH; the shorty AR/M4 for close-in high-volume firefights, due to high capacity, controllability, and compact size - AND the M1A for serious shots 'out there' or when more power was needed. Maybe toss in a couple uppers for things like 50 Beowulf and/or 300 Blk for the AR/M4 weapons, for making big holes in things, or suppressed work.

...then again, what "I think" is pretty worthless, since I have zero military experience...!

[Sixgun]

...then again, what "I think" is pretty worthless, since I have zero military experience...!

Yea Doc, me too. I'll argue 'till the cows come home on leverguns and single action handguns but with limited AR/M-16 experience, I'll listen to experience.----6

[Bruce Scott]

I think the 223 is OK as a military weapon, because it is more desirable to wound the enemy than kill him, and the 223 WILL do that, out to 800 yards or more.

It is interesting that such a weapon came into service at a time when we were obsessed with body counts.

[Bruce Scott]

The Army FM wants you to shoot it dry. I found that a generous squirt of WD-40 kept it running much, much reliably. But, it was not really worth the butt chewing you got if you were caught doing so.

Blaine,
Is the Field Manual to blame or just some personal notions? Army TM 9-1005-319-10, albeit from 1998, has a fairly lengthy section (0016 00-1) on lubing:
http://larcpistolandrifleclub.com/pdfs/ ... 319_10.pdf

[MrMurphy]

The M110 currently in service as a sniping rifle is more or less, a very, very nicely built AR-10. Knight's Armarment SR-25. Ironically, the early service problems with it, were caused by the Army's requirements, KAC improved the rifle several times as they learned from the Army's experiences but with the way the paperwork was written, the Army could not accept the newer variants for several years, and had to get 'original' SR-25s that matched the stated request. I've had my ear chewed off by phone from guys at KAC over this. Very good rifle, it doesn't look much different than a somewhat large M16A4 and doesn't stand out too much compared to other guys like the M14 does and scream "SNIPER RIGHT HERE!".

When they need the 7.62 punch, they do have access to it, though that various by unit, branch and job of course.

Special Forces adopted the SCAR in 7.62 as the Mk17 and from what I've heard, love it. Short, handy, fully ambidextrous, folding stock, quite accurate and in 7.62. Since FN beat themselves to death testing it and modifying the design until it was pretty much exactly what they asked for, they did a good job. I've only fired the -17 a few times, and the -16 (5.56mm version) a few hundred rounds, but I wouldn't turn one down as a service rifle. They use them here and there, I know they saw some service in Afghanistan a few years ago. Former coworker of mine just got back from a tour but because of the area he was in, they didn't see too much fighting, even for an SF ODA. Not like 2001-2006ish time frame.

[Blaine]

The Army FM wants you to shoot it dry. I found that a generous squirt of WD-40 kept it running much, much reliably. But, it was not really worth the butt chewing you got if you were caught doing so.

Blaine,
Is the Field Manual to blame or just some personal notions? Army TM 9-1005-319-10, albeit from 1998, has a fairly lengthy section (0016 00-1) on lubing:
http://larcpistolandrifleclub.com/pdfs/ ... 319_10.pdf

Bruce, the FM for the old M16 has been out of print....I never saw an M16A2...Don't have any idea of what they recommended. Yeah, I have "Personal Notions"....no one here seems to have much more than that

[BigSky56]

Having used both I have a preference, the 308 is a one shot dirt nap provider close or afar and the 223 takes multiple hits with the tighter twist bbls. will concede though that the old 1-14 twist 55 gr 223 was capable of some nasty wounds if you could get it past the foliage first. My pick for a battle rifle is the M14 in 308. if I was clearing buildings or walking point in the jungle I'd have a 12 ga with #4 buck or flechett rounds and a sack full of red spoon frags. danny

[OldWin]

Having used both I have a preference, the 308 is a one shot dirt nap provider close or afar and the 223 takes multiple hits with the tighter twist bbls. will concede though that the old 1-14 twist 55 gr 223 was capable of some nasty wounds if you could get it past the foliage first. My pick for a battle rifle is the M14 in 308. if I was clearing buildings or walking point in the jungle I'd have a 12 ga with #4 buck or flechett rounds and a sack full of red spoon frags. danny

+1

[MrMurphy]

They kind of frown on clearing buildings by blowing them up these days......

I don't have a problem with the idea, but the ROE tends to get pretty restrictive in some theaters. And in some areas, blowing things up is highly contraindicated. In my old job, what we were guarding was bullet resistant, but HE made them nervous. And if it all went bad, half the map would cease to exist.

I'll always take a rifle over a shotgun by preference, for close quarters work past the first five rounds with a shotgun, you're in trouble.....and I used to (daily) clear indoor spaces that went from three feet to three hundred feet (indoors!) with an open line of sight with no warning......and shotguns don't deal with body armor. Rifles do. I don't have a problem with the 12ga for close quarters party crashing, but it definitely has it's place, and it's not for everything.

[OldWin]

Mr. Murphy.
I agree with the first part of BigSky's post more than the "shotgun part". I'm not much of a "shotgun guy" really. A guy I worked with had a son in Iraq that carried an M4 on a single point sling and a Benelli in a scabbard down his back. I saw some in theater pics of this setup and while it seemed somewhat physically limiting he certainly had his bases covered. He made it home and cleared a LOT of buildings back around '05 so who am I to judge?

[SJPrice]

I would like to see which way this discussion turns if you remove the "Genva Convention" rules from the table. Recently I was reminded that the old thoughts on 45 vs 9mm do not necessarily hold true with modern self defense 9mm ammo. So would not the same hold true for 556 vs 308?

[MrMurphy]

If his son was running a Benelli, odds are he was a Marine (they use the M1014, Benelli M4 Super 90).

Most shotguns in the military get used for breaching, the Army uses Mossberg 500s for the same purpose. They do get used for antipersonnel work at times, I remember there's a video out there of a wounded guy from the early Iraq war who shot a insurgent right off his stretcher with one. He had the angle, the carriers had their hands full and didn't see him.

Shotguns pack a punch, but i'll still take 30 rounds in a rapid reload over a tube-fed any day (same reason submachine guns tend to be more popular in the military back in the day. Still limited in range, but a lot faster to fill the air with lead and reload it.)

[OldWin]

[quote="MrMurphy"]If his son was running a Benelli, odds are he was a Marine (they use the M1014, Benelli M4 Super 90).

Yes he is a Marine.
I agree, a shotgun falls down with the need of a reload. I also feel the effectiveness of buckshot is very limited and that a shotgun is most effective with slugs.
For close quarters/home defense I actually prefer a handgun as it only requires one hand to operate and provides less for a close-in attacker to get ahold of.
As far as a military application I think I too would rather a submachine gun for close-in indoor fights.

Of course, as stated earlier, I know nothing and have no experience in these situations
I do however enjoy talking with people who do so thank you for your input sir.

[jeepnik]

I would like to see which way this discussion turns if you remove the "Genva Convention" rules from the table. Recently I was reminded that the old thoughts on 45 vs 9mm do not necessarily hold true with modern self defense 9mm ammo. So would not the same hold true for 556 vs 308?

Small point, the Conventions deal with treatment of prisoners. The Hague Accord deals with use of expanding/fragmenting ammunition.

And it only applies in a declared conflict to which both combatants are signatories.

As to the use of grenades to "clear" buildings, I recall my youngest telling me that had Marines found Sadam, they would have tossed a grenade in the hole first, thus saving a lot of hassle. And, the front line Marine really doesn't care all that much about what is frowned upon but is more concerned with coming out of the building in one piece.

Sad thing is politicians and even some higher ranking military personnel care more about perception than the life of the fighting men and women. Been that way for a long time, but it's gotten worse since Viet Nam.

[SJPrice]

I would like to see which way this discussion turns if you remove the "Genva Convention" rules from the table. Recently I was reminded that the old thoughts on 45 vs 9mm do not necessarily hold true with modern self defense 9mm ammo. So would not the same hold true for 556 vs 308?

Small point, the Conventions deal with treatment of prisoners. The Hague Accord deals with use of expanding/fragmenting ammunition.

And it only applies in a declared conflict to which both combatants are signatories.

Thank you for the clarification Jeepnik. It would be interesting however to see any studies and or hear any experience related to the terminal performance of modern self defense 556 vs military issue rounds. And even some discussion of Vietnam era military rounds vs what is issued today?

[madman4570]

Can only tell you boys this.
Back in the 90's did quite a bit of shooting with the gun club from Townada,Pa
Those boys in that club had some of the finest shooters about anywhere in the US

I switched from a NM SA M1 garand and so did my brother.
I bought a pair of Colt #6601 Match HBARs and my brother bought his one after seeing what my scores were.(over 460 on a 500 perfect run) Average good shot hunter showing up and using a non-NM M1 typically would score around 340 etc.

First year these good ole boys with their $5000 custom NM M1A's which was their junk starting point (stock NM M!A)then they totally customized them with everything including Heavy Comp Douglas or Hart barrels,special bedding processes,custom sights, special triggers, everything.

They would shoot around a 450-460 etc.
We showed up with our stock guns with just our simple handloads and hung with them and sometimes smoked them.

Within two years, guess what the key players switched to?

I have a NM SA M1
I have a NM SA M1A
I have a pair of Colt #6601 Match HBAR's
Neither of the top two will ever see the day in he## they will shoot with either of the pair.

Have never had a jam with the Colts but have with other two! Though extremely rare.

300yds with a well placed proper constructed 5.56 bullet, man still wanting fight,must be a he## of a dude!

[MrMurphy]

SJPrice the current crop of softpoint or JHP 5.56mm police loads are vastly more effective than ball, and often barrier blind.

The Mk262 (Matchking) and SOST loads are within the Hague Accords in that they don't expand or deform, but provide significantly better performance, specifically from short barrels. Several coworkers and friends used 'browntip' (Mk 262) in Afghanistan and reported 1 or 2 hit center mass stops with regularity at 150-400m.

I can find a few studies and related info, gimme a day or two. Anything by Dr. Roberts is solid info and typically, current (he updates reguarly). The 65-77 grain JHPs out of 1/7 barrel (A2, M4 and similar) giving excellent performance.

The old M193 load used from the introduction of the M16 until the 80s can perform well, many militaries still use it, but it needs a 20" barrel with the correct rifling (1/12 or 1/14) to really perform at it's best, inside 300m.

[OldWin]

I don't argue the accuracy of the AR platform. Our troops, however, aren't carrying Match H-Bars. I also think a rack grade M1 or M1A is capable of hitting a man size target at 300yrds and being considerably more effective once the hit is made. I'm also coming at it more from an individual rifleman's perspective and not someone that's part of a huge military machine with unlimited logistical support. I DO think the M4/M16 is ok with the support it requires. Also when it is supported by MG's, mortars, grenadiers, etc.
I think where people may be mistaken is when they assume because it works for the military it must be the best choice for them also. This may or may not be true depending on many factors.

[Grizz]

OldWin

I like your POV on this one. I have no military experience, no combat experience, but I read and watch utube. It always seemed to me that the 556 was a mutual support type weapon where you have the logistical support to supply an endless amount of ammo for them.

I usually hunt alone. I have a semi-auto 7.62/308 that will stop vehicles, bears, drones, boats, and make meat. I can't carry two rifles so it's my close quarter arm as well as my 600 meter speed-goat getter, should I ever have the opportunity.

The box magazine makes up for the middling caliber if brer bear needs a music lesson.

If red dawn happens we will be killed at night by squads of nv equipped assassins, when they discover us.

[BigSky56]

In close quarter combat whether jungle or structures a shotgun is a premium weapon our Blues point man carried a A5 it is a specific job weapon, and there alot of guys here now because they cleared a structure/bunker with a frag instead of crawling in with a gun and frags dont demolish structures they blow windows doors out and put shrapnel in the room. At the best the 223 is a short range round if the military understood this they would adjust the caliber to suit the theater of action. it isnt the POTUS that is answerable to the troops for substandard equipment its the perfumed princes that are commanders above the company level to the Joint Chiefs. you cant go wrong with a 30 caliber for combat from the arctic to antarctic and places in-between you cant say that about the 223. danny

[Sixgun]

Danny,
You sound like you have experience. I like the idea of throwing in a grenade and then checking things out afterwards. VN?-------6

[Griff]

Blaine,

I don't think anyone is discounting your expeiemce with the M-16. The M16A1 WAS less than an adequate jungle warfare arm. That's not a personal experience for me... but of personal obsevation of my teammates. More than once I had to physically retake possession of my 1928 and ammo for a mission, as someone else felt they were more "deserving" of its firepower, even tho' I'd qualified highest with it.

And, while my experience is severely dated, my thinking actually started to change after the 1997 N. Hollywood bank robbery. Both the use of AR-15s and civilian ammo by police changed that outcome from utter failure to success. If I had to point to a time that began an overall change in police thinking on how to clear buildings, that would be it. Up to that time, any training I'd received was to use the handgun for inside buildings, relying on the shotgun in a backup role, as containment of the overall scene. As a rural Sheriff's Deputy (reserve), I'd already changed from carrying a shotgun to a rifle. And my rifle at the time was a mdl 94 Winchester in .30-30... a couple of other Deputies used the AR-15.

I truly think that the new versions are far more versatile and with the ammo of today, far more reliable. It's always been an ammo sensitive firearm, and from my reading, much of the early problems were more related to the ammo and cleaning/lube than the arm itself. And given my issues with my last reloads, I'll have to add my personal experience to that. With good ammo, either handloads or factory, both my ARs have been utterly reliable, but with poor ammo, let's leave it as "problematic".

So for me, my impression of the AR platform was skewed with early experiences... that have since been replaced with much better ones. Yes, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks...

IF he's willing to learn.

OldWin,

Just over a year ago, I'd have agreed with you. In fact, I suppose you could dredge up an old post where I have! But today? I'm willing to concede the AR has a number of advantages, several of which are right there in accuracy, lethality, ease of carry & manipulation. It still doesn't hold a candle to the mdl 94 .30-30 for ease of carry & manipulation, But. IMO it oustrips the M-Carbine by a similar margin, which is far easier than the M-14... and while I love my M-1, it ain't in the same ballpark!

And for those circumstances where a M-14 really shines, a .308 version of the AR gives up nothing except the effort to hump it in and back out. I don't believe having every soldier, or even unit outfitted indenticaly, is in their best interests...

Grizz,

I think you make my point for me. Every decision, equipment-wise, we as an individual have to make, will, as a necessity, be a compromise; when incorporated into a unit, that need not be.

[3leggedturtle]

Griff and other LE's; On the LA Bank Heist. How come after shooting the guys with center mass shots and seeing bullets bounce off of them and/or showing no effect of being hit; why did no one start going for head shots?

[madman4570]

Blaine,

I don't think anyone is discounting your expeiemce with the M-16. The M16A1 WAS less than an adequate jungle warfare arm. That's not a personal experience for me... but of personal obsevation of my teammates. More than once I had to physically retake possession of my 1928 and ammo for a mission, as someone else felt they were more "deserving" of its firepower, even tho' I'd qualified highest with it.

And, while my experience is severely dated, my thinking actually started to change after the 1997 N. Hollywood bank robbery. Both the use of AR-15s and civilian ammo by police changed that outcome from utter failure to success. If I had to point to a time that began an overall change in police thinking on how to clear buildings, that would be it. Up to that time, any training I'd received was to use the handgun for inside buildings, relying on the shotgun in a backup role, as containment of the overall scene. As a rural Sheriff's Deputy (reserve), I'd already changed from carrying a shotgun to a rifle. And my rifle at the time was a mdl 94 Winchester in .30-30... a couple of other Deputies used the AR-15.

I truly think that the new versions are far more versatile and with the ammo of today, far more reliable. It's always been an ammo sensitive firearm, and from my reading, much of the early problems were more related to the ammo and cleaning/lube than the arm itself. And given my issues with my last reloads, I'll have to add my personal experience to that. With good ammo, either handloads or factory, both my ARs have been utterly reliable, but with poor ammo, let's leave it as "problematic".

So for me, my impression of the AR platform was skewed with early experiences... that have since been replaced with much better ones. Yes, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks...

IF he's willing to learn.

OldWin,

Just over a year ago, I'd have agreed with you. In fact, I suppose you could dredge up an old post where I have! But today? I'm willing to concede the AR has a number of advantages, several of which are right there in accuracy, lethality, ease of carry & manipulation. It still doesn't hold a candle to the mdl 94 .30-30 for ease of carry & manipulation, But. IMO it oustrips the M-Carbine by a similar margin, which is far easier than the M-14... and while I love my M-1, it ain't in the same ballpark!

And for those circumstances where a M-14 really shines, a .308 version of the AR gives up nothing except the effort to hump it in and back out. I don't believe having every soldier, or even unit outfitted indenticaly, is in their best interests...

Grizz,

I think you make my point for me. Every decision, equipment-wise, we as an individual have to make, will, as a necessity, be a compromise; when incorporated into a unit, that need not be.

Very well said!

I guess I will leave it as I love all three weapons and actually any of the three should do pretty darn good with right ammo.
I truly think for just pure non-war time accuracy like at a Rifle Match at a range those little black plastic "toys" get an edge because of the almost zero recoil factor. Also I know for myself it's ergonomic design with its pistol grip aids in achieving a better score.

Back couple decades ago I beat myself to death hooking all three types up to HD,heavy weighted sleds from 1600lb shooting tables to honestly what was what is each weapons accuracy potential.Now I am only talking 100 and 200 yard distances.
What I came up with was for my guns that 5.56 had about a .250 MOA advantage. That I could attribute only to being either the gun or that caliber itself???

[Blaine]

Yes, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks...

IF he's willing to learn.

Oh, I've learned a couple new tricks.....They just aren't the same tricks you've learned....

[madman4570]

Yes, you CAN teach an old dog new tricks...

IF he's willing to learn.

Oh, I've learned a couple new tricks.....They just aren't the same tricks you've learned....

Blaine,

In bad times, you got the tower! OSOK

Serious weapon dude!

[OldWin]

Griff,

I absolutely agree that a 94 carbine handles better than ANY military rifle.
I also agree that with new bullet technology the .556 is much more effective. The problem is that it is much more dependent on that technology than 7.62. I'm just coming from a standpoint of no supply, having to scrounge my own ammo. I know I won't be able to be choosy. I guess that's my biggest issue in this discussion. I think much thought has to be given to the application and one's situation. I look at what MY requirements will most likely be for the country I am most likely to be located in.
The truth is, I would probably forgo my M1A scout and use my 03A3 scout because I know I can keep it fed and running on my own.
If I did use a semi-auto it would be my M1A or an AK because they are very robust. I'd probably give an edge to the AK as it's been proven the world over to need little or nothing.

[OldWin]

Nice equipment Blaine!
I have it's twin with a Leupold IER in throw lever rings and an Aimpoint T1 with a throw lever mount. Great rifles.