@ Draugnar -- Why wouldn't you take an M21? Same performance in a semiautomatic system.

@ Jack_Klein -- I'm pretty sure if I ever stated an undisputed fact, you would denounce me and my fact before you even finished reading my post. You automatically criticize me no matter what I say.

Because I'm familiar with the M-40. It was the one shot one kill weapon of choice for the best of the best in the Corps.

The next time you're not spouting off nonsense will be the first.

And just because you don't bother actually reading what other people post doesn't mean the rest of us are guilty. I read everything. In shock, sometimes. Appalled, maybe. But I read it. And then I slap you down.

I think Bask took care of you rather nicely anyhow. He seems to be coming from a background where he's actually had to use rifles in combat, unlike you. Or me, for that matter.

@ Draugnar -- Just out of curiousity, have you ever fired an M14?

No, of course not. The M16A1 was standard issue from 1984-1988, when I was an active duty Marine, and the M40A1 was what we trained on for long distance (>250 yards) marksmanship. Had I been designated with the rifleman, infantry, or scout sniper MOS, I would have been issued an M40 and gone through designated marksman training (or scout sniper if that MOS), but I just got to train and qualify on one while in boot because I had qualified Expert on the M16. I only qualified Sharpshooter on the M40.

You aim for center of mass tmw fool anyone who has ever been in the military knows that.

And every squad has a m249 saw. once again only an idiot should think every squad should have a lmg. That's 30% of your squad occupied with an lmg. If a mission requires one you get one. Idiot.

You aim for center of mass tmw fool anyone who has ever been in the military knows that.

You repeated the same message, fool.

And not every squad has an M249.

Actually, according to what I have read, every fireteam is supposed to have a M249 gunner. Even accounting for the fact that not everything is according to regs, there is more than 1 LMG per squad. I'm sure an Army vet can provide more accurate information.

See, I disagreed with you because you were fucking wrong. Try to do better next time.

im only in army rotc and i know your an imbecile. dont talk about what you dont know shitface

Not every squad has an M249. Some have M240s and they're still not done getting rid of the M60s.

Either way they have support weapons

Conclusion:

TMW, despite having a rather amusing fetish for firearms, doesn't actually know shit about their employment in combat.

I have to say, I'm shocked. I'm sure everybody else is shocked too. Just shocked.

++Jack_Klein

@ centurion1 -- Yeah, but they have different calibers. That's what I'm getting at.

@ Jack_Klein -- Watch the YouTube video about the LWRC PSD that I posted earlier. TWO special ops guys tell Future Weapons about the complete ineffectiveness of 5.56.

They're selling their new toy, and they did not say completely ineffective, those are your words.

wtf, why all the hate here? TMW asks a simple question and everyone shoots him down.

Though, I know in MW1 the m14 is better. in MW2, the m16 is better cause they got rid of the m14...

@ warsprite -- "The guy turned around and looked at the man who'd shot him." I think by most people's definitions, that means "completely ineffective"

Remagen + 1 for asking a good question
Remagen - 1 for the Call of Duty reference

Remagen, go pull up TMW's profile and look at his threads and whatnot. In particular, the McCrystal thread. There IS a reason that we treat him like a crack baby that isn't going to get any better.

Lets see. Complete ignorance of the issues of the average infantryman (as demonstrated by Bask and Centurion. Errors in the armament of the average fireteam in the Army. A serious caliber fetish. Misrepresenting evidence. General asshattery.

Need I go on?

There are tens of thousands of dead who say that's wrong TMW.

I dunno about you kids, but I wouldn't be thrilled if somebody put a .22 round through my center of mass.

There is a reason that we don't use "full sized" rifle rounds in assault rifles. It becomes pointless to arm a soldier with a rifle that is only useful in single shot mode, because full auto or burst fire is wholly inaccurate. I've had a chance to rock and roll with a cut down SAW (I can't remember what the official designation, but its a shortened M249 they keep on submarines), and its tough to control even when you're laying prone with a bipod. And that uses the same round as the M-16.

Just because its a bigger round doesn't necessarily make it better. Also, what is good for Special Forces operators may not be good for an ordinary infantryman... they have different roles and responsibility.

@ Jack_Klein -- I know what an infantryman does these days. 99% marching or sitting around the barracks, and 1% fighting. But when he goes to fight, shouldn't he have a weapon that can get it done, every time? Also, how is my information misrepresenting? An M14 has double the kinetic energy of an M16. That's not misrepresenting information. That's fact.

@ warsprite -- Yeah, if you use it as your main battle rifle for 40 years, it's going to rack up quite a few kills. The M14 family (including the M1 Garand) has racked up quite a few kills as well. Both weapons are sufficiently battle-tested, if that's what you're getting at.

By your argument, you could keep going and say that we should arm every soldier with an automatic grenade launcher. There is an inflection point where just because its bigger doesn't mean its better in the balance.

Ease of transport, easier to aim with a 3 round burst, shares the same caliber as their LMG. There are a lot more considerations than your size-queen argument. The M-14 is reportedly impossible to control when on automatic fire. This would make the M-14 into one of two things for the average soldier: Either its effectively a semi-automatic rifle, or you end up wasting a large amount of ammunition with no effect.

Also, your use of "battle rifle" to describe the M-16 is erroneous. A battle rifle is a rifle that fires a full sized round. The M-14 falls into this category, but the M-16 does not.

Again. Just because its bigger doesn't mean its better. I think my use of the term "fetish" for your hardon for guns is quite appropriate.

@TMW

I hate to repeat myself twice, and with you it goes for a 10th time.

1. A lot of times infantry does not shoot to kill, but to suppress fire. This is not sniping rifle we are talking about here, but an assault rifle. A soldier can carry less ammo with M14, because it is heavier, meaning he will shoot less, which in turn means his enemies will have the opportunity go gain a better position, while he remains in the same area, trying to snipe them under heavy fire. We are talking about real-life situations here, and before you get to think about the kinetic energy of the bullet you are shooting, you need to think as well about the kinetic energy of the bullets the enemy fires at you. Combat is NOT a honorable duel. It is chaos, and in order to control it you don't need high-caliber rifle, but a rifle that can help you suppress the enemy fire.

2. When you are going to use M14, you will carry less ammo with you. Sure, if you are talking about shooting people who just stand and wear body protection, you will probably be better of with an M14 or a sniping rifle. However, your enemy does not stand still and you need to fire to maneuver yourself and him into a position more favorable to you. In addition, very few enemies actually wear body protection, and if they wear body protection, this is your lesser concern, because it means they probably have some pretty heavy weapons with them, and if you don't have firesupport - you are fucked up.

3. And I am not even talking about your qualification regarding real-life combat.

If you want to prove your point, write down 7-10 parameters that you can measure a rifle by. Then, decide which of them gets what weight, and rate each rifle according to these parameters. Calculate the average, and you might get a beginning of an understanding what rifle should infantry use (and for what mission...)

I am not coming from the US army, and you already have 2-3 soldiers from different countries saying that your point of view is plain wrong, but you are not willing to listen. Are you arguing for the sake of argument?

@ Jack_Klein --

The M16 does NOT share ammunition with the M240 or the M60. It only shares ammunition with the M249. The M14 WAS uncontrollable when fired in full auto mode, but that was back in the days before pistol grips and vertical foregrips. A factory M14 with a traditional grip is uncontrollable in full auto. I'm not arguing about that. With pistol grips and vertical foregrips, the recoil goes straight back into the shoulder instead of up, like a traditional grip.

I am well aware of the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle. I've referred to both weapons appropriately multiple times in this thread. I chose to call the M16 a "battle rifle" in my previous post because the US Military has been using it as their main battle rifle (main battle weapon may have been a better choice of words)

In this case, bigger is better. Do I seriously need to provide more proof about the inadequacy of the 5.56? If it doesn't consistently kill in one torso shot, it should be seriously reevaluated and replacements should be considered.

@ Baskineli -- See above. Modified M14s are capable of reasonably controllable fully automatic fire. When you're shooting to kill, nothing tops the M14. Sure, you're going to be able to carry more ammunition with the M16, but you're going to be using a lot more ammunition. That's economically insufficient, if nothing else.

Even in semiautomatic mode, a squad of riflemen equipped with the M14 and an attached M240 team is more than capable of sufficient suppressing/covering fire. High caliber, economically sufficient fire at that.

@TMW

"Even in semiautomatic mode, a squad of riflemen equipped with the M14 and an attached M240 team is more than capable of sufficient suppressing/covering fire. High caliber, economically sufficient fire at that. "

Can you tell me where from do you have the expertise to claim such nonsense? Are you an expert on battle management? Have you ever been in a battle? Do you have some sort of combat training? Did you have the chance to implement this training?

Do you realize that an enemy that will have 3 times the ammo, will pin down your M14 force and eliminate it before it will have the chance to regroup and take better position? This is not Starship Troopers we are talking about here!

Why don't you follow my suggestion, write 7-10 parameters that are actually important for the infantry and see how M14 performs vs M16? Why don't you listen to people who have been in combat and know more on this issue than you do?

And, finally...

WTF??? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ECONOMIC INSUFFICIENCY WHEN IT'S PEOPLE LIVES AT STAKE???

Forget it. I am done arguing with you.

Seriously TMW, if you are so obsessed with killing people in one shot, then why have fully automatic weapons? There's no point, we could all just go back to M1 Garands.