Me and My M-14

[Matchstick]

UK, too, went to the SA80 ages ago - no one seems to be using full size battle rifles any more.

A minor pedant point here, because of it's bullpup design the barrel length of a standard issue SA80 is 518mm which is longer than the barrel length of full size M16A4 (508mm).

So if the M16A4 qualifies as a "full size battle rifle" I'm not exactly sure why the SA80 doesn't.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by Kineas:

What about the 'devastating' effects of the .223 at close range against soft targets? Practice belied theory in this case?

The terminal ballistics of 5.56 are better than 7.62. Larger permanent wound channel, more fragmentation, etc. 5.56 is just fine on soft targets.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Kineas:

What about the 'devastating' effects of the .223 at close range against soft targets? Practice belied theory in this case?

Urban myth from what a Canadian Army weapons tech explained to me on open forum once...

[MikeyD]

We see this constant drip of anecdotes about troop dissatisfaction with the 5.56 (.223) round. I don't know if its mere G.I. griping to be classed with complaints about MREs and military toilet paper. It sounds like most of the complaints revolve around effects at outer ranges. As good as the 5.56 is it still has to obey the laws of physics. That M4's shorter barrel does produce a predictable drop-off in terminal effects. It sounds to me (but hey, what do i know) like any reduced long-range ballistics is offset by VASTLY superior optics. An iron sight AK might do more damage at XXX range but the shooter has first gotta hit something!

[J Ruddy]

I'm sure there's people here who will disagree or discount my opinion, such is the nature of the game...

With 5.56 NATO, what are the bullet options for the troops? 60 grain 70 grain?

It (or rather .223) is a highly popular varment round for hunters. It has a *fairly* long range and very flat trajectory and is perfect for knocking down woodchucks. It reminds me of that nut who was shooting people in DC. I said "He has to be ex-military, because no hunter would shoot 150-200 lb game with a .223."

I served in the reserves and the 5.56 C7 was great to shoot. The ammo is light, so I could carry lots. It has a similar trajectory to 165gr 7.62 Nato with a fraction of the recoil. But I had the odd feeling that I was bear hunting with a BB gun.

I really liked the FN, (weight, kick and all) which is a beatiful weapon, I wish they weren't prohibited here in Canuckistan because I would buy one in an instant. I can't say the same for the M-16/M4/C7/AR-15 family.

We (Canuckistanians) have the bushmaster on our LAVs. Any point-to-point engaging of the enemy at a long range is probably going to be handled by it or the C6 GPMG.

I absolutely see the advantage of having a compact weapon, especially in tight areas. I remember my days in Army Cadets, using Lee Enfields on the range. I kept thinking, how would you use this in the bush or in house to house combat?

I have an M-44 Carbine (7.62x54R Hungarian 1952 dated) and it is fun, but kicks like hell with heavier ammo loads. So what do you compromise? Control? Stability? Accuracy? Portability? Hitting Power?

My brother in law is back in Afghanistan, and I heard a report (via my sister) of an ambush. A Canadian took 4 direct hits to the body armour from a 7.62x39 and it stopped all 4 shots. (broken ribs are better than a punctured lung or worse)

So what am I saying?

With FMJ rounds, energy is what penetrates (ok diameter, core material etc... comes into play, but the major factor is energy) At 200 yards, a 60 grain moderate load of 5.56 has less energy than a 120 grain 7.62x39 and less than half of 7.62 Nato. It's a good thing the bad guys don't have body armour.

Cheers

Jim

[MikeyD]

Talk about guys who spent alot of their own money tricking-out their M14s:

[John Kettler]

Michael Dorosh,

Respectfully beg to differ with you on this point.

It may or may not still be true for the new model SS109 derived bullet, but the earlier model did break up at close range inside the body, usually at the cannelure, and sometimes, with an additional break as well. I have read baffled medical reports from Panamanian doctors of gunshot wounds they treated during Operation Just Cause in Panama in which there was one wound of entrance, but several wound channels inside the body.

This is because at close range, the upsetting forces as the bullet enters the flesh and begins to tumble overstress the bullet, causing it to fail at weak points, effectively turning one bullet into several smaller, irregular ones. Fired from a bit farther back, though, the same bullet would first penetrate, then tumble in the wound, creating terrible tissue trauma and shock wholly disproportionate to its small size, despite being a fully legally FMJ bullet. By contrast, an AK-47 type bullet simply punches a clean hole through the target. When the 5.45 mm AK-74 arrived in Afghanistan, its victims, the muj, got hit by what they called the "poison bullet." It wasn't poisoned in the normal sense, but its effects certainly were, for it was designed to tumble by shifting the lead core inside the jacket forward on impact, causing the bullet to create massive tissue destruction much like what the M16's bullet did.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Apocalypse 31]

^ He didnt spend a dime. Thats all issued stuff. You guys need to take the blinders off. The article posted by the original poster was about a guy in the RESERVES. Its practically a different Army.

[ChrisND]

Yep, especially since was an Airborne guy, we get all sorts of cool toys. :cool: We were (or least my company was) given a lot of latitude in customizing our gear, especially in Afghanistan since there was little command presence out on the FOBs.

Also about M-16s, they are still in use, primarily as M16A4s. The last mech unit I was in used M16A4 with the squad leader having an M4. But that was a few years ago and I am sure it has changed.

On a side note, in A-Stan we had an A-Team on our FOB and three of them used M16A1s. I thought that was pretty interesting, although I never did ask why they preferred them.

[Bigduke6]

I think the idea is that the A1 can go full automatic, and snoopers and poopers figure that if they do ever have to shoot it will be an unpleasant emergency and about 99 per cent of the time the goal is to break contact and depart the AO.

Don't know if that's the rules for the greenie beanies, but that was how the XO of a LURP company in a US MI battalion explained it to me.

[SgtMuhammed]

That was what we were trained to do to break contact in a hurry. Spray a mag quickly at the bad guys and it will normally give you a few seconds to un-ass the AO.

[Lee]

The .308 is better at punching through intermediate obstacles and nailing the bad guys hard than a .223 is. Which, among other reasons, is why many soldiers like the M-14's even for city fighting in Iraq, where all sorts of stuff can get in the way during a fight. And, of course, when firing at longer ranges the .308 is clearly superior.

Check out the link below for a cool video of an M-14 being fired full auto.

http://www.nazarian.no/images/wep/287_M14.wmv

[MikeyD]

I was thinking of the (grossly generalizing here) different missions of regular Army and Reserves. I believe Reserves would be tasked with more convoy work - which would mostly involve engaging enemies at medium distances hiding behind cinderblock walls, one would imagine. Regular Army would have a lot more close-up MOUT, work reservists wouldn't typically be called up to do. So reserves would find the extra punch of the M14 more useful.

[Splinty]

Not any more Mikey, we all (I'm national guard) are called to do the same jobs.

[Other Means]

With the psychological effects of firing your weapon, I wonder if the extra recoil and noise of the bigger bullet colours the troops perceptions more than wound or ballistic properties.

IOW, bigger bang beats better bullets.

[MikeyD]

"With the psychological effects of firing your weapon"

Oooohhh... good point. I read one Army report that described how firing your weapon actually has a tension-relief effect, makes you feel like you're being proactive even if you're just firing into the darkness. This explains the Iraqi troop's well documented lack of fired discipline. A slang term used for this is the 'death blossom' (a term from an old space movie) where they tend to fire randomly in all directions if targetted.

[Matchstick]

'death blossom' (a term from an old space movie)

The Last Starfighter wasn't it ?

Gotta love that early CGI

[wamphyri]

The Last Starfighter wasn't it ?

Gotta love that early CGI

You would be correct. It was on the TV a couple months ago. Ahh memories.

[ June 18, 2007, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: wamphyri ]

[Lee]

Here's another cool picture of an M-14 decked out with all kinds of options in use by one of our soldiers in Iraq.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/CSA-2006-10-17-093634.jpg

[Craig Champagne]

Originally posted by Lee:

Here's another cool picture of an M-14 decked out with all kinds of options in use by one of our soldiers in Iraq.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/CSA-2006-10-17-093634.jpg

Current usage encourages capitalization of the first letter in the word "Soldier".

[stoat]

Why?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Craig Champagne:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lee:

Here's another cool picture of an M-14 decked out with all kinds of options in use by one of our soldiers in Iraq.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/CSA-2006-10-17-093634.jpg

Current usage encourages capitalization of the first letter in the word "Soldier". </font>

[Wisbech_lad]

Quite. Soldier is not a title, rank or name, it is a normal noun. Private, Major, Sapper, Gunner etc. should be capitalised.

Soldier basically means someone who is a professional warrior, paid to fight. As opposed to a feudal system, where it is one's obligation to fight, or partisan troops, fighting without recompense.

[Splinty]

It's a General Shinseki (the Black Beret guy) thing. He thought capitalizing the word would make it seem special or something. It lasted about as long as he did.

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by Splinty:

It's a General Shinseki (the Black Beret guy) thing. He thought capitalizing the word would make it seem special or something. It lasted about as long as he did.

Yeah... just like giving everyone the black beret made everyone special. Just because he's a bit of a nutter doesn't mean we should follow suit. Now lets get back to the cool M-14 pictures!