Originally posted by Mkoll
The M14 and M21 are based on the BAR. The M14 is kind of the exception that proves the rule that the lowest bidder wins though.
The M14 was developed from a long line of experimental weapons based upon the M1 rifle.
The M14 was developed as a means of taking the place of four different weapons systems—the M1 rifle, the M1 Carbine, the M3 "Grease Gun" and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). It was thought that in this manner the M14 could simplify the logistical requirements of the troops if it took the place of four weapons. It proved to be an impossible task to replace all four, and the weapon was even deemed "completely inferior" to the World War II M1 in a September 1962 report by the comptroller of the Department of Defense. The cartridge was too powerful for the submachine gun role and the weapon was simply too light to serve as a light machine gun replacement for the BAR. (The M60 machine gun better served this specific task.)
but it is just too expensive to outfit an entire army with.
It was the standard issue U.S. rifle from 1959 to 1970. The M14 was used for U.S. Army and Marine Corps basic and advanced individual training, and was the standard issue infantry rifle in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea, until replaced by the M16 rifle in 1970. The M14 remains in limited front line service with the United States Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and is also used as a ceremonial weapon. It was the last American "battle rifle" (a term applied to weapons firing full-power rifle ammunition) issued in quantity to U.S. troops. The M14 also provides the basis for the M21 and M25 sniper rifles.
The Springfield archive also indicates the 1.38 million rifles were acquired for just over $143 million, for a unit cost of about $104.
Originally posted by usmc0311
I personally don't like the 5.56/.223 round as is is not that effective against physcos who are drugged up. I have seen men take 4-5 rounds and still keep on coming.
Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by pteridine
Do you have the ballistic data for the 6.5 MPC, preferably in comparison with the other current and proposed rounds? It's been a while since I saw the data on its own, but I don't recall it being better than the 6.8. I could be wrong though. I remember something about having the same amount of powder pushing the larger projectile limited its capability.
Originally posted by Erectus
An expensive change over to a weapon that is only marginally better probably isn't the right thing for the military to do. compared to AKs a scoped or holographic sighted M4 is more effective in just about every way. So why spend billions on a changeover now when the advantage is yours already? Why not wait until something far better comes along? I would like to see something added at the squad level. Maybe one 7.62 rifle for some range and penetration needs. Of course that creates a logistics issue, and the likely chance of an oddball rifle with no ammo half way through a fire fight.
I like the modern options available in the M16. You can do the M16 for open country type stuff, or the M4 for airborne, tanker, urban situations. The modern sights have made the rifle so vastly superior to the clunky old AK that they aren't even in the same league anymore.
Also, we see from this decade of war that the military is capable of quickly implementing new hardware when they see a good enough advantage to warrant it. If they saw a big advantage in something else it would be in the field at least in limited numbers. I'm reminded of WWII when there was a plethora of arms in common hands: M1, BAR, M1 carbine, Thompson, etc.
Originally posted by kneverr
reply to post by KilrathiLG
Friend, yes I know about the examples of the exoskeletons that you listed and yes, we may see a limited amounts in 10-15 years but not as Wertdag suggests.
Wertdag stated: "No point in even moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry. Personal railguns and lasers are only a few years away."
To say that the US military has "no point in moving any further with conventional ballistic weapons for basic infantry"; as if we are at the point of replacing "basic infantry" firearms with "personal railgun and laser guns", is ridiculous.
Again, yes the military is experimenting with very large ship mounted electromagnetic railguns which draw massive amounts of power to fire even a single shot and are still years away from full deployment, if at all.
Never mind the fantasy that we are at the point of replacing basic infantry's conventional firearms for Eraser movie type personal railguns.
edit on 24-4-2012 by kneverr because: link
Originally posted by EyesWideShut
reply to post by pteridine
I'm about to stir the hornets nest, but if you want to get rid of a weapons system... let's DRMO the M9 and get back into the 1911.
Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by usmc0311
Why the heck would you rather see the troops carry a plastic gun made in Croatia over a steel gun made in the USA?
We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.edit on Fri Apr 27 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)
You might bring up A-Stan, ok how about using fire and maneuver with squad level DM's or using the assets you have (STA platoon).