M1A and M1 Fail Spectacularly

grinder08 said:
Any depression in a time of rain. I have done it many times in exercises. Clearly a lot of people here have not spent any time in the Military and are commenting on things they simply don't know about. I think the OP's basic thoughts are correct. Military firearms in general have gotten better and more reliable over time. A lot more time is spent in testing modern military firearms in adverse conditions than ever was in the old days. OK the example test was very simplistic but it is pretty hard to cover all the testing done on modern firearms and the basic point is still valid.

Not sure how this thread descended into a discussion of the M16/AR15 and why it had troubles early on. The simple truth is whatever caused the trouble has been corrected and it has turned into a very good firearm. The only real issue remaining are the cartridges it uses and even that has been improved a lot. Personally if I was going into combat I would rather have a modern M16 series rifle than a Garand or M14. I have a collection of WW2 firearms that I really like but I wouldn't want to go into combat with them.
Click to expand...

You said it far too politely ...
 
johnsmith3791 said:
Later posts in this thread has confirmed my opinion that the only answer is to own representative examples of all the food groups- AR's, M14 variants, etc. :)
Click to expand...

This.

I have a lot more trouble mocking the AR-tards since buying one.

Both rifles have their strengths and weaknesses.
 
H2O MAN said:
The modern AR is what it is precisely because they threw enough money at it.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I slepped an SLR around enough to have a pretty decent opinion. The SLR was a good rifle in its time and I prefer the hitting power of the 7.62 BUT the modern M16 variants are more reliable and a lot lighter to carry and are better in 90% of situations faced today. With the new 7 twist barrels and heavy bullets the 5.56 is more effective than it was. So long as a squad has a SAW and a designated marksman with a good 7.62 rifle to deal with long shots then overall a squad is better of with the 5.56. Would I prefer a heavier longer range cartridge? Yes, but at present that is not a military option and with all the testing and investigation of different cartridges and rifles nobody has come up with something that is significantly better than the 5.56 on the M16 platform. Note I said significantly you can argue variations till the cows come home but to justify the huge cost of a change it needs to be significantly better. The Garand was a significant improvement over the Springfield and in the long run the M16 was a significant improvement over the M14 as a general purpose weapon. Otherwise why has every significant military (not just NATO) switched to the same or similar cartridge for their basic weapons.
 
There's no maybe about it.

The modern AR is what it is because they threw a ton of money at it.
Also, I have no problem with the AR. I have owned & shot them for more than 30 years.

Personally, if I had to go to war I would want to carry whatever had the best support no matter what it was.
 
Last edited:
H2O MAN said:
The modern AR is what it is precisely because they threw enough money at it.
Click to expand...

Sure, we will just ignore the fact (despite the initial problems all new platforms go through) it was a better more modern design from the drawing board. (more compact, much better ergonomics, enclosed receiver, lighter, modular).

We will just ignore all those innovations from day one.
 
Interesting... why on earth would they continue to throw money at it for 50 years?

Has nothing been gained over the years?
 
H2O MAN said:
Interesting... why on earth would they continue to throw money at it for 50 years?

Has nothing been gained over the years?
Click to expand...

Because a bunch of government scum bags always get kickbacks, doesn't matter what the product.

Never said the AR was perfect .... but at least it was on the right track from the beginning. M14 was beating a dead horse from the beginning.
 
The AR was on a different track than the M14, and both were on the right track.
The AR got the funding, the M14 didn't.
 
H2O MAN said:
The AR was on a different track than the M14, and both were on the right track.
The AR got the funding, the M14 didn't.
Click to expand...

Well, looks like YOU'RE funding it into what it can be so keep going. After all the changes you'd probably end up at something like a good AR10 type platform like the DPMS Recon G2.

I'll stop wasting my money on the M14 and just move forward.
 
Actually, I really like the post below.

My understanding is that while the 5.56 C8 equivalent was suitable for most occasions, the .308/7.62 proved its worth (in Afghanistan, etc.) at longer ranges. Why have everyone hump an old school rifle like the M14, when that's not what everybody needs? Certainly when I heft an M305 or equivalent, I'm grateful not to be carrying it for an extended period.

And all joking aside, I really doubt that the M21 or M25 would be in use if they weren't up to the job.



grinder08 said:
Maybe, but I slepped an SLR around enough to have a pretty decent opinion. The SLR was a good rifle in its time and I prefer the hitting power of the 7.62 BUT the modern M16 variants are more reliable and a lot lighter to carry and are better in 90% of situations faced today. With the new 7 twist barrels and heavy bullets the 5.56 is more effective than it was. So long as a squad has a SAW and a designated marksman with a good 7.62 rifle to deal with long shots then overall a squad is better of with the 5.56. Would I prefer a heavier longer range cartridge? Yes, but at present that is not a military option and with all the testing and investigation of different cartridges and rifles nobody has come up with something that is significantly better than the 5.56 on the M16 platform. Note I said significantly you can argue variations till the cows come home but to justify the huge cost of a change it needs to be significantly better. The Garand was a significant improvement over the Springfield and in the long run the M16 was a significant improvement over the M14 as a general purpose weapon. Otherwise why has every significant military (not just NATO) switched to the same or similar cartridge for their basic weapons.
Click to expand...
 
H2O MAN said:
Ending up with something like an AR10 would be considered a failure.
Click to expand...

Not with the direction that platform is heading now ... bugs are being worked out, some standardization is creeping in, reliability is improving, modularity is getting better and some of it is crossing with AR15 platform ..

Yup, total fail. :rolleyes:
 
johnsmith3791 said:
Actually, I really like the post below.

My understanding is that while the 5.56 C8 equivalent was suitable for most occasions, the .308/7.62 proved its worth (in Afghanistan, etc.) at longer ranges. Why have everyone hump an old school rifle like the M14, when that's not what everybody needs? Certainly when I heft an M305 or equivalent, I'm grateful not to be carrying it for an extended period.

And all joking aside, I really doubt that the M21 or M25 would be in use if they weren't up to the job.
Click to expand...

Yes, grinder08 did make a very good and realistic post.

Indeed, the M21 and M25 are up for the job with what they had on hand at the time. However, it makes a lot of sense to fund improving the AR10 platform for the 7.62 roll on many levels from this point on. From familiarity to the AR15 series, to standardizing as many parts to the AR15 as possible, etc. etc.
 
The amount of people who go into denial mode when they watch these videos is funny. The point of their videos is for years people have been saying the M1 action and the AKM are more reliable than an AR-15 but they put these rifles in the harshest conditions yet the AR-15 comes out on top as the more reliable gun. Generally what the masses think is wrong.
 
The number of people that think these videos are in any way a
valid measure of how a weapon functions is funny in a sad way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom