| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alaska Jack
16 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2009 : 21:35:18
|
| Granted that the M1 is not the right weapon for urban, up-close, firefights and armoured patrols. But given the problems with the M4 at the Khost outpost last week where 8 of our warriors died and the fact that they were being shot at by bad guys shooting down at them from a ridge some 200-300yds away, wouldn't our guys have been much better off with four or five M1s? |
Edited by - Alaska Jack on 10/21/2009 21:37:21 |
 |
|
|
RuggedTerrain40
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 22:28:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaska Jack
wouldn't our guys have been much better off with four or five M1s?
Four or five Garands shooting at me? YIKES! When I shot at the Eastern Games this past Spring, I didnt have a clue what I was doing. I worked the pits and didnt have a clue what I was doing. But I do know those 30-06' Hornady rounds going over my head and hitting the berm 25 yards behind me got my attention.
I remember the rapid fire part of the Garand shoot. Whoa.
A rush...I enjoyed that part of the shoot the most. Being in the pits with bullets flying overhead and hitting the berm.
Wouldnt want to get hit by one.
Eric |
|
|
|
RuggedTerrain40
USA
218 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 22:34:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frederick
Be careful you might give someone an idea. Then to save money they would go to CMP!
Nah, theyd go to the M-14 or retool for M1 Garand. I started this thread as a tongue in cheek joke, I wasnt serious. I think the US military is entrenched with the M-16 and M4 carbine and 5.56 mm to change, it would be too big a deal to retool and regear up.
But still, a little joking around never hurt anybody! 
Eric |
|
|
|
ismith
260 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2009 : 23:26:00
|
| I think we definately need to rethink the concept of issuing carbines in the place of rifles. I packed a M-4 with the 101st during OIF 1. |
|
|
|
TL James
USA
277 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 01:49:43
|
| Gentlemen I have no military service,and therefore nothing of any "been there done that signifiance to add", yet wouldn't it be interesting if they went to a .243 rd? Greater knockdown at close range and extended distances. Yet still small enough to carry a healthy combat load of ammo. Recoil still very mild. I've often wondered why the military didn't put this round to use. I mean 308 to 223 is a BIG LEAP,you'd thought they would have looked at a happy medium. Oh and THANK YOU ALL!! For your service to our country! Sincerely Thomas L James |
|
|
|
jerryjeff
USA
653 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 02:59:53
|
| If Accuracy International makes a rifle in .243 there must be something to it. |
|
|
|
cadillacmike
33 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 08:52:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by m270mlrs2
The quality of weapons went down hill after the M1 Garand, M1911a1, M1 Carbines, M14. The 50 cal is still going strong though and all of our 50 Cals are WW2 issue and still running strong. If you stored the M4/M16 series rifles in grease on pallets for 50 years like the M1's, they would be worthless metal. I doubt that any of them would work.
The DESIGN may be pre-WWII, but the manufacture was up until the 70s or later. It was a good design, not too many other countries ever adopted a HMG in .50 caliber (12.7mm for those metrically inclined).
There is however a newer design .50 cal MG on tanks and ICVs. |
|
|
|
Old Schoolr
USA
1247 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 09:26:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by TL James
Gentlemen I have no military service,and therefore nothing of any "been there done that signifiance to add", yet wouldn't it be interesting if they went to a .243 rd? Greater knockdown at close range and extended distances. Yet still small enough to carry a healthy combat load of ammo. Recoil still very mild. I've often wondered why the military didn't put this round to use. I mean 308 to 223 is a BIG LEAP,you'd thought they would have looked at a happy medium. Oh and THANK YOU ALL!! For your service to our country! Sincerely Thomas L James
Or the .276 Pederson. Or .280 British. Or instead of aping the .300 Savage w/ the 7.62 NATO they could have gone to a version of the .250 Savage. |
|
|
|
E-7Ret.
USA
294 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 17:09:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by 32sbct
Another Iraq vet checking in. I love the Garand but I'll stick with what Ive got. I can't imagine trying to manage a rifle with a 24 inch barrel with the current vehicles we use or in a city environment. Don't forget all of the attachments used today, optics, lasers, lights, night vision, etc. I would not want to get into a fight without those. Not to mention the reduced number of rounds you could carry. WW II and Korea were a long time ago. I know there were quite a few vets from those fights who at first were reluctent to use the Garand and wanted to keep the 03 instead. Time marches on.
looks like it marches backwards too.You don't think there was house-clearing in WWII? Korea? Early vietnam? Optics, lasers, lights,night-vision... if you need all that to hit the target you're in the wrong business son. Quit being a technician and learn to shoot.Reduced number of rounds you could carry? There's a reason for that too, it's called about four times the effectiveness. When you only need one round to be effective instead of three or four, you don't need a 400 round issue. Of course, you'd have to go back to a previous answer I gave...learn to shoot, quit letting the techno-crap do it for you.
I'm a retired Msgt. and a combat vet. They've got you kids so screwed up with all the wonder crap you can't see the forest for the trees. |
|
|
|
dave tengdin
USA
881 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 18:02:06
|
| The .276 Pederson? Say, do you suppose the Garand could be made for that?? 10 rounds instead of 8. Ring a ding ding. Not a real rifle if it doesn't ping. |
|
|
|
hunteran
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 19:03:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alaska Jack
But given the problems with the M4 at the Khost outpost last week where 8 of our warriors died and the fact that they were being shot at by bad guys shooting down at them from a ridge some 200-300yds away, wouldn't our guys have been much better off with four or five M1s?
You push any machine past its mechanical limits and it will fail. I read an AP article where a soldier stated that he dumped 12 magazines through his M4 in less than a half hour. Do that to any rifle (including an M1) and it WILL have problems. The fact that they were redlining their rifles exacerbated any maintenance issues that were probably present in the rifles. Read this article for more clarification.
http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/
And in terms of an M1 being the end all be all rifle? They weren't as reliable as you might think. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884292-1,00.html
The fact of the matter is the M4 weapons platform is a very versatile platform and is extremely reliable when its properly cared for. It is accurate, lightweight, its ammunition is lightweight, reliable and fires a cartridge of reasonable power. If you make your shots count, the 5.56mm NATO round is deadly. Even a 30 06 won't drop someone immediately if it isn't in a vital area. Taking down a person is more than just hitting them, you have to hit them in the right place. Doesn't matter if its a .22 or a 7.62, if you don't hit a vital area they can keep on coming.
There's a lively discussion on another forum (caters to mil/leo) about this very same topic and there are some very qualified people backing up the M4 weapons platform. The failure of the weapons at Khost was more than likely due to lack of proper maintenance and exceeding the recommended sustained rate of fire for the weapon systems present. |
Edited by - hunteran on 10/22/2009 19:07:11 |
|
|
|
Alaska Jack
16 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 21:29:36
|
| Hypothetical question: Five of our Marines, each armed with an M1, engage five Taliban, each armed with an M4, at a distance of 300yds. Who wins?? (Assumptions; the Marines are on high ground shooting down at the Taliban; each side has an ample supply of ammunition.) |
|
|
|
M1derful Rifles
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 21:36:15
|
In the heat of battle, with the bad guys shooting back at you with automatic fire, it's not always easy to take well-aimed shots. This is true whether you have an M1 Garand or a modern hi-tech wonder rifle. Sometimes suppressing fire and maneuvering fire is needed to take an objective or to advance on the enemy. That goes for both sides. When you have 5 AK-47s spraying covering fire on your position, and maybe a bad guy or two up on higher ground with an Enfield .303 waiting for someone to show themselves (you don't know that), it's hard to get a well-aimed shot at the 2 bad guys maneuvering behind the rocks. It's not always bad guys over here, good guys over there, fire when ready.
Indeed, many guys on this forum are fans of Band of Brothers. In the hard bound book, on page 152 (talking about the action at the Cross Roads in Holland) - ..."He realized that he had fired a total of fifty-seven clips of M1 ammunition, 456 rounds." ..."German casualties were fifty killed, eleven captured, about 100 wounded." So, in a couple hour engagement, the 35 or so Easy Co. guys hit their target (approx 35 yds away and in the open for the most part) 150 times (give or take) - and one of them (Winters) fired 456 rounds! Anyone's guess as to the total number of small arms rounds fired by Easy. Most of the Germans had bolt-action K98's with some MP-40's. Easy had mostly M1 Garands and Thompsons.
Easy was made up of highly trained Elite Paratroopers, many of whom were seasoned combat veterans by Holland. If every one of them fired well-aimed shots, the Germans would have had 100% casualties and the engagement would have been relatively short. If the Germans used the same tactic of taking well-aimed shots, Easy Co. would have been wiped-out! But, things don't always work out the way you plan it once the first shot is fired.
My father and two uncles carried Garands and fought in Europe in WWII. From the few conversations I had with them about WWII, the weapon of choice for clearing a room or house was a granade. The guy with the Thompson was one of the first guys in. If you tossed a granade into a room, and, god forbid, there was a child in there, it was a tragedy, but, a casualty of war. Today it would be an international incident. The difference between total war and today's ideological war.
As for todays environment and technology - night operations are a part of our tactical doctrine. Lasers and NVG sights give our guys an edge. Even with an M1 Garand, at night, pitch dark, with no or 1/4 moon, you can't take careful aim at something you can't see or hear! With an NVG sight, the bad guy is history! Laser - If I'm on a patrol at night and see something suspicious, I drop, lase it so everyone knows the location and the buds check it out. Absolutely necessary? No. But if you have it, use it to your advantage. Any advantage you can get over the bad guys, take it.
Point I'm trying to make is that there is no easy answers in war. One size doesn't always fit all. All things aren't equal. Every engagement developes differently - no matter how well you train, no matter what equipment you have. Bad guys have a habit of not always following the script. If you are on patrol in the mountains of Afghanistan, your equipment needs are different than the needs of Pvt. Kilroy on patrol in a little dorf or heim in Germany or Cpl. Snuffy in the boonies of VN.
Also, never under-estimate the enemy. The bad guys aren't stupid. And they don't just stand there like a picture of OBL between two pieces of wood at the range. Regardless of what kind of weapons we use in our fight against the bad guys, we know they have AK-47 variations, .303 Enfields and a whole bunch of other guns that go bang when the trigger is pulled - none of which should you be in line with when they go off. While being an expert marksman would obviously be a desirable skill for all our troops to have, the bad guys are continually employing tactics to deny our guys the opportunity to use that skill. Just my $.04. (adjusted for devaluation of the dollar) |
|
|
|
tankerG
539 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2009 : 22:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by 32sbct
...I can't imagine trying to manage a rifle with a 24 inch barrel with the current vehicles we use or in a city environment.....
That's where a tanker Garand comes in.
I knew this was a teaser thread. Our government is too addicted to carbon fiber composites to try and retool for the Garand.
|
Edited by - tankerG on 10/22/2009 22:20:57 |
|
|
|
Mac O Tac
USA
230 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 02:43:35
|
I remmember over the course of my last few years before retiring. While talking ammo, sooner or later some numb nut would always have to regurgatate some statement about the brass for small ammo had been given a new type of coating to prevent the brass from corroding. The big point was that the new coating was suppose to be take from and same as that on lip stick containers. Big Woop!!!! I am sure that if they would dress up a few service grade Springfields and HRAs in new pink composite stocks they could probably resell them to a lot of those acquisition jerks as a new firearm with increased potential over the current modern day M4/M16. Maybe then our kinder gentler killing machine would be NATO approved and politically correct.  |
|
|
|
missilegeek
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2009 : 08:55:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by cadillacmike
The DESIGN may be pre-WWII, but the manufacture was up until the 70s or later. It was a good design, not too many other countries ever adopted a HMG in .50 caliber (12.7mm for those metrically inclined).
There is however a newer design .50 cal MG on tanks and ICVs.
The M2 machine gun is still manufactured by GD. The Army still has SOME American weapons.... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
DOD announces M1 Garand to replace M4 carbines
Forum Locked
