24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
I have a couple of years with the M21 while on jump-status.
Would rather a M16 when jumping static-line!

Myself,I would like the AR-10 as a base for the 7.62NATO sniper-platform.
The boy down the way from us just got home from the army, ETS!
He bought a DPMS LR-308(24"HB,flat-top,free-float)and was shooting at the 400yard target yesterday with 155grain A-Max handloads.
The wife after firing a magazine at targets from 100,200,350,400 and 600yards asked why didn't we use those in the Army?
She figured since every soldier for the past 40years has trained with the M-16,that the scaled-up 308 model made sense.
Mike

BP-B2

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
As Sapper mentioned, that was the M21, which was not a particularly good sniper rifle, but not necessarily a bad one either. It was much more adept to the role of Unit Sniper or Designated Marksman like the Russians do. (I�ve always thought the Russians made much better use of their snipers than we did.)

It consisted of a match grade M14 with a 3-9 ART (auto ranging telescope) scope (Leatherwood or Redfield) The barrel was a standard weight (later ones finally started using heavy barrels) that was air gauged and set aside to skip the chrome plating process. The gas piston was modified, the flash suppressor was opened up, the trigger was tuned to 4.5lbs and the action was glass bedded to the stock. These rifles would hold right around 1.5� for 10 shots at 100 yards. Some shot better and some not quite so good, but for the most part, it made for a very good DMR rifle. In the role of a lone �hunter� type sniper, it left much to be desired.

The M21 was replaced by the M24 which never has been a custom rifle built by the AMU. The M24 is an out of the box solution provided by Remington and comes as a complete system �kit� including scope, accessories and case. This is not to say it�s not an accurate rifle.

On the subject of stocks made for open sights, they didn�t exactly correct this with the M24 as it was built to be used with accessory open sights. Most US Army snipers in the field have taped up the comb of the stock to raise the cheek.

Currently, the M14 has found new life in the DMR role. Most are not accurized in any way, but are equipped with a Leupold 3.5-10x scope. Reports I get are that they are very well received.

Several of the special ops units have been using the Knights Armament SR25 (AR-10�ish) with good results. I know that the idea of returning to the semi-auto sniper rifle has been kicked around for some time.

On the M16 side, there have been several accurized versions for use as a DMR rifle. The most notable is perhaps the Mk 262 used by the Navy Seals in conjunction with Black Hills Match ammo.

As an ongoing project, the US Military is actively seeking a replacement for the M16 and the replacement will most likely have a �sniper� version as well. Most RFP specifications call for the ability to change the weapon to support:

Rifle
Carbine
Squad Auto
Marksmans Rifle

The SCAR project (recently awarded to FN) actually broke this down into two weapons, a large (.308 size) and small (5.56 sized). The FN SCAR can switch barrels and cartridges quickly and easily.

Still, the ill conceived (IMO) OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) with it�s .223 backup to the main 25mm grenade launcher program is still alive and well. Who knows how that will factor into the future (my hope is that it wont). This is something that�s into early prototypes and the last I�ve heard, they�re looking for more flexibility and different versions.

Since there�s a Marksman�s version of the SCAR and there�s supposed to be one for the XM8 project, I doubt the military will be adopting (on any significant scale) any of the AR10 variants�Who knows?

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
Kevin,
The OICW project was cancelled October 31 2005!
The whole set-up was just too heavy and bulky!
It weighed just 5.5-kilo's empty and 7.0-kilo's loaded!
The airburst munition was found not to be as lethal as thought it would be!
Cost wise it was said to make a solidier so expensive to field that he couldn't be risked in combat!

Star-Wars tech may look fine when playing at the range but in combat you cannot risk your lives on toys!

Just as you clamor for the M-62(damn fine weapon!)the best weapons for our troops need to be reliable and cost effective!
Mike

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Sapper,

I hope you�re right. I remember seeing a memo around that time that delayed the project but didn�t kill it. I think since then additional funding has been approved by congress, which makes me think the project is still quite alive. I have some notes on it at home�I�ll double check. GOD, I hope you�re right.

IIRC, the thought was to press on 100% with the XM8 which was to eventually become the 5.56 part of the OICW, but last I heard, the XM8 project wasn�t going too well either.

That whole project was (is?) half baked. It�s like someone saw Aliens and said, �our troops should have one of those� (M41A pulse rifle). I�ll agree, it was perhaps the coolest weapon ever dreamed up in Hollywood, but�Come on people!!

It shouldn�t have taken any brain power to realize that a 25mm rifle grenade would be little more than an M80 with thumb tacks attached. Doesn�t anyone remember the little �mini� baseball grenades they tried in Vietnam�they didn�t work and they were twice the size of the 25mm rifle grenade.

We cant keep up with the cost on M16�s, how the heck do they expect to afford something like the OICW? Once again, our tax dollars hard at work.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Sap,

Just found this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m29-oicw.htm

Quote
Following the increase of the caliber of OICW grenade launcher component from 20mm to 25mm [the same as used in the OCSW], in July 2004 it was decided to split the OICW system into two separate weapons, the 5.56mm XM8 modular assault rifle (OICW Increment 1), and the 25mm XM25 airburst assault weapon / grenade launcher (OICW Increment 2). Development of the complete XM29 (OICW Increment 3) system was shelved, and will be resumed once the OICW Increment 1 and 2 components are developed, and weight constraints of entire system are met.


It�s hard for a guy like me to keep this stuff straight. Looks like once they have the two individual weapons worked out, they�ll try to marry them together. This goes along with what I remember about seeing congress authorizing further funding, and IIRC, it was funding to further develop the airburst warhead...Still a half baked idea if you ask me.

IC B2

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
Kev:
See this,
www.defenceindustrydaily.com/2005/11/oicw1-canceled-door-closes-on-xm8-for-now/index.php

But check this out:
www.atk.com
Under Advanced Weapon Systems
The 25mm airburst weapon system.

Like the Bazooka-man or flamethrower operator of the past who needed rifleman to provide for their protection,is this a step backward?
Mind you having a man who could put thermobaric rounds into the OPFOR's position out to 500meter's would be a real "nice thing"!
But what happens when I need to clear a block of houses?
What helps at 75m-500m could be a liability at >20m.
Why?

The Marines have purchased 9000 of the M-32 six-shot 40mm grenade launchers as of 11Jan 2006.
www.military.com
search M-32

Mike

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
That's good news. Glad to see them putting the brakes on the XM8 as well...From what I've heard, it has quite a way to go.

I think the most promising of the newer weapons systems is the FN SCAR. I just can't get too excited about the Tavor because it's a bulpup. In the end, only time will tell.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
The M 21 was indeed capable of 1.5 MOA, which was the standard for a sniper rifle at the time.

I'm not so sure a bolt gun could have shot much better at the time, but it probably could have done somewhat better. We've come so far since then, with bullets, barrels, and bedding that now 1.5" isn't as impressive as it once was.

But it's still good enough in most cases. At 600 yards, that's 9 inches, perfectly good enough for most situations. Good for head shots, in fact, if you can hit a head with the wind and other distractions.

The M 14 platform just had severe problems, IMO....long operating rod being among them, and serious limitations on ammo. It was ammo-sensitive, in other words, more so than most, and more so than the M 1. Which isn't a problem so long as you can find LC Match ammo, which is what we used.

I agree...it was a "pretty good" sniper rifle. I also think the bolt guns of today are better, but I'm not sure the bolt guns of Vietnam era were THAT much better. Maybe 1.25 MOA, maybe less....it's been a long time.

Personally, I think it's going to be a while before they replace the M 16, although they are looking for a replacement. The candidates all seem to have a problem with them. The M 16 doesn't seem to have a lot of problems anymore, and is accurate. I think they need to go back to a lighter round and forget about penetrator for the time being, although in the future, it's definifely going to be an issue.

The head of the AMU said the M 14 was being requested mostly by the NG units. He said the problem was there were no spare parts for it. And only one magazine. The round seems to be appreciated more since it's bigger, but as the Col. said, it's all in shot placement.

I think they need to reduce the weight of the round especially for the M 4 and other short-barreled rifles. Or, adopt another round, and I don't see that happening right away.

The ART scopes we trained with were Redfield, and the instructors said they preferred the Leatherwood scopes, but didn't say why. It was a challenge to learn to operate the ranging mechanim on the scope, which wqas tied in to the power ring.

I don't think the scope is as good as the newer ones, though. It had stadia lines for windage and elevation (I think) but by fitting the target in the top and bottom line, you got the distance. A slight error would make you miss the target. It was an aquired skill, and after a few days on the range, most of us cheated because we knew the range and would just dial it in on the scope rather than actually to the ranging.

I missed only one target on qualification, tieing me with lots of others for second place. It was a short-range target too, at 350 yards as I recall. The winner maxed it, of course.

Now with laser rangfinders (which are not useful in dusty situations) and other improvements in optics, the 10X scope is great. Above that and you have severe mirage problems.

A sniper team can definitely be a "force multiplier" if used properly. The Army has never used them as well as they should, but I think this is being reassessed.

Personally, were I in Iraq now as a rifleman, I'd like the M 16 with an Aimpoint. You couldn't force a M 14 on me willingly, but if I was armed with one, I wouldn't fight with it. The M 4 is a lot handier for trasnsport, as I understand it, and everyone wants one, because so much mobillity is on today's battlefield.

But the loss of velocity with th e62 gr. is actually pretty significant. Plus the steel penetrator keeps the bullet from fragmenting even at faster speeds.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
I�m not sure what your experience is with the M14, but the problems you mention are not significant problems. The M14 is every bit as reliable, if not more so, than the M1 Garand. The feeding system is nearly identical�the only difference is the box magazine vs the en-bloc clip. The M14 magazine is a great design and has always proved quite reliable. As for the operating rod, the length was an issue with the Garand and bent op rods happened from time to time but not all that often. For the M14, it was a rare case.

The only problems I can recall were some firing pin breakage from dry firing and on the ammo side, it�s only finicky about the use of soft point ammunition. I have never ran into NATO spec ammo the M14 wouldn�t gobble up.

The M14 has never had severe problems. It�s in front line service all over the place and few have complained about it. I don�t know where you got your info on the magazines and spare parts, but that�s not correct. Magazines are plentiful as are spare parts (but you are right that there are no �official� parts being made � could be a problem later, but not a problem now). This info comes from a guy at my church who is a former Army armorer. He said that some parts are scarce, mainly major components like barrels and stocks, but the ones that are commonly broken can be replaced.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,269
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,269
??? The op rod on an M1 has a bend in it when new so as to function smoothly. Use of slow burning powders does make that bend bad enuff to hamstring the rifle--don't use slow powders. The gas system on the M-14 is completely different. Only enuff gas to operate the action is bled off then cut off by the piston. Short op rod. Never heard of one bending. M1 is direct impingement. No moderating factors. Totally different. Rods bend. I do NOT like the AK because of the long magazine. It forces me to take a high prone or cant the rifle further screwing up already poor shooting qualities. 30 rd mags on an M16 aren't much better and much less sturdy. I could reload an M14 with the mag in the rifle using strippers. Who the hell needs more than 5 mags and 3 bandoleers for social work?? The magazines are nearly bulletproof too. A nice low prone is also easy to assume with one. I like that a lot!


Be afraid,be VERY VERY afraid
ad triarios redisse
My Buddy eh76 speaks authentic Frontier Gibberish!
[Linked Image]
IC B3

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Evil twin, you hit the nail right on the head.

My vote is for the Valmet M62/76 as the best weapon overall, but I�ll agree, the long magazine is a liability. Honestly, I really prefer the more traditional stock of the M14 as well. However, I�ve yet to find the rifle that was custom built with everything I would like, so I vote for the Valmet regardless of the magazine sticking down so far.

For engagements under 50-75 yards, canting the rifle will work just fine, but beyond that, it�s a major hindrance to accurate fire.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
"Under 50-75yards"!!!!!

My friend,have you ever had someone trying to give you high-speed body-piercings?
Sorry for the attitude but at under-75yards,you are either clearing city blocks or are being over-run!

What I do like on your M-62 is the ability to use rifle-grenades from the muzzle!
The Israeli's have HEAT(BT/AT-44)HE-Frag(BT/AP-M1091),Illuminating(BT/SGI-50),and a Thermobaric round in the works for their rifles(Mecar type,not bullet trap)!
Having the ability of every rifleman to be able to cover as a grenadier would help,as would each man in a squad being able to volley-fire grenades(HE-Frag)bringing short range arty to a squad!
Those rifle-grenades are carried like arrows in a quiver over the shoulder over the back!

Untill something comes along that is cost effective and cost efficient,we will be putting are foes down just as we did in the 1917,individual rifleman!

Smart bombs and guided missles may look cool on TV,but it is "Private Joe Snuffy" with boots on the ground to take and hold the objective!

Mike

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,469
M
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
M
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,469
Sapper,

I've been re-reading this thread again. Very interesting. You have my respect Sir for taking hostile hits. I presume you received the PH? If you lived in West Virginia, you would receive free motor vehicle licenses for life. One way for us hillbillies to show our thanks. Thanks...Bill.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
M-70man,
"West-By-God-Virgina"! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Thank you!
The Tribal plates I get are also free too.
Taking hits are not what I was figuring on,I tell you what! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />
PH x2,AC+v x2,and BS+v.
That was then.
Take Care,
Mike

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
Actually, the information on spare magazines and parts came from the head of the AMU. No parts have been made since 1967.

For me, the rifle sucks. That's opinion, I know. The parts and magazines is NOT opinoin. Aftermarket products may exist, but not mil-spec issue parts....there's no reason for the military to produce parts for a rifle that is obsolete, although some small store of parts may exist. Somewhere.

The M 14 is geared toward US ammo, which indeed causes no problems. But other NATO rounds, and other NATO rifles have different specs. There's the problem.

The AMU Lt. Col. (who is a Korean American, and whose name I can't spell, and who has been reassigned) was a match shooter of national ranking and very knowledgeable. He had previously been a special op guy and had service in Afghanistan, Iraq, and several non-mentionalble places. He knew whereof he spoke, although alll the things I said about the M 14 are not his opinions.

His opinion was that it was OK for its day, as a European cold-war weapon.

My experience, which comes from Viet Nam, is that it's a heavy weapon, with heavy ammo, and at the close ranges of Viet Nam and apparently of today's combat, it has no special value.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Quote
"Under 50-75yards"!!!!!

My friend,have you ever had someone trying to give you high-speed body-piercings?
Yessir I have...But that's besides the point.

I'm talking "Best case" scenario there. Fixed position with some cover, in an area that's not too hot (I'm sure it's happened at least once). From there, you could get the odd hit, but again, it's not a perfect solution by any means. The closer the range, the easier it is to hit, but then again the pucker factor increases by a certain factor (not sure of the actual mathematical formula for calculating that).

To the best of my knowledge, the M62/76 does not have rifle grenade launching ability�You may be aware of something I�m not. (but I agree, that�s always a nice option and has proven effective time and time again).

Agreed on your rifleman comment. Once you�ve used mechanized military and air power to alter the landscape, someone�s gotta go in there to close the deal.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
GunGeek Offline OP
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,634
Quote
The M 14 is geared toward US ammo, which indeed causes no problems. But other NATO rounds, and other NATO rifles have different specs. There's the problem.
You could say much the same for the M16. Ammunition made for �other� 5.56 rifles tends to foul up an M16 pretty fast. Fortunately, the M16 has become so prolific, that most any ammo you encounter is likely meant for the M16�I guess that�s one way to solve the problem. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497
B
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
B
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 497


To the best of my knowledge, the M62/76 does not have rifle grenade launching ability�You may be aware of something I�m not. (but I agree, that�s always a nice option and has proven effective time and time again).

The Finnish Defence Force issue Rifle is the Rk-95.
The Rk-95 has a gas shut-off lever that closes off access to the gas operating system.
The 95 is a upgraded version of the 62.
Every Finnish troop is issued Frag and Heat grenades for his rifle.

House to house will always favor the defender.
Giving each man in each squad the ability to place HE-Frag or a Heat round into a room,wall or building makes for a great playing field leveler!
Mike

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
G
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
G
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,773
Quote
Quote
The M 14 is geared toward US ammo, which indeed causes no problems. But other NATO rounds, and other NATO rifles have different specs. There's the problem.
You could say much the same for the M16. Ammunition made for �other� 5.56 rifles tends to foul up an M16 pretty fast. Fortunately, the M16 has become so prolific, that most any ammo you encounter is likely meant for the M16�I guess that�s one way to solve the problem. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


But the M 16 has far less problems, according to the Speer Reloading manual, because of the gas system. And, from the same source, the M 14 is listed is problemetaical.

I've never had problems in a M 16 platfom except with exceptinoally light bullets.


Not many problems you can't fix
With a 1911 and a 30-06

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
656 members (10gaugemag, 12344mag, 160user, 10gaugeman, 10Glocks, 12308300, 60 invisible), 3,132 guests, and 1,256 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,742
Posts18,401,190
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.075s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 0.9010 MB (Peak: 1.0733 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 13:48:01 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS