ruger322003
Active member
I heard the S.f are using the m-14 again is this true.
A picture is worth a thousand words......
Sgt. Nick Fury said:and so on and son and so on........still the baddest in the valley of death.......if there was any sanity in the brass insteadof the Pentagon Incorperated twits we would have never gone to the crappy m16 widowmaker hunk of junk.........many revisions and still no where near as tough and functional as an m14.
Fair nuff......Admin said:Admin edit: Images removed. Nice pictures, but it's easiest to follow the link below..
M21 is nothing but a match grade m-14.........same goes for m25 cept more modified.Snauhi said:that looks like m-21 or iam wrong? :roll:
allllllllright.....but I had about 10,000 words to say.....=)sherman105 said:Sgt. Nick Fury wrote:
Correct, and thats why its a serious over-kill to post so many images.....A picture is worth a thousand words......
Try to avoid that in the future....
2-3 images would have made the point just fine!!!
Most astronomers can't say they have been to the Moon but I imagine a few know a thing or two more about it then Neil Armstrong....Are you saying that unless I have used a m-16 and a m-14 rifle in combat I can not study the reports, use my own firearms knowledge or have any opinion whatsoever on these weapons? In that case how often have you used an m-14 in combat?RnderSafe said:Have you used either in combat?
While...problematic.......? That's my point.....it is has been always will be problematic. The m-14 was superior in every way cept the weight of the ammo, and if it were my life on the line I'd carry that extra weight....the only problem with the m-14 is it wasn't lining teh right wallets in the pentagon in the 60's.....RnderSafe said:The M-16, while problematic, is hardly a failure. The 5.56 is the biggest problem, but it is still an effective weapon. This weapon is not unreliable, it is the unreliable users that have given it that reputation within the civilian and certain parts of the military community.
The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them? I understand that only one per squad was issued among the 101st but why? Certainly a lot more then sniper teams got them, who are using the m21s and m-25's if they're going to use a non bolt action. It is never ridiculous to compare weapons and ballistics.......RnderSafe said:The M-14 is not used in place of the M-16, it a Designated Marksman Rifle. (not a Sniper rifle (SWS) as someone else suggested).
Attempting to compare them in terms of use on the battlefield is ridiculous, different weapons, different objectives.
Sgt. Nick Fury said:Most astronomers can't say they have been to the Moon but I imagine a few know a thing or two more about it then Neil Armstrong....Are you saying that unless I have used a m-16 and a m-14 rifle in combat I can not study the reports, use my own firearms knowledge or have any opinion whatsoever on these weapons?
I have been playing in the dirt for 28 years, I have had reason to carry the M-14 a time or two or more.In that case how often have you used an m-14 in combat?
While...problematic.......? That's my point.....it is has been always will be problematic. The m-14 was superior in every way cept the weight of the ammo, and if it were my life on the line I'd carry that extra weight....the only problem with the m-14 is it wasn't lining teh right wallets in the pentagon in the 60's.....
Granted....today's M-16 is a far far far cry improvement over it's early "widowmaker" reputation. That said, you still have several major flaws for a battlefield weapon. One it requires a LOT of maintenance, this especially is true in any area with alot of grime and dirt......aka any combat area outside of the freshly cleaned test labs.... The only good thing abotu this is it takes some amount of discipline and undisciplined enemy won't have much use for it for long. Men died because of it's problems with jamming on anything but IMR powder loads....I think that justifies me calling it a failure......if only for during the period of the Vietnam war.
The 7.62 round has better knockdown power then the 5.56
The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them? I understand that only one per squad was issued among the 101st but why? Certainly a lot more then sniper teams got them, who are using the m21s and m-25's if they're going to use a non bolt action. It is never ridiculous to compare weapons and ballistics.......
that said if they're gonna spend billions on a new weapon system I think they should really reconsider the 5.56 round....
or else once again we'll have to issue m-14's to some squad so one guy can actually reach out and touch someone.
The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them?
Which gives you time to wack some more,right :?1 wound enemy means 2 other having to carry him back.....
. This also applies to the steamy rotten energy sucking jungle. Considering the lack of visibility of the enemy, a long range heavy weapon was not always the optimal choice. The sheer rate of fire advantage of the M16 was good to have. Once the M16-E1 was improved (flash suppressor ring, chrome lined receiver, etc.) and we learned how to maintain them (keep them clean), it became a very reliable weapon. The 5.56 mm ammo has the characteristic of often fragmenting when it hits flesh. This is more likely to cause incapacitating injuries than death by hydrostatic shock. Also any increased drift over the heavier round of the M14 can be easily compensated for (a little marksmanship training).And btw, that "except the weight of the ammo" (don't forget rifle, it's heavier) is not something to simply brush over. Infantrymen get very moody when they have to hump heavy things up big tall rocks in the snow. And I can assure you, you feel every OUNCE of weight after awhile.
advancements along the lines of the AK series, of which I have to say I prefer also when it comes to the..shooting range
Huh? If you are praising the AK for range, your not talking about ithe AK I know...
The SVD isn't used as a sniper rifle in the Russian military. They use it as we use the M-14s, as a DMR.
sherman105 said:dose DMR mean Designated Marksman Rifle?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.