OT-AR15 During WWII

RustyJr · Post by **RustyJr** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:18 pm

Ive heard people from time to time talk about various wars and battles that occurred through history and ask what weapon would you take if you were able to travel back in time. Well Im gonna put a different twist on this one. Do you think that U.S. forces would have faired any better or worse had they been issued M16A2s instead of the various submachine guns, carbines and rifles? Other weapons such as 30 cal. machine guns and the BAR remaining of course. I know some dont care for the platform or the round but I thought I would ask anyway just to see what you thought.

RustyJr

JB · Post by JB » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:36 pm

I could see where the lighter weight of the rifle and ammo would have been a plus. Higher magazine capacity and three round burst capability would have been nice bonus as well.

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:40 pm

If they came with the various hang-on attachments like night vision, target designators, etc., it would make an additional difference.

Even though they are 'dissed' by many, I think if you took 100 random guys off the street and handed them an AR and a Garand, with targets at 50, 100, 200, and 400 yards, you'd have more of them connecting with the AR's pretty quickly, and making wounding, if not lethal, hits. There may have been more 'riflemen' coming from already-know-how-to-shoot backgrounds back then, though, making the quick-training issue less important.

Bullard4075 · Post by **Bullard4075** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:46 pm

My father fought on the beaches in the south pacific. At first chance they threw their M1 Carbines
in the water for anything better. He later carried a Thompson with complete satisfaction. He
considered the M1 Carbine (not rifle!) and M16 in the same breath. Though not having his experience
my opinion is my same.

gak · Post by **gak** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:00 pm

Bullard4075 wrote:My father fought on the beaches in the south pacific. At first chance they threw their M1 Carbines
in the water for anything better. He later carried a Thompson with complete satisfaction. He
considered the M1 Carbine (not rifle!) and M16 in the same breath. Though not having his experience
my opinion is my same.

And...many others had much different carbine experiences with their additional capacity (belt and mag), easy mag reloading and significantly lighter weight (the latter over both the Garand and Thompson)...especially for CQB, cave and trench clearing (vs Garand)...not to mention jungle humping in 100+ swelter. There are also stories of Thompson carriers calling a carbine shooter over (or picking up one) to take out snipers in trees because the carbine ranged that much better. Each weapon had their own strengths and weaknesses...and stories of love or hate depending on what characteristics won or lost the day for them.

To answer the OP's question, actually neither the Garand or M16 (assuming only non-select fire available). IMO, about 75% of Garand shooters and 50% of Carbine shooters would have been better served with something akin to a Mini 30, complete with a 15-20 rd box mag. But between the two weapons posed--M16/M4 variant for about 1/2 of Garand users would have been better I think. Make them in 6.8 - even better for best of all (or most) worlds.

RustyJr · Post by **RustyJr** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:03 am

I could be wrong but I tend to put the 5.56/223 a bit above the 30 carbine b/c of the higher velocity and the fragmentation of the round. Not to mention the ability to hit at longer range. IMHO

RustyJr

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:18 am

RustyJr wrote:I could be wrong but I tend to put the 5.56/223 a bit above the 30 carbine b/c of the higher velocity and the fragmentation of the round. Not to mention the ability to hit at longer range.

I'd agree with that.

gak wrote:IMO, about 75% of Garand shooters and 50% of Carbine shooters would have been better served with something akin to a Mini 30, complete with a 15-20 rd box mag.

It seems like a Ruger Mini-30 or Mini-14, if it had a 'nut' type barrel attachment like the AR-15, and maybe a couple accessory rails on the forestock, would be hard to beat as a fighting weapon.

gak · Post by **gak** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 1:10 am

One can only assume that military industrial politics and related production expediency kept the ordnance command from developing a "better" (smaller/lighter, higher cap) rifle for the majority or at least good percentage of front-line troops. They had the gas system from Garand experience, and the .30-30 round they could've made rimless and spitzered (for what would essentially be a x39 round). Appropriately downsize the Garand receiver and stock and wa la - Mini 30. Wouldn't have been that hard to figure out and execute--forty years before Ruger did.

Pisgah · Post by **Pisgah** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:35 am

Such "what-ifs" are fun to think about, but they overlook one critical trait of the military mind. And that is that the tendency is always to prepare for the last war.

Civil War armies were prepared in such a way that they would have mopped up all opposition in the Mexican War; Spanish-American War armies would have handily ended the Civil War; WW1 armies would have made the S-A War even briefer than it was, etc. The Garand represented a revolutionary leap beyond the Springfield; therefore, Germany was put in a position of playing battle-rifle catch-up throughout WW2. The idea of going to a lighter, faster-firing rifle didn't really enter the American military mind until the very late stages of the conflict when some of Germany's designs began to make themselves felt, and even then the idea never really caught on until a decade after Korea.

olyinaz · Post by **olyinaz** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:11 am

gak wrote:...many others had much different carbine experiences with their additional capacity (belt and mag), easy mag reloading and significantly lighter weight (the latter over both the Garand and Thompson)...especially for CQB, cave and trench clearing (vs Garand)...not to mention jungle humping in 100+ swelter. There are also stories of Thompson carriers calling a carbine shooter over (or picking up one) to take out snipers in trees because the carbine ranged that much better. Each weapon had their own strengths and weaknesses...and stories of love or hate depending on what characteristics won or lost the day for them.

To answer the OP's question, actually neither the Garand or M16 (assuming only non-select fire available). IMO, about 75% of Garand shooters and 50% of Carbine shooters would have been better served with something akin to a Mini 30, complete with a 15-20 rd box mag. But between the two weapons posed--M16/M4 variant for about 1/2 of Garand users would have been better I think. Make them in 6.8 - even better for best of all (or most) worlds.

I could not have said it any better.

Oly

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:51 am

Harry Turtledove did a novel called "Guns of the South" that posited a bunch of Time Traveling SA Apartheid Jackboots giving the South AKs to counter the Henrys so there would be a perpetual anti-negro/pro slavery country.

Interesting story.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:54 pm

I disagree. The M1 as originally designed was hampered by the Ordnance Corps not Garand himself.

He wanted it in .276 with a 10 round box mag. They wanted it in .30 with no detachable mag. They got what they wanted.

We could have had the M14 in 1936 essentially.

As to the M1/M16 question...... It would not have changed the course of the war as logistics, shipping and supply were what really 'won' the war (the Germans were running out of everything). Even with better overall weapons US troops were often outmaneuvered or outfought by Germans who simply were better trained early in the war.

An M16 in every grunt's hands would have helped certainly, with more ammo, better continuity of fire (fewer pauses) and less recoil=more hits. Something like what happened in 1943 when the MP43 (later Stg44/45) hit the Eastern Front. With complete units armed with them, the Germans were successful even against numerically far superior Russian forces, both a combination of training and firepower (troops were more aggressive with a 30 round assault rifle and 200 rounds over a five shot bolt action with 100).

It might not have been a complete war winner, but you can bet the troops wouldn't have minded one bit.

A retired and presumbaly now deceased (he was 81 when i knew him 15 years ago) Command Sergeant Major who used the M1 carbine, Thompson and M16 as well as presumably the Garand (didn't ask) in 3 different wars (WW2 Europe, Korea, 3 years, Vietnam, 3 tours, though his last two he saw little action due to being a CSM) had nothing particularly bad to say about the M16 and thought it an improvement over the M1 carbine. Only bad thing he had to say about the carbine was heavy winter clothing=need to make sure of your shots, but that would be the same with nearly anything.

Blaine · Post by **Blaine** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Custer had single shot Springers and the Indians had winchester repeaters, and a good plan.

tman · Post by **tman** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:02 pm

For the average WW2 soldier, a selective fire M4 would have given the US an advantage. If germany had come out with their M44 assualt rifle earlier, it may have turned a few battles. The russians copied the german M44 and it became the AK-47. Remember that not every soldier was an expert marksman . The range and power and ability to accurately hit with a 30-06 at long range is lot to ask for for the average person.

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 4:12 pm

Hmm. If the M16A2 had been issued, to replace the M1 carbine, and the various subguns, I think those to whom they were issued would have been better off. Think about it, the M16 wasn't meant to be a main battle rifle. It was supposed to be for the same sort of support troops to whom the carbine and subguns were supposed to be issued.

I think there was a very definite place for the 30 caliber main battle rifle. Remember, most troops used the AP version of the round. It gave them superior penetration, and there were times when penetrating a barrier to hit a enemy came in mighty handy. It also served well against lightly armored vehicles.

I doubt that there are many, if any, folks who fought in WWII who also fought in Viet Nam who could give a soldiers view as to which would be better. Maybe a Korean war vet might have done so. It would be really interesting to see what they would have to say.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:28 pm

+1

It might not have been a complete war winner, but you can bet the troops wouldn't have minded one bit.

Prolly would have loved it!
A sling equipped Garand fully loaded, cleaning kit in butt stock, weighed in at about 11-1/4 lbs. Garands got dumped in favor of the lighter plus a 20 rnd box mag M14... However the M1/M2 carbines soldiered on into/through Viet Nam...Other countries used them later than that...
Food for thought....The M1 carbine and the German M44 shared the same effective range.. 300m/300yds... yet the carbine came in at 5.92 lb, where the 44 came in at 11.5 lbs...as much as a Garand!!.. The Carbine had better sights/longer sight radius than the 44... For the extra 441 ft lb ME (7.92 Kurz) advantage, German designers upped the weapons’ weight by almost double... That gave a 5lb advantage to a GI for something if only carbines were carried... more personal ammo..more MG ammo..more water.. an extra mortar round?.. If we are allowed to keep the 30 cal 1919 light MGs and BARs in this exercise, the US prolly would have done just as well using only the M1 carbine... Flame suit on....

AJMD429 · Post by **AJMD429** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:26 pm

BlaineG wrote:Custer had single shot Springers and the Indians had winchester repeaters, and a good plan.

GOOD POINT...

rjohns94 · Post by **rjohns94** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:20 pm

I would take my M40 bolt action, .308, scoped into any of the past or present conflicts. just the way I was trained, the way my talents would best be used. ONLY way I would choose something different would be if I was going door to door instead of being support from afar.

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:38 pm

AJMD429 wrote:
BlaineG wrote:Custer had single shot Springers and the Indians had winchester repeaters, and a good plan.
GOOD POINT...

And he was also outnumbered with a divided command....

gunner69 · Post by **gunner69** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:44 am

Military doctrine is to "wound" not kill, as it takes more enemy support personnel to take care of the their wounded than it does the dead. That said, the 5.56 is a f**kin' ground squirrel rifle. It was developed for the Air Force flight line cops, with the idea that that caliber would NOT do much damage to the airplanes various systems if they were hit during an engagement.

I lost confidence in the M-16 when I had to shoot an person three times, in Viet-Nam, to put him down. I don't like the idea of shooting some person, walking by him, and having him shoot me in the back. If the M-16 were have been made in a 6.5x39 than we may have had a winner. If the Russians had made the AK in 6.5x39 (thank God they didn't) THEY would have had a winner. The Navy toyed with the Stoner in 6mm/.223 (6x45) but they were voted down. Even though the 6x45 used the same bolt & magazine, and only a barrel change was necessary to do the conversion.

If you will notice the politicos and high ranking officers usually make the choices in basic rifle and pistol choices. Then there is the "cost factors." The real shooters don't have much voice in the selection. The M-1, with a magazine, in .256 would have been way ahead of its time. One flat shootin', butt kickin' round.

Noah Zark · Post by **Noah Zark** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:08 am

gunner69 wrote:Military doctrine is to "wound" not kill, as it takes more enemy support personnel to take care of the their wounded than it does the dead . . . I lost confidence in the M-16 when I had to shoot an person three times, in Viet-Nam, to put him down. I don't like the idea of shooting some person, walking by him, and having him shoot me in the back. If the M-16 were have been made in a 6.5x39 than we may have had a winner. If the Russians had made the AK in 6.5x39 (thank God they didn't) THEY would have had a winner. The Navy toyed with the Stoner in 6mm/.223 (6x45) but they were voted down. Even though the 6x45 used the same bolt & magazine, and only a barrel change was necessary to do the conversion.

That might be military doctrine, but as you point out from personal experience, it is "Grunt Doctrine" to put the enemy down, period. I recall many a salty USMC NCO with Korea and/or Nam experience advising new recruits to do so.

As for the M16/M4 in WWII, I'm not sure that GIs and Marines would be as satisfied with the performance of the 5.56 rd vs the 30-06. Example: My late father was 1st Scout in the I&R Platoon, HQ Co, 132nd Inf, Americal Div in Bougainville, Leyte, Cebu, and other Pacific garden spots from late '43 to mainland Japan occupation through Mar '46. Dad hardly ever spoke of the war, but he did comment that he LOVED the M1 Rifle and directly attributed his return to the US in 1946 to the M1 and the 30-06 round. Consequently, having been born in 1954 I attribute my existence to the effectiveness of the M1 Rifle and the 30-06 round.

Dad liked the penetration of the 30-06, as he sometimes related that it was common practice to shoot into the cover below an enemy shooter, shooting at the same spot, until the 30-06 rounds broke through to the other side and doing for the enemy. He liked the semi-auto action of the M1, and stated that it was a distinct advantage over the Japanese boltguns in terms of firepower. Dad and the 2nd Scout were not to directly engage the enemy unless there was no choice. He did say that in combat in the open, the M1 was a distinct advantage. The two things that frightened him and the 2nd Scout the most were Jap MGs and Jap snipers tied up in trees.

Likewise, my 17th Abn vet FiL spoke of doing the same tactic firing repetitive shots through building walls below windows where German snipers were located. After a couple-four shots, there would be .30-cal projectiles flying through the room and anyone in the way.

Not sure you could do that with a 5.56, even with M882 penetrating ammo.

Noah

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 4:03 pm

rjohns94 wrote:I would take my M40 bolt action, .308, scoped into any of the past or present conflicts. just the way I was trained, the way my talents would best be used. ONLY way I would choose something different would be if I was going door to door instead of being support from afar.

Interestingly, a number of English officers, during WWI, did exactly that. Seems they realized that if they could reach across "no mans land" and hit a target, they'd be doing some good.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:38 pm

Without violating any oath or operational details... I know of at least one group of VC that mighta, momentarily, wished I carrried a M16 vs the Thompson 1928A1. But then, it mighta not made any difference, for it wasn't my day, and it was theirs. I also know another VN vet who'd of rather carried a M2 carbine vs the M16.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:56 pm

While the USAF adopted it first.. the 5.56 and m16 were very definitely designed for the army, and as a across the board replacement. Damaging aircraft and wounding enemies had nothing to do with it, as originally loaded the 556 could be extremely lethal. I never ended up dropping the hammer on anyone when I was in, but I've known guys who've done so throughout the service life of the weapon (1965-now) and if you do your part, it generally does its. ANY round can fail to stop, in the right circumstances.... even .50. There is a us troop still alive today after a gut shot from a 12,7mm dshk machine gun I believe... near miracle.

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:07 am

Griff... Can you expand a little on why that other VN vet chose the M2 over the 16?

Mike Hunter · Post by **Mike Hunter** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:43 pm

Military doctrine is to "wound" not kill”
Where the heck do you guys come up with that??? Show me the doctrinal manual that came out of.

Military doctrine & training is designed to defeat the enemy…not to just make him hurt.

That’s why all military marksmanship training teaches aim for center mass or head… no military marksman ship training teaches to aim for limbs..”just to wound him”

The M16 as a combat rifle is a complete joke.

The 5.56/223 round was developed for varmint shooting groundhogs, prairie dogs. Coyotes etc. It was never designed as a main battle round. In fact I don’t even know one state that allows it for deer hunting. So if the 5.56 is considered less than optimal to take down a 100 lb deer, what makes you think it’s any better at taking down an armed 200 lb soldier.

On the other hand, the 30-06 is fully capable of taking any and all game in North America, to include moose & bear.

The M16 has had over 200 Modification Work Orders (MWOs) applied to it, in civilian terms that means fixes. If you had a car that was recalled 200 times to fix problems… what would you call it?
The gas system on the M16 is the only one that I know of that deliberately dumps carbon, powder residue and unburnt powder directly back into the weapon….or “it pukes in it’s own mouth”

Every successful weapon system works very hard to keep this trash out of the chamber area.

So you have a rifle that is prone to malfunctions, that shoots an anemic cartridge, tell me, what soldier wants that as a combat rifle, no matter what generation?

Mescalero · Post by **Mescalero** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:40 pm

That is why I shoot a Daewoo.

Sixgun · Post by **Sixgun** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:16 pm

Never having been in the military, (so my response don't mean nothin') I agree with Mike Hunter. I bet the WW2 soldiers would have been disillusioned pretty fast with the anemic .223, especially as they were raised on guns starting with a 3 and sometimes a 4.

I say give every soldier a GE Mini Gun.

---------Sixgun

jeepnik · Post by **jeepnik** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:47 pm

gunner69 wrote:Military doctrine is to "wound" not kill,

Advice from an old Sarge. "If you enemy is down and still moving, shoot him twice, preferrably in the head. If you enemy is down and not moving, shoot him once, preferrably in the head." If ammo is short, substitute sticking for shooting. Many a dead soldier was killed by a "dead" soldier.

rimrock · Post by **rimrock** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:10 pm

from jeepnik
Advice from an old Sarge. "If you enemy is down and still moving, shoot him twice, preferrably in the head. If you enemy is down and not moving, shoot him once, preferrably in the head." If ammo is short, substitute sticking for shooting. Many a dead soldier was killed by a "dead" soldier.

Having never been military so having so proper response, I have to say that I most likely would've been in the brig cuz I ain't waitin' for no chain of command to say ok to engage when bullets are flying. I would shoot to kill with whatever I had or could steal. .223 is just too light for reliability. The .30 cal used in WWII were better. Imagine what squad snipers could have done with .300Mag like the military is now including. Many stories from Vietnam focus on M-16 users calling in a garand shooter to take VC out of sniper positions in the trees at range just outside effective range of M-16.

rimrock

tman · Post by **tman** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:37 pm

Military doctourine has always been that it exposes more enemy combantants to retrieve a wounded solider? WW2 had more than 2 million US soilders, many who were drafted and never shouldered a firearm. AN m4 with a light recoiling round, weighing in at 7lbs, with the ability to lay down alot or cover fire made more sense. The soviet block countries armed their soldiers with the inaccurate, but fast firing AK 47. Untrained soldiers used fire power to make up for skill. It worked for them, untill the soviet collapse. Todays US Army is made up of volunteers who probablly have shooting experience before they join up. A 9lb. 7.62 longrange rifle would seem to them as an asset , as oppossed to a burden.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:57 pm

Most current US mil people have never handled a weapon before. A couple I was in basic with were outright afraid of the M16 before firing one.

As to the wound not kill thing, it's been floating around for most of a century. in a WAR OF ATTRITION (World War 1) wounding is nearly as good as killing. But doctrine has always been dead is better than living above all else.

As to the reason why there's so many 'fixes'.....the M16 FOW has been in service for longer than any other primary weapon we've had including the Springfield, approaching 50 years. Tactics and ammunition as well as other things change. The basic weapon is still the same.

As to other DI operating weapons, the French MAS 49 and 49/56 (their equivalent to the M14, which saw heavy service in Vietnam and the colonial wars) 1949-1975, the replacement, the FAMAS, as well as the Ljungmann AG42 (Swedish) have all used the system. It's not perfect but neither is it particuarly bad. Some of the best, and some of the worst rifles in the world have been piston operated, which proves nothing.

txpete · Post by **txpete** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:53 am

1.one state that allows the 223 for deer hunting is TX.which IMHO is nuts.
2.I can tell you for a fact we still had gease guns in the arms room when I left the 2nd ACR in 1981 (east german border patrol).
3.a very good friend of mine danny swapped a bunch of stuff for a thompson and kept it in his huey in case he got shot down in VN.trust me he was a hoot and did in fact get shot down 3 times.he hated the M16
4.I had a CWO walking warrant when I was a young PFC and he was in korea and VN.in my 21 years in the army I never met anyone one that was WWII,korea and VN.might have been some but its real thin.
5.when I went thru basic the drill sgt's freaked I qual'ed expert with my M16 as there was alot of bolo's.that said my dad a WWII combat vet had me shooting when I was about 5.most of the city guys couldn't hit a cow in the butt with a shovel.
6.I got a M16A2 just before I retired and can say it was light years ahead of the M16 and M16A1.mine was NIB

when I got it and it was deadly accurate.FWIW we didn't draw the M9 until after dersert storm and I still think its no good.
7.to the OP post just give me a M60 and I would be a happy camper.

pete

mr murphy the first time we went to the range the drill sgt took a M16 and a 20 rd mag put it on the family jewels and ripped off 20rd's full auto."see nothing to be afraid of" on this weapon

Mike Hunter · Post by **Mike Hunter** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:18 pm

I don’t think the French or anybody is still using the MAS 49 and 49/56, or the Ljungmann AG42, think that design was pretty much obsolete by the time the M16 was being developed.

I think John Garand’s basic design has probably been serving longer than any other battle rifle. Adopted in what? 1936, it remained pretty much unchanged until around 1957, then the rifle morphed into the M14 (cal changed to 7.62, select fire and 20 round mag), but the basic design remained the same.

Last I checked all the M14s had been pulled from AAD and deployed to theater; and these are rifles that were built in the 50s/60’s still running strong. Can’t say the same thing for the AR15s, M16s, M16A1s or even M16A2s

txpete · Post by **txpete** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:10 pm

Mike Hunter wrote:I don’t think the French or anybody is still using the MAS 49 and 49/56, or the Ljungmann AG42, think that design was pretty much obsolete by the time the M16 was being developed.

I think John Garand’s basic design has probably been serving longer than any other battle rifle. Adopted in what? 1936, it remained pretty much unchanged until around 1957, then the rifle morphed into the M14 (cal changed to 7.62, select fire and 20 round mag), but the basic design remained the same.

Last I checked all the M14s had been pulled from AAD and deployed to theater; and these are rifles that were built in the 50s/60’s still running strong. Can’t say the same thing for the AR15s, M16s, M16A1s or even M16A2s

After the adoption by the U.S. Air Force of the Eugene Stoner designed AR-15 and 5.56mm M193 ball cartridge (.223 Remington) in 1964, the rest of the U.S. military followed suit by abandoning the .30 caliber battle rifle shortly thereafter. The M14 thus became the shortest-lived service rifle in our history.

real deal from 1973 to 1994(most of it in the cav or inf div.4 years in the RDF) I never saw or was issued a M14.I do know that if you went to ft benning and sniper school they did in fact use the M14 for training.since I know some people that were in delta force(little birds) it was in limited use there.so to compare a very limited use weapon against the M16A1 or A2 well just isn't right.

it was "after" desert storm the 1st cav. started to get some M14's out of moth balls.how do I know? they had to go and buy scopes, mounts and rings downtown for them for the squad designated marksman program.this was prior to OIF I.

"Last I checked all the M14s had been pulled from AAD and deployed to theater; and these are rifles that were built in the 50s/60’s still running strong."

The growing need to equip these new marksmen with accurized rifles prompted the Army to reconsider the role of the venerable M-14 rifle for the war on terror. Back in Desert Storm, armorers from the 10th Special Forces group took M-14s equipped with a match barrels and fitted a gas piston on them for optimal performance, re-designating it the M-25. They replaced the stock with a McMillan M1A fiberglass one, developed a scope mount and added a Bausch & Lomb 10x40mm fixed-power optic or a Leupold Mark 4.
In 2004, the Navy signed a contract to upgrade nearly 3,000 of their M-14s with the Sage EBR chassis.thats a far cry for the issue M14 from VN.

PMWIZARD · Post by **PMWIZARD** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:42 am

Was watchimg the history channel about the french foreign legion, and they switched to the M1 carbine in Vietnam. So again you can take it for what it is worth. Considering that the gun was used in Vietnam by US as well as ARVN, the weapon has proven itself over the years.

MrMurphy · Post by **MrMurphy** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:20 pm

Pete, seen the same thing done with a 30 round mag on burst, both held at the chin and in the 'package'.

After firing the M16/M4, most of our female cops preferred it even over the M9, they had more time on them and were better shots, military pistol training being nonexistent (90 rounds per year, 1 time).

As to the MAS series, no, they are no longer in service, but the point is for 30+ years and multiple wars, they were, apparently with few problems. I'm not the most diehard Direct Impingment fan, but on the M16 series, if you keep it lubed, it will run. Seen it run covered in mud in a rainstorm, after a heavy sandstorm, etc.. they still fire.

Guy i used to work with was in a 3-day running engagement in Afghanistan in 2007 or so. He ran through a double basic load (14 mags) in one day, resupplied and did so again for at least another 10 mags through the next two days and by his personal admission had no time to do more than pull the BCG, wipe it, and lube. Gun ran fine.

There's defintely times a .30 cal is better (having carried an M240, i'm a fan) but for general service..nothing particularly wrong with the weapon AS IT IS NOW. (not in 1965).

Ray Newman · Post by **Ray Newman** » Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:18 pm

"Was watchimg the history channel about the french foreign legion, and they switched to the M1 carbine in Vietnam. So again you can take it for what it is worth. Considering that the gun was used in Vietnam by US as well as ARVN, the weapon has proven itself over the years."
--PMWizard

Switched?? -- I 'duuno'. Those arms were provided by the US military aid to France and Vietnam. And during the 1950's, beggars could and were not choosey when it came to no-cost US military aid..

3leggedturtle · Post by **3leggedturtle** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:14 am

The way the soldiers in WW2 could shoot, they could of carried 4 times the ammo and knocked off that many more of the enemy because of it. Of course would interesting to see how they woulda reacted to being given one. PLUS people of that generation could make do with any thing given them. Look how many deer, bear moose and elk were killed with the 25/20 and the 32/20. Not to mention what Eskimos/Alaskans can and did do with a 22 Hornet.

pharmseller · Post by **pharmseller** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:00 pm

Griff wrote:Without violating any oath or operational details... I know of at least one group of VC that mighta, momentarily, wished I carrried a M16 vs the Thompson 1928A1. But then, it mighta not made any difference, for it wasn't my day, and it was theirs. I also know another VN vet who'd of rather carried a M2 carbine vs the M16.

From your scanty report (kinda like eating one potato chip, I'd like a bit more, please) it sounds as if the VC didn't wish that way for very long.

I'm glad it was they, and not you.

P

Ben_Rumson · Post by **Ben_Rumson** » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:00 pm

Griff... Can you expand a little on why that other VN vet chose the M2 over the 16?