Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57
  1. #11
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandton
    Posts
    8,771

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by krieger View Post
    Lots of people hit with 556 rounds need trauma doctors, ones that are hit with 7.62x51 rarely need one.

    Wounded can still kill you.
    Wounded cost more in resources to 'process' that dead so that's a bit of a swings and roundabouts thing isn't it?

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Stella
    Age
    46
    Posts
    10,870

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    The choice for 5.56x45 over 7.62x51 makes sense if one takes into account that

    - a soldier can carry more ammunition into battle,

    - less recoil means better accuracy,

    - higher bullet speed means worse wounds

    Regarding the choice to replace the M14: historically, some rifles were replaced within a few years simply because something better came along.

  3. #13
    User 414gates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    26 9' 6" S, 28 13' 44" E
    Age
    58
    Posts
    4,696

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Post for information on US forums. Get feedback from the veterans.

  4. #14
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoldierMan View Post
    Ok, help out a newbie here. During the middle of a war, not once it was finished, but in the middle of a war, they decided to change the rifle that the troops were using?

    Isn't that a just plain stupid decision for so many different reasons??

    Reliability of a new weapon in the field and potential faults that might arise.
    Knowing what the new weapon is capable of in a fight vs knowing exactly what your old weapon was capable of.
    Ammo and parts availability.
    Did I say reliability and the soldiers trusting the new weapon.

    I'm sure there is much more.
    The M14 took a lot longer to be replaced in the Marine Corp than the Army, admittedly. The Corp was always last to get new stuff, although that has changed these days. It was a move than many Marines in combat units objected, and some downright refused (I know of one Marine unit that held onto them until '71).

    But agreed, not the smartest decision to introduce the M16 during wartime. The earliest M16 prototypes saw limited use in the hands of Green Berets an advisors, not enough to really get a full perspective on its reliability.

  5. #15
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandton
    Posts
    8,771

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    I'd imagine that the Marine Corps markmanship ethos may also have played a role. Replacing a 'proper' rifle with a 'varminter' probably didn't sit well with everyone.

  6. #16
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ds J View Post
    The choice for 5.56x45 over 7.62x51 makes sense if one takes into account that

    - a soldier can carry more ammunition into battle,

    - less recoil means better accuracy,

    - higher bullet speed means worse wounds

    Regarding the choice to replace the M14: historically, some rifles were replaced within a few years simply because something better came along.
    True, all solid points that made the M16 a better option in some regards. I think the M16A1 was a good option, and if looked after it held up well. The M16A2 and A4 were incredibly fine weapons that would later follow.

  7. #17
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by oafpatroll View Post
    I'd imagine that the Marine Corps markmanship ethos may also have played a role. Replacing a 'proper' rifle with a 'varminter' probably didn't sit well with everyone.
    I would agree with this!

  8. #18
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by 414gates View Post
    Post for information on US forums. Get feedback from the veterans.
    I have had this discussion amongst US firearm enthusiasts. They either seem to love or hate the M14 or M16. But some good discussions.

    Just wanted to get a view from fellow South Africans.

  9. #19
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luker View Post
    The SADF did just that. Took away our R 1`s and gave us R 4`s.
    Very interesting point Luker. My father was issued the R1 during his national service with 5SAI (1979 - 81), then issued with the R4 when he was doing camps with 3 Para Bn. He was no fan of the R4, and always preferred the R1 and AK47..

  10. #20
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Age
    36
    Posts
    72

    Default Re: Replacing the M14 with M16 during Vietnam. Your thoughts?

    Quote Originally Posted by VNI View Post
    The M14 was an obsolete design - it was an M1 Garand modified to take a box magazine and allow select-fire. It's an accurate rifle, but it really does not match up well against an AKM for typical soldiering. The exposed push rod also irks me a bit. Aside from the well-known mistakes, I feel the expedited adoption was a logical decision.

    I have a very good friend who works with trauma patients in far-away lands - typically a 5.56 M193 ball round does a lot more damage than people think. It punches far above its weight. It outclasses the 7.62x39. Put that into a rifle that weighs an insanely light 2.8kg, and everything else makes sense.
    It was the shortest lived US service rifle, agree with some of your points. I just feel that expedited adoption of the M16, before it had really had time to be tested in a tropical environment, was a massive oversight.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •