Had it with the M16/M14/XM8/AK threads

What did you mainly carry in combat?

  • M16

    Votes: 17 44.7%

  • M14

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • AK-47

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • M4

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • M249

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • M240/ M60

    Votes: 4 10.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Total voters
    38
I

IZinterrogator

New member
Okay, I am sick of everyone posting about M16 ineffectiveness and soldiers using AKs instead of their issue weapons when this is all based on rumors and innuendo they have heard. So, to those who have fought in combat (Vietnam, Urgent Fury, Just Cause, Desert Storm, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, etc.), if you had a longarm, what did you carry? If you would have rather had something else, please post it below. I had an M16A2 for a longarm and I wouldn't have given it up for anything, given my mission. If I had been out in Al Anbar province patrolling the desert instead of in the city, I would have wanted an M14, but the M16 was as close to perfect as I needed.
 
I was authorized to carry an HK G3... very effective weapon, which developed my passion for H&K.

Semper Fi.
 
The innefectiveness of the 5.56 round is not being spread by 'rumour and innuedno'. It is a varmint round and is used because it wounds rather than kills.

I think most people have the intelligence to separate the round from the gun, and regard the M16 in its current form to be an excellent and dependable rifle. As for the round it is chambered for- BLAH!!!
 
Lawyer Daggit

I saw allot of guys killed with that ineffective round. Funny thing was I don't think they would have been any deader with a bigger bullet.

And the military urban legend about wounding vice killering is just rehashed BS, brought to us by the same people who claim you cannot use 50s or WP on troops in the open and Russians build their weapons slightly larger so they can use captured Western Ammo.
 
Last edited:
There was nothing wrong with the M-16 after they took out the bugs. The real problem was the ammo. If we able to use hollow points or copper jacketed soft points, it would have been a different story.
It drove me insane to think that the government sent me overseas for the soul purpose to kill, or be killed, but yet they dictated to me what kind of ammo I had to use? Bizzare thinking.
My company had the "anything goes" attitude. We used any and all the weapons we could find to fit the situation.
The AK-47 was the perferred weapon of choice over the M-16. The projectile did not deflect as easily, and it had more knock down power. Additionally, when I was in Vietnam 67/68, 30 round mags for the M-16 were not easy to find, mostly 20 rounders. All the AK's had 30 rounders, giving you more fire power.
Eventually, we had to give the AK's up. So many guys had them that at night time it was difficult to tell who the enemy or friendly's were. Since the AK had a distinct "crackle" to it when it fired, most guys fired at the muzzle flash or crackle sound. As a result, we had some casualities due to friendly fire.
 
M16a2

I used an M16A2 and would not have traded for one damn thing you could have offered me.
In our battalion, even touching an enemy weapon without permission from chain of command was grounds for a feild grade article 15.(although our armorer did secret away a Sten for quite some time).
That being said, I can think of times I would have liked to have an additional weapon. A Ruger P-series .45 would have made me a happy camper.

I can tell you all kinds of stories about the effectiveness of the round, but my personal experience with it is this.

I shot 2 people with it, they are dead.

I also engaged several vehicles, fighting positions, and buildings. I will not comment on them just because there is no way to measure effectiveness in that situation.
 
Speaking of 'rumour and innuedno':
It is a varmint round and is used because it wounds rather than kills.
Click to expand...
Lawyer, cite me ONE military or even half way decent literary source for this factoid. You are repeating old crap that has no basis in the history of the AR15's development or adoption.

I'd really like to know why you feel the need to repeat this jem that you have no factual basis for.
 
(jailbait says)
i think this topic has been way over done.

personally, give me anything firing 7.62 or better (.308 .300winmag). That includes the ak47, sks, or siaga series weapons. oh, and fals....
 
I carried an IW Steyr AUG for many years and I really rate them. I would much rather have the extra rounds and lightness of a 5.56mm than the 120 rounds we were carrying in the L1A1 days.
 
I think most people have the intelligence to separate the round from the gun, and regard the M16 in its current form to be an excellent and dependable rifle. As for the round it is chambered for- BLAH!!!
Click to expand...

I will agree with you there ;) 'Cept I wouldn't be caught dead with a plastic gun. :barf: Just personal preference is all.
 
Let's see, so far only one guy who carried the AK-47 in preference to an issue weapon, and that was 37+ years ago. So where are all the guys who ditched their weapons and picked up enemy AKs? According to the internet commandos and mall ninjas, entire divisions have put their M16s/ M4s away in the arms rooms and grabbed enemy weapons and ammo that they picked up. Here's a little inside info for those with no experience in small-unit level tactics: You don't always hold your fire until you have a clean shot. If I am engaging someone who is barricaded behind something that a .50 cal is not going to go through, I'm still going to lay down suppressive fire on the barricade, probably about one round per second. Why? So the BG keeps his head down and does not engage my wingman while he bounds forward to a closer firing position. I expect him to do the same when I bound past him closer to the BG. This will continue until we get close enough to flank around the barrier. So why should I carry heavier ammo? I won't be able to carry as much 7.62 as I carry in 5.56 without overexerting myself. As a matter of fact, eight M16 magazines, two M9 magazines, a GPS, an infrared beacon, and first aid gear completely filled up the front of my Interceptor body armor, so I didn't have any extra room for AK mags. If I had mounted them lower on my vest than the M16 mags to make up for the space, they would have interfered with my legs. So, by accepting lighter and smaller rounds, I can carry more ammo, allowing me to perform my tactics longer than I would with less, but possibly (nothing is a definite) more effective ammo.

Jonathon, if you don't want to carry a plastic gun or 5.56 ammo, don't join the military. It's an all-volunteer force, nobody is going to make you join.
 
IZinterrogator.....If a .50 Cal. would not do the trick, I would assume that it was mounted on something that had more fire power. Use the 106 Recoiless Rife, Laws Rockets, hand grenades, or whatever fancy shoulder fire weapon they use today. My experience was never expose or jepardize the life of any of your men until you have exhaused every means to take an objective. Call for fire support first, unless it's "Urgent" that you take the objective.
As for carrying more ammo I would agree if your beating the bush and miles from any supply line like it was in Vietnam. However, in todays fighting, I don't think our troops are as isolated from the supply line as we were 37+ years ago. From what I hear and see (My VFW adopted the 301st Regt. which is in Iraq as I type) the troops need toilet articles more than ammo. Never have I heard of any need for ammo. The supply line is right on their heels. For Pete's sake, they don't even drink water from their canteens, many if not all the troops over there drink bottled water! Times have changed on the battle field but one thing has not, people still die.
God Bless the troops and lets keep the flags flying for them!
 
TPAW, the biggest gun on my team is a SAW until we reconfigure under the new UA system. Then it is supposed to be a M240. We'll see. My point, though, was that in urban fighting, you can't always call in the big guns. Nobody has ever cleared a house with a howitzer.

As for resupply, my friend fought in Mogadishu. The worst experience he had there was being in the middle of a firefight trying to cram stripper clips in his mags because they had shot the mags dry. So why would he want to start with less shots? For that matter, why would I want to start with less?
 
w4lkr,

I was authorized to carry an HK G3... very effective weapon, which developed my passion for H&K.

Semper Fi.
Click to expand...

What unit in the USMC issues the G3?

I found this comment curious enough to make me do a little digging. That led to me finding this thread, where you mention your 19 year-old son, and this one, where you mentioned having your MAC-10 since '85. Now, in this thread you explain that you're a 27 year-old ex-USMC E-5 with a $250k mortgage, paid off '04 Accord, tats, and a motivated outlook on life. I'd say you're motivated! Heck, it must take a lot of motivation to get your first NFA weapon at age seven and to become a father at age eight! :eek:
 
IZinterrogator......Every situation is approached accordingly, and tactics will vary depending on who's calling the shots. Both good and bad decisions were made in the past, and I'm sure the trend will continue in the future.
Your statement "Nobody has ever cleared a house with a howitzer" is amusing. During the battle of Kontum City in Vietnam, and other cities like it, we called in many fire missions to level buildings where the enemy was hiding before we moved in. And I must say, the howitzers did an excellent job! I take my hat off to the Red Leg Guys. A good fire base can drop them on a dime! It was SOP. If necessary, Tac Air support was also called in. Why put good men in harms way when the big guns can vaporize your target? Let the tanks and dusters clear the way as well, those guys love to vent! They too, do a great job. After all is said and done, we grunts move in.
Hey, this can go round and round. Every situation is different and calls for different stragities. If this were a boxing match I'd say it's a draw. Besides, our government is fighting a surgical and politically correct police action. In my police action, like WW2, it was "level everything!"
Sounds like your still in the service? If so, my best to you and thank you for serving. If I was not old, fat and gray, I would be proud to serve with you.
Let's thank God we are here to talk about it.
 
We had the M-14, being we were a communications outfit, mostly stationary except for convoy runs, then we had M-3 grease guns, as backups on the truck. The M-14 was a good rifle although a bit heavy with 6 mags,as compared to the M-16 which most of the inf. guys carried. In 67-68 we had an assortment of weapons at our disposal, Stevens shotguns, M-3, a few Thompsons, M-60, M-2, M-79, M-72 LAW, and just about everyone had a 45acp. :)
 
TPAW, it's the ROE these days. You know how that goes. What was acceptable during your service would be a media nightmare during mine. Remember the tank that shot the sniper in Baghdad in April '03? Killed a few journalists that were staying in the hotel also and caused us big problems with the press. You're right that this will go around and around. When you were in the Army, I bet you could fire counterbattery fire all day if it was warranted. We haven't been able to do that since the interim government took over. These days, we just lock the UAV onto the shooter and send a helicopter to do the job. :D It's a little cleaner. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top