Originally Posted by Whispering Death

Well, to get back to your origional thesis bulldogg, I disagree with you.

The army itself (not congress) has actually tried a number of times to get rid of the M-16 and the army (not congress again) has decided to stick with the M-16. In the 1970s there was the Special Purpose Individual Weapon program which was terminated. And again in the late 1980s you had the Advanced Combat Rifle contest. The ACR program tested a Colt highly modified M-16, a falachet rifel, the H&K G11, and the Steyr Aug: the result was that none of the rifles met the 100% improvement over the M-16 demanded by the army.

The end of the ACR program began OICW program which continues today, still with not a millitary-industry-congress spending spree in 50 years.



So you see bulldogg, replacing the M-16 family is nothing new. If it was motivated out of some kind of corporate greed conspiracy we would have gone through 2 or maybe even 3 rifles already! You seem to forget when calling this "constant replacement" that the M-16 is older than you are, bulldogg! When the M-16 was invented that box you're using to type to me would take up a whole building and the TV came in two colors, black and white.

My first memories of TV areblack and white on 13" screen, I was 10 before we had a colour TV. I remember going on a elementary school field trip to see the computer at UC Berkley that filled an entire floor of the science and tech building. The M-16A1 came into service a scant 4 years before I was born. Perhaps in a marajuana induced haze you have mistaken me with one of our younger cadet members.

My argument is that there was nothing wrong with the M-14 and that replacing it with the M-16 was a mistake that is being repeated again. This constant search to replace a good weapon with a lesser weapon (in my opinion) is what I see happening. I would much rather be sent into the field with an M-14 than an M-16 or an XM-29 or XM-8 ad nauseum et al. I would rather have a bigger round with more kinetic energy at target with a longer range and greater accuracy than some small ass plastic tumbling round with half the range and the annoying habit of being deflected off something as assinine as a blade of grass.

People have argued that the weight of the M-14 is too much. I say that is bull if they wouldn't keep lowering the bloody PT standards and actually put studs in the field there would be no complaint about weight. I have used the M-14 for hunting mountain goats in the high country above 9000 feet in Colorado near Leadville and had no trouble with hauling that bad boy around tracking with an additional 20kgs of gear for two weeks. Just because some flyweight can't hang doesn't mean I should have to suffer by being issued an inferior weapon in my opinion.

Well you're going to get no argument from me about the ammunition bulldogg, I think we're on a similar level there.

However, I'd much much rather be sent into battle with an XM-8 than an M-14. Although I would like to see better ammunition than a glorified .22 round.

But, ammunition issues aside, I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you say you'd rather be room clearing in Baghdad with a M-14 than an M-4.

Ruger Mini-14 with folding stock and banana clip would be my personal choice, second choice would be the Thompson SMG issued my grandfather as a commo man in WWII in the Pacific. .45 caliber rounds have far better take down power and with the pistol grip he had on his made an ideal CQC weapon.

I've never fired any SMGs before but I have wondered about the .45 vs. the 9mm.

Seems to me if you're engaging in CQB (emphasis on CLOSE) it would be preferable to deliver knockdown power over accuracy. But really don't have an idea of what the recoil is like between a 9mm and .45 SMG in fast firing other than what it feels like in a pistol, which of course is way different.

But in the end, can we lay to rest this conspiracy theory about people putting out new weapons just to make money and all that? Just in theory I'd rather have a 7.62 XM-8 more than a 7.62 M-16 than a 7.62 M-14. I think it's relevant to criticise various weapons and ammunitions for their strengths and weaknesses but of every branch of the government I firmly believe that it is the millitary that wastes the least money.

Are you too young to remember the Pentagon's dirty laundry being aired about $900 toilet seats and $400 hammers?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Are you too young to remember the Pentagon's dirty laundry being aired about $900 toilet seats and $400 hammers?

Yeah, but that's not waste, that's how you fund the black budgets. To my recollection no one got a check for a $400 hammer, they just siphoned that money off to projects that don't exist on the books.

I think they should have replacede the rifles with M-4!

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I've never fired any SMGs before but I have wondered about the .45 vs. the 9mm.

Seems to me if you're engaging in CQB (emphasis on CLOSE) it would be preferable to deliver knockdown power over accuracy. But really don't have an idea of what the recoil is like between a 9mm and .45 SMG in fast firing other than what it feels like in a pistol, which of course is way different.

But in the end, can we lay to rest this conspiracy theory about people putting out new weapons just to make money and all that? Just in theory I'd rather have a 7.62 XM-8 more than a 7.62 M-16 than a 7.62 M-14. I think it's relevant to criticise various weapons and ammunitions for their strengths and weaknesses but of every branch of the government I firmly believe that it is the millitary that wastes the least money.

Do you happen to remember one of the first problems with the M16? It's ROF was too fast for such a light weapon. Now with an XM8 which is lighter than an M16 with 7.62mm would have you on the floor, chewing on how much you arm hurts.

SOCOM-16 or SOCOM II for me.



SOCOM 16: 37.25" long

M16A2: 39.60" long

M4: 32.99" long

I think what Bulldog is getting at, is that the Army had 40+ years of prefecting the M16, which they have and now they want something new.

Getting rid of the M14: Mistake

Getting rid of the M16/M4: Really big mistake

My question is why the Army didn't keep the M14 on with the M16?

Nice gun. HAve the US ARmy use the SOCOM as a standard weapon before?

Originally Posted by zander_0633

Nice gun. HAve the US ARmy use the SOCOM as a standard weapon before?

No, just the M14.