I think an interesting GD topic would be “Obama orders by decree that the US return to the M1 Garand as the primary battle weapon - what happens in Afghanistan?” Of course it would have to be a modern M1 Garand with larger magazine, improved materials, battlefield electronics (lasers, etc.)…and I confess I do not have the knowledge or experience to start such a thread.
A Garand with a larger magazine is an M-14.
Nor do I, but I did it anyway. Have at it: What if U.S. military returned to the M1 Garand rifle? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board
Also with a different ammo feed mechanism and full-auto capability.
I’ve seen it repeatedly said here and in every other M16/M4 GQ thread that, “when it was introduced, the soldiers were told the M16 never needed cleaning.” Despite this frequent repetition and general acceptance, I’ve never seen anything approaching anything like a cite for that statement. Anyone want to take a crack at demonstrating this was an official position of the Army when it introduced the M16 (as opposed to military lore)?
It wasn’t the Garand alone which won World War II on the fire-team level. The Thompson also had a lot to do with it.
Arguably the M16 combines the functions of the Garand and Thompson. Arguably.
I do recall seeing a piece of Colt literature on display at the Springfield Armory NHS in 1987 saying this.
Here’s a couple of cites for you.
This list is from wikipedia, but it is the result of a congressional investigation that was launched due to complaints about the M-16. Item 1 addresses your question.
This is the cite given:
^ Kahaner, Larry (2007). AK-47: The Weapon that Changed the Face of War. Wiley. p. 236. ISBN 978-0470168806. “This was dubbed the Ichord hearings after Missouri representative Richard Ichord , who championed Congress’s inquiry into failures of the M-16 during the Vietnam War.”
Another cite:
Cite: “Vietnam Sons: For Some, the War Never Ended” By Dale Kueter
Cite: “See the Dragon” By Don Arndt
There are a lot more cites available, and you can probably look up the congressional record to confirm it.
Excerpts from the Ichord Hearings are at:- http://www.bobcat.ws/rifle.shtml
Hah! I missed this earlier.
The unstated “Turn off that loud music, and get off my lawn!” came through loud-and-clear anyway.
Beside the fact that (Saving Private Ryan aside) World War II wasn’t won on the squad level, the “Trench Broom”, a simple, reliable, and nearly indestructible design intended for a specific role, is the antithesis of the M16/AR-15, a complex and fairly delicate design intended for mult-role use as a fire support weapon, designated marksman rifle, and general forward and secondary infantry roles.
Stranger
Stranger
From a ballistics point of view, a .30-06 (or .303, or 7.92x57mm or 7.62x54R, for that matter) is far superior to a .223/5.56x45mm cartridge.
The thing is, though, that it’s not always about muzzle velocity and foot pounds of energy delivered to target; the military rifle shooters here can tell you that an afternoon of firing fullbore rifles at the range you’re going to have a somewhat sore shoulder.
It’s easier to teach people to shoot with a .223 than it is a .303 or .30-06 (and also one of the reasons for the change away from .45 calibre sidearms towards .38 and 9mm calibres in the years around and after WWII as well), and FWIW I don’t think there are any major militaries still using a .30-calibre rifle as their main service arm.
Been there, done that. In the companion GD thread, I only half-jokingly quip that Springfield Armory is taking over my gun safe.
Crafter: Re your comments; I have no experience with the current reincarnations of the M-16 but considerable with the piece of crap they issued me in early 1967. Our government was virtually criminal in sending us into combat with a weapon that we could not rely on. On my first patrol, I was almost killed because my M-16 jammed after firing one round (the one in the chamber). You may or may not know that, when they issued us the M-16, they did not issue any cleaning kits. I had to go to the Exchange at Freedom Hill and buy a cxommercial cleaning kit.
Even our military experts didn’t know what was wrong with it. First they told us we were over-lubricating it and they ordered us to clean them in straight gasoline (yes, that’s right, gasoline). Then they decided that the problem was that the weapon was too dry and they mixed diesel fuel in with the gasoline. Then they told ud to use more LSA, Then they told us to use less. Then they said the problem was that we were loading 20 rounds in a 20 round magazine and we should only load 18.
Finally, they said that the ammo was bad. This was a particularly funny (in a sad way) excuse. When we were issued ammo, we would get a can of 5.56 ammo in bandoliers. An M-16 rifleman would take one out of the can and a Recon Marine armed with the Stoners we were field-testing at the time took another from the same can. The M-16 jammed but there was never a problem with any of the Stoners. The M-16 was a BAD design and was unreliable in combat conditions.
By the way, regarding the inaccuracy of the Ak-47, my buddy Ski might be interested in that, except that he’s been dead since late 1967 after bering hit three times in the upper chest//neck by a 3-rounf burst from an Ak.
Semper fidelis; W
Couldn’t edit the earlier post. Here’s the edited/spell-checked version as it was intended.
Dear Crafter: Re your comments; I have no experience with the current reincarnations of the M-16 but considerable with the piece of crap they issued me in early 1967. Our government was virtually criminal in sending us into combat with a weapon that we could not rely on. On my first patrol, I was almost killed because my M-16 jammed after firing one round (the one in the chamber). You may or may not know that, when they issued us the M-16, they did not issue any cleaning kits. I had to go to the Exchange at Freedom Hill and buy a commercial cleaning kit.
Even our military experts didn’t know what was wrong with it. First they told us we were over-lubricating it and they ordered us to clean them in straight gasoline (yes, that’s right, gasoline). Then they decided that the problem was that the weapon was too dry and they mixed diesel fuel in with the gasoline. Then they told us to use more LSA, Then they told us to use less. Then they said the problem was that we were loading 20 rounds in a 20 round magazine and we should only load 18.
Finally, they said that the ammo was bad. This was a particularly funny (in a sad way) excuse. When we were issued ammo, we would get a can of 5.56 ammo in bandoliers. An M-16 rifleman would take one out of the can and a Recon Marine armed with the Stoners we were field-testing at the time took another from the same can. The M-16 jammed but there was never a problem with any of the Stoners. The M-16 was a BAD design and was unreliable in combat conditions.
By the way, regarding the inaccuracy of the Ak-47, my buddy Ski might be interested in that, except that he’s been dead since late 1967 after being hit three times in the upper chest/neck by a 3-round burst from an Ak. No disrespect intended but the Ak was accurate enough for the conditions in which it was used and that’s what counts more than shooting at a target at 300 yards/meters.
Semper fidelis; W
During the Vietnam era, I remember hearing the stories about the jamming problems with the early M16, but have always figured that those were teething problems, and the gun and training was improved and the weapon became a reliable one.
But one other complaint that I also heard was that the gun had a problem when shooting in the foliage of having the bullets easily deflect and ricochet off the leaves and limbs much easier than earlier issued weapons. The small caliber, high velocity ammo didn’t penetrate the jungle as well as expected.
This is just something that I heard often back in the day, but I am wondering if some of the better informed people here could address this for me.
Forget AK-47 vs M-16, if you’re fighting zombies you want a pump action shotgun.
For those who don’t notice, this thread was started 3 years ago and various participants might be no longer active on the boards.
If you’ll think of the nomenclature M-4 as short for a M-16A4 Carbine, it makes a sort of sense. The CAR-15 (Viet Nam era, same time as the M-16A1 was current) was the M-4 before there was an M-4.
The developmental and first issue of M-16s did not have a forward assist. The M-16A1s and all subsequent rifles and varients had a forward assist.
Yep. And the 7.62 NATO round is still in the armory. Not so much the 30.06. Same ballistics.