posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 09:41 AM
The M14 never left. Let me start by saying that I used mostly the M16 when I was in the Army (8 years) . I was pretty accurate with little kick and
was generally good in a range situation. It however had the problems that they are seeing in the gulf. I kept mine clean all the time and it would
still jam on too many occasions for me to truly trust it. Not a lot but enough. The 5.56mm also needs to hit major vitals to stop the enemey. The old
M14 was a little too cumbersome for what was needed in Vietnam. It however was great when it came to reliablity, accuracy, firepower.
I now own an springfield M1a and have dropped it into the troy industries mcs. I it amazing. I hear the Sage and Vltor systems are pretty good too. I
have all the good of the M16 and M14 without the bad.
Too bad the Military didn't redesign the M14 with some of the features we are seeing now being used on the M14 paltform. It could have had a shorter
barrel, improved ergonomics, maybe a different round ( somewhere in between the 7.62 and the 5.56) and would have been a much better battle rifle than
the m16 or now M4. (I still can't believe we are still using these things. Isreal is dumping the m4's .)
If the military had done this, we probably would never had looked at the Stoner model. I think the military should figure out a new battle rifle and
in the mean time fit more soldiers with an M14 with some upgrades. We don't always go to wars in jungle and spray and pray. There will never be a
true do it all weapon. There will always be drawbacks to just about anything used. The SCAR and Masada look like some good contenders though.
Interchangable barrels, Modular, etc.... ( I also like the AA12 to be given to a few soldiers in a platoon)
What it all comes down to is keeping our soldiers alive and equiped with the best possible equipment available.
People who make the decisions for our troops have rarely had to be in a real combat situation and don't know what works and is the best for our