Jump to content

The Next US Assault Rifle


Recommended Posts

Never having been in combat, I don't have the right to make comments either way on the performance of the M4/M16 during actual wartime conditions but I can state that even during peacetime exercises back in my day, I encountered more than a few jams with my M-16A1 / A2 during exercises (and yes, I kept my weapon clean). All of them were cleared quickly but it definitely made me wonder how reliable this weapon would be in a sustain engagement, especially after reading about how the AK-47 / 74 series was basically unstoppable under even the worst conditions.

Like you, my experience with the M16A1 has been during peacetime, and I don't know that I much more to add to this (interesting) discussion, but I'll put in my 2 cents anyway. I never personally experienced a jam, but like you I kept my weapon clean. I have seen M16s jam, however, and most of the time the problem was a magazine feeding issue, often from rounds not being loaded properly in the stripper clips, or the rounds being dirty - almost invariably it was a human error, not a mechanical issue. I did see a round cook off prematurely in another soldier's M16, with me being on the receiving end of the crap that blew out of the side of that guy's rifle - that was definitely an ammo failure. Lots of people talk about M16 reliability with the idea that the weapon itself is the only factor - not many people talk about how good the ammo or the magazines are. The other factor is the soldier carrying and shooting the weapon. I've seen people drop magazines, bang them up when loading them etc and then complain about their weapon.

From a procurement standpoint, the Army will have the same issue as in buying camouflage - what is the best rifle to equip the force (over a million people), which is to be used by the average soldier? And we will always have situations (specific firefights) which people will point to to prove the inadequacy of whatever weapon is chosen, because in truth no one weapon will be perfect in every situation.

Whatever they pick, it's got to be light but rugged, easy to tear down and clean, good for firefights at relatively close ranges, but maybe with an available barrel mod which can reach out for longer distances. I'd go for a single shot, burst, and full-auto capability, with appropriate training.

I don't care who designs it (U.S. or an ally), but it should be manufactured in the U.S.

I don't know how Army marksmanship training is these days. In my day (70s) it was adequate but not great. It was what you would expect a large army to do to process as many people through as possible with the maximum amount of minimally-trained people. What I found interesting in BCT was that most of the people who had previous shooting experience (for the most part country boys) were actually poor shots, as they were self-taught, and people with no shooting experience could become better marksmen as they did not have to be untaught bad shooting habits. That's another whole subject...

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afghanistan was better suited for the plain jane M14 rifle a lot of the time, but would have been an bear to hump at that altitude.

Urban warefare is best suited for shotguns and grenades. Done right it's a bear, and done wrong it's often fatal. That's why somebody invented the WP grenade

gary

Most Infantry squads have at least one M14 usually two so at the team level you have at least one. I'm telling you guys range hasn't been an issue in a long, long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you agree that he may not have invented it, but he pretty much perfected it?

I'm not sure "perfected" is the right word. It's a good, reliable, easy to manufacture by semi-skilled labor rifle, which is the Soviet design philosophy. But it's not perfect by any means. It gets it's reliability partially by loose tolerances, with a resulting decrease in accuracy. The safety lever is awkward to operate, can be somewhat stiff, and requres you to take the safety off to unload the chamber. The rear sight is forward mounted, so the sighting radius is short. Also, the design doesn't really make it easy to add rails for accessories or optics (although later AKs like the -74 added a rail on the left side of the receiver where a specialized scope mount could attach to). However, I will agree that for unsophisticated troops in harsh environments to use, it is a much better choice than an AR or other Western guns, which require more maintenance to keep running reliably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day.

This is an interesting discussion and echoes ones I had a lot of times in the Australian Regular Army.

Ranger74, one of the weapons I carried in infantry was the L1A1 SLR. It's longer than the M14 (46"), yet I never had problems with it getting caught in undergrowth that you describe, even when moving through the really thick jay on the Thai-Malay border. I did have problems with "affectionate vegetation" at times when carrying the M-60, moreso when I had to carry the L4A4 Bren for a while in close country, so I wonder if it's more to do with the shape of the rifle front end (particularly the fore-sight) rather than length?

Ross, the L1A2 was an automatic rifle designed to be used by non-combat arms personnel, rather than giving them an M-60/MAG-58/L4A4 Bren. It wasn't designed as an auto replacement for the L1A1. And the coated paper from a cigarette packet worked much better than a matchstick- it was easier to spot when cleaning the weapon, so you wouldn't forget to remove it (not that I ever committed the offence of illegally modifying a weapon's operation, of course :whistle: ).

I had to leave infantry well before we changed over to the F-88 (Steyr), but I did carry the M-16A1 as a scout and the M-203 version of same. Neither were as accurate as the SLR on the range. More importantly to me, when I joined in '75 about half the battalion were blokes who'd been to VN- and some of them refused to carry the M-16, citing many examples of having shot someone and not hit bone (the round is small enough to go between ribs), so the round went straight through without transferring much kinetic energy to the target. They'd usually go down when hit, but they'd rejoin the fight or bolt and have to be chased down. A hit from the SLR or M-60 was a different matter, especially if hit in the upper leg or chest. In Malayasia one of our blokes was hit in the thigh with a 5.56mm round- it went through the front of the thigh and it slowed Pete down, but it wasn't until it became infected two days later that he was CASEVACED (the Malaysian RMO didn't debride the wound, he just sewed the entry and exit wounds up). A similar hit from a 7.62mm on a live fire exercise took the bloke out- as well as ripping the muscle the transferred energy cracked the femur.

When we went to the F-88 most infantry blokes were very reluctant to "step down" to 5.56mm, though the F-88 was more accurate on the range than the SLR (we shot out to 500m, with a 200mm-8"- V bull). That lasted until 1 RAR went to Baidoa in Somalia in '93. They were using the new SS109 round and there were few complaints about stopping power from the blokes that came back and the old hands said it was as good as the L1A1 at doing the job. I also found it was easier to teach people how to shoot with the F-88- the optical sight made it easier for them to take a good sight picture and the slight recoil meant they easily learned no to flinch when firing.

These days our SF tend to use the M-4 in Afghanistan while the others use the F-88 in various versions. The SF blokes only prefer the M-4 because of all the different attachments available. Even with that, some prefer the F-88 with a top rail, as it gives them the ability to change sights that they want. Some prefer the M-4 over the F-88 as the better weapon, some go the other way.

Universally despised is the F-89 Minimi (your SAW). It's an over-complicated automatic rifle that just doesn't work for our doctrine. So our blokes are going back to the MAG-58 as the section GPMG. It's a pity they don't make the old M-60 (the original mark, not the later modified-to-ineffectiveness models). Having carried both, I believe the M-60 was a much better weapon. It could be carried without a sling, being much better balanced, and you can cover your arcs as easily as with an SLR. More importantly it's easier to clean and in the tropics or hot, dry environments the M-60 keeps going when the MAG-58 stops.

Just some thoughts from an old dinosaur.

Dal.

Editted for typo's- and I've still probably missed a couple.

Edited by Dal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Universally despised is the F-89 Minimi (your SAW). It's an over-complicated automatic rifle

I always joked that the SAW was "double the firepower at triple the weight" The big selling point for the SAW was that it had a magazine well that could take M-16 magazines, that of course jammed on reflex and was never used. Someone pulled that off though... "It'll take M-16 Mags you say?! I'll take 1,000,000!! wow! what a versatile weapon!! No, no, no I'm sure its a feature that works fine --no need to try it out. Do you take checks? Why Yes, I am actually looking for work when I retire how did you know?"

I have a feeling that whatever it is may be "extra safe" like the M-9s heavy first pull... Really no fan of the M-9 either. One of my friends who qualed on the M-9 for his MOS was told to "Forget the first round, its not going to hit where you want" Interesting theory.

Heres an article about the Army banning PMAGS:

In Reversal, Army Bans High-Performance Rifle Mags

May 25, 2012

Military.com| by Matthew Cox

1.1K Add a Comment

The Army has ordered that soldiers may use only government-issued magazines with their M4 carbines, a move that effectively bans one of the most dependable and widely used commercial-made magazines on today’s battlefield.

The past decade of war has spawned a wave of innovation in the commercial soldier weapons and equipment market. As a result, trigger-pullers in the Army, Marines and various service special operations communities now go to war armed with commercially designed kit that’s been tested under the most extreme combat conditions.

Near the top of such advancements is the PMAG polymer M4 magazine, introduced by Magpul Industries Corp. in 2007. Its rugged design has made it as one of the top performers in the small-arms accessory arena, according to combat veterans who credit the PMAG with drastically improving the reliability of the M4.

Despite the success of the PMAG, Army officials from the TACOM Life Cycle Management Command issued a “safety of use message” in April that placed it, and all other polymer magazines, on an unauthorized list.

The message did not single out PMAGs, but instead authorizes only the use of Army-issued aluminum magazines. The message offers little explanation for the new policy except to state that “Units are only authorized to use the Army-authorized magazines listed in the technical manuals.” Nor does it say what Army units should now do with the millions of dollars’ worth of PMAGs they’ve purchased over the years.

Magpul officials have been reluctant to comment on the issue. Robert Vidrine, vice president of marketing and sales, said the company found out about TACOM’s message only after it was released to the field.

The decision has left combat troops puzzled, since the PMAG has an Army-approved national stock number, which allows units to order them through the Army supply system.

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

“The PMAG is a great product … lightweight and durable. I have seen numerous special ops teams from all services pass through here, and they all use PMAGs. Also, a large amount of Marine infantry here use PMAGS, including their Force Recon elements.”

TACOM officials said the message was issued because of “numerous reports that Army units are using unauthorized magazines,” TACOM spokesman Eric Emerton said in a written response to questions from Military.com. Emerton added that only “authorized NSNs have ever been included in the technical manuals. Just because an item has an NSN, does not mean the Army is an authorized user.”

This seems to be a complete policy reversal, since PMAGs are standard issue with the Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and they have been routinely issued to infantry units before war-zone deployments.

Soldiers from B Troop, 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, had been issued PMAGs before deploying to Afghanistan in 2009. On Oct. 3 of that year, they fought off a bold enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating that lasted for more than six hours and left eight Americans dead. Some soldiers fired up to 40 PMAGs from their M4s without a single stoppage.

Militay.com asked TACOM officials if the Army had discovered any problems with PMAGs that would warrant the ban on their use. TACOM officials would not answer the question and instead passed it off to Program Executive Office Soldier on Thursday evening before the four-day Memorial Day weekend.

TACOM’s message authorizes soldiers to use the Army’s improved magazine, which PEO Soldier developed after the M4 finished last against three other carbines in a 2007 reliability test. The “dust test” revealed that 27 percent of the M4’s stoppages were magazine related.

The improved magazine uses a redesigned “follower,” the part that sits on the magazine’s internal spring and feeds the rounds into the M4’s upper receiver. The new tan-colored follower features an extended rear leg and modified bullet protrusion for improved round stacking and orientation. The self-leveling/anti-tilt follower reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants, PEO Soldier officials maintain. Soldiers are also authorized to use Army magazines with the older, green follower until they are all replaced, the message states.

Military.com asked the Army if the improved magazine can outperform the PMAG, but a response wasn’t received by press time.

The same infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan had this to say about the new and improved magazine:

“Like any magazine, they work great when they are brand new and haven’t been drug through the dirt and mud. I haven’t noticed much of a difference between these tan followers and the older green ones. After some time training up for the 'Stan, the same issues started to occur: double feeds, rounds not feeding correctly so on and so on. While it seems to occur about half as often, it’s still not a great solution.

“The magazines still get bent at the opening and are still prone to getting crushed in the middle. I haven’t seen any issues like this with the PMAG due to the polymer casing. I have seen an empty PMAG get run over by a MaxPro [vehicle] and operated flawlessly later that week when we tested it at the range. Last time I saw this happen to a standard issue magazine, it was scrap metal after that.”

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/05/25/in-reversal-army-bans-high-performance-rifle-mags.html

“This just follows a long line of the Army, and military in general, not listening to the troops about equipment and weaponry,” said one Army infantryman serving in Southwest Afghanistan, who asked not to be identified.

Whatever, you got to vote on PT Gear Mr. Not be identified.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always joked that the SAW was "double the firepower at triple the weight" The big selling point for the SAW was that it had a magazine well that could take M-16 magazines, that of course jammed on reflex and was never used. Someone pulled that off though... "It'll take M-16 Mags you say?! I'll take 1,000,000!! wow! what a versatile weapon!! No, no, no I'm sure its a feature that works fine --no need to try it out. Do you take checks? Why Yes, I am actually looking for work when I retire how did you know?"

The SAW was a bit problematic (we were issued early versions, maybe they have been improved since then). Using M-16 magazines was a joke but honestly, the weapon was designed to put out sustained automatic fire. We were always told that using 30-rd mags was a last-resort mode of operation, only used if you had fired off all your belted rounds.

As much as the SAW might have been lacking, it was an improvement over the Army's previous automatic weapon which was nothing more than a standard M16 with a cheap, $10 detachable bipod. The automatic rifleman was given a few extra mags of 5.56 and was told to fire his weapon on full auto. A cheap, if not particularly elegant solution, I suppose. Not sure how the Corp did things back then.

As a last general note on infantry weapons, I find that post above by DAL to be surprising. I've never heard of anyone who spoke favorably of the M60 MG (affectionately known as the "pig" back in my days). It was heavy, also needed meticulous maintenance and didn't seem all that reliable. The MAG-58 (the slightly modified US version is the M240B) was supposed to be one of the finest 7.62 MG's out there. They were issued after my time so I have no personal knowledge, just going on what I have read and from comments of some OIF veterans I know.

To be honest, I was absolutely shocked that the US went with the 240 in lieu of a homegrown solution. Why go with a proven winner when you can invent your own heavy MG, with all the bells and whistles that the US tends to really love? Proof that once in a while, the US Army can make the correct procurement decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the SAW is rotating bolt, kind of like the M16 (but more like the FN FNC aka Ak 5, the preferred weapon of the Swedish Army, where I learned to miss), while the M240 uses a locking lever design.. well, anyway, neither are too hard to dismantle and put together again. Well, anyway, I guess that anyone proficient enough to take apart any type of gun, would manage any other type - they are not that complicated nowadays, and that´s for a good reason I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAW was a bit problematic (we were issued early versions, maybe they have been improved since then). Using M-16 magazines was a joke but honestly, the weapon was designed to put out sustained automatic fire. We were always told that using 30-rd mags was a last-resort mode of operation, only used if you had fired off all your belted rounds.

As much as the SAW might have been lacking, it was an improvement over the Army's previous automatic weapon which was nothing more than a standard M16 with a cheap, $10 detachable bipod. The automatic rifleman was given a few extra mags of 5.56 and was told to fire his weapon on full auto. A cheap, if not particularly elegant solution, I suppose. Not sure how the Corp did things back then.

As a last general note on infantry weapons, I find that post above by DAL to be surprising. I've never heard of anyone who spoke favorably of the M60 MG (affectionately known as the "pig" back in my days). It was heavy, also needed meticulous maintenance and didn't seem all that reliable. The MAG-58 (the slightly modified US version is the M240B) was supposed to be one of the finest 7.62 MG's out there. They were issued after my time so I have no personal knowledge, just going on what I have read and from comments of some OIF veterans I know.

To be honest, I was absolutely shocked that the US went with the 240 in lieu of a homegrown solution. Why go with a proven winner when you can invent your own heavy MG, with all the bells and whistles that the US tends to really love? Proof that once in a while, the US Army can make the correct procurement decision.

I carried the hog for four long and agonizing months in early 68, and simply couldn't wait for a new warm body to dump it on! The weight of the gun was bad enough, but it was all the other crap that you had to have with you that killed you (barrels, cleaning kits, etc). I was still stuck with it for the next ten months off and on when we did CA's thanks to a first sargent that loved me dearly (that's what he said). I don't think I ever fired on anybody past the 350 yard mark, and most of the time in was under 125 yards. The caliber was good, but the weight got to you in the 115 degree heat at altitude. What they should have done was to copy the MG42 in a short 30 caliber round ( kinda like a 6.8 case necked upto 30 caliber). Try to take two or three pounds out of the weapon and also give you lighter ammo. S.F. and SOG used a modified RPD that shot very well, but was still noisey. Still was on the right track. The best squad light machine gun ever made was (and still is) the MG42. Perhaps a light machine gun in the newer 6.8SPC round setup to shoot 130 grain bullets?

The M16 was put in combat a year and a half too soon. I was issued an M16 that actually had the "AR15" logo cast into the reciever. It had the short buffer and the light weight spring with all the standard black stuff internally. Shot like a buzz saw! They repossesed it one morning in January and replaced the buffer spring with a much heavier one (I wasn't having any problems with the light one). Then came back and changed the buffer and spring again a week or two later. About a month later they replaced the whole top end with the newer stuff, but no frward assist like the FNG's were being issued. Didn't matter much as the only time I ever used it was back in the base camps. Even later I was given a CAR15, and it was a real POS!! But I could sling it on my backside while jumping out the side of a Huey (as if 110lb. wasn't enough weight to haul around). While this was going on my first sargent carried an old M2 Carbine! Perhaps he knew something the rest of us didn't.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SAW was a bit problematic (we were issued early versions, maybe they have been improved since then). Using M-16 magazines was a joke but honestly, the weapon was designed to put out sustained automatic fire. We were always told that using 30-rd mags was a last-resort mode of operation, only used if you had fired off all your belted rounds.

As much as the SAW might have been lacking, it was an improvement over the Army's previous automatic weapon which was nothing more than a standard M16 with a cheap, $10 detachable bipod. The automatic rifleman was given a few extra mags of 5.56 and was told to fire his weapon on full auto. A cheap, if not particularly elegant solution, I suppose. Not sure how the Corp did things back then.

As a last general note on infantry weapons, I find that post above by DAL to be surprising. I've never heard of anyone who spoke favorably of the M60 MG (affectionately known as the "pig" back in my days). It was heavy, also needed meticulous maintenance and didn't seem all that reliable. The MAG-58 (the slightly modified US version is the M240B) was supposed to be one of the finest 7.62 MG's out there. They were issued after my time so I have no personal knowledge, just going on what I have read and from comments of some OIF veterans I know.

To be honest, I was absolutely shocked that the US went with the 240 in lieu of a homegrown solution. Why go with a proven winner when you can invent your own heavy MG, with all the bells and whistles that the US tends to really love? Proof that once in a while, the US Army can make the correct procurement decision.

standard combat load in my day was twenty one mags, and three belts of 7.62 (everybody but the radio guy). I had a guy with an M79 looking over my shoulder with about sixty rounds of HE and a dozen buckshot rounds. He also had a CAR15 slung on his back. Even the first sargent carried the three belts plus a half dozen M16 mags for a just in case. Never ran out of belts (15 total), but got down to two full mags a couple times. Always kept my 45 under my ammo vest, as a guy with a pistol was a special target. The real problem with a heavy machine gun (like the M2) was lack of mobility. Your pretty much stuck in one place.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I carried the hog for four long and agonizing months in early 68, and simply couldn't wait for a new warm body to dump it on! The weight of the gun was bad enough, but it was all the other crap that you had to have with you that killed you (barrels, cleaning kits, etc).

The best squad light machine gun ever made was (and still is) the MG42.

When I joined my first unit as a "cherry", the happiest guy in my platoon was the ex-cherry who I replaced as an A-gunner on our M60 team. The assistant gunner had to haul the spare barrel, tripod, T&E gear, etc, in addition to some extra ammo for the 60 and his own M16, 5.56 ammo, etc. The job sucked, plus you didn't even get the satisfaction of firing the damned thing. I think the only guys who carried a heavier load were the mortar folks.

With regard to the MG42, I remember hearing that the M60 was heavily based on this weapon (no pun intended). Never having seen an MG42, I can't comment but again, it seems like it would have been simpler to just adopt the superior weapon (as the modern German and other NATO armies did) rather than trying (and apparently failing) to selectively copy certain parts and then add them to your own design. That is why I am still stunned that they actually used logic 50 years later and opted for the 240 as the replacement for the "pig".

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I joined my first unit as a "cherry", the happiest guy in my platoon was the ex-cherry who I replaced as an A-gunner on our M60 team. The assistant gunner had to haul the spare barrel, tripod, T&E gear, etc, in addition to some extra ammo for the 60 and his own M16, 5.56 ammo, etc. The job sucked, plus you didn't even get the satisfaction of firing the damned thing. I think the only guys who carried a heavier load were the mortar folks.

With regard to the MG42, I remember hearing that the M60 was heavily based on this weapon (no pun intended). Never having seen an MG42, I can't comment but again, it seems like it would have been simpler to just adopt the superior weapon (as the modern German and other NATO armies did) rather than trying (and apparently failing) to selectively copy certain parts and then add them to your own design. That is why I am still stunned that they actually used logic 50 years later and opted for the 240 as the replacement for the "pig".

I ran into a Thai platoon that was using a modern copy of the MG42 chambered in 7.62x51. They let me shoot the thing, and it was love at first sight! It was actually controllable shooting off hand! I liked the way they setup their feeding system, Offered to clean it, and the removed the barrel (hot) in about three seconds! But what I thought most usefull was that you could change the barrel without having to touch it! The 42 seemed to have a better balance built into it, and aside from the fact that the 60 and the 42 kinda looked a like; they were different. We didn't have an assistant gunner! You humped the whole shebang, but I usually got a couple guys to take the extra barrels. We all carried extra radio batteries and a spare antenna for the radio. The SOG Rpd had the barrel cut back to about 18" or so with an M14 flash supressor. The stock was also cut back to about 12". The saftey lever and other stuff was modified to quiet them down a bit. Must have seen two dozen of them during my tour. How they shot? I have no idea, but they must have liked them. I was kinda lucky in that all we did was CA into selective hills and mountain tops to recon them to see if we could move into the place. Most of the time there was infantry within a klick, but other times they landed three klicks away on another hill top. Sometimes you never saw anything but elephant grass, and other times you got shot at. Lots of times we were only there about three minutes and pulled out as it was unusable. More than once they dropped us onto the wrong hill several klicks away! That's not a good thing at all. You learned to make adjustments the next time you did this, and it just got smoother as time rolled by, but it never was comfortable. We setup a drag bag made out of an old dufflel bag, and the door gunner kicked out a case of C-Rats as they pulled out.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day, 11Bee.

As a last general note on infantry weapons, I find that post above by DAL to be surprising. I've never heard of anyone who spoke favorably of the M60 MG (affectionately known as the "pig" back in my days).

The M-60 wasn't perfect (and some hated it- usually the ones that hated digging, patrolling, work parties, PT, etc), but as a section (squad) gun it served better than the MAG-58 for a number of reasons:

1. It had a fore-hand guard so that when you picked the weapon up, you didn't have to worry about folding the tripod to protect your hand from the hot gas chamber (burned hands were common when we first got them- in fire and movement the M-60 bipod stayed down, saving time- not possible with the MAG-58). And you didn't burn the tips of your fingers on the chamber if you gripped the guard too tightly. I used to see blokes with sticks stuck between the barrel and gas chamber, trying to carry a MAG-58 with a hot barrel, and in 2/4 RAR our RAEME blokes even tried adapting the M-60 guards to the MAG-58 (failed- too loose and rattled all the time). Lastly you could fire the M-60 from all the standard positions and have a good grip, but with the MAG-58 the bipod gave a less secure hold and made it harder to hold on aim when standing, kneeling, sitting or squatting.

2. It was shorter and therefore better balanced. You could hold it level, resting the weight on a basic or Bren pouch on your webbing, and not have to use a sling. You had to use a sling with the MAG-58 and it was barrel heavy- so you'd get tired just trying to keep the barrel up. Slings always got caught up in vegetation and took an extra second to get off before you could take a sight picture and fire, as well as putting a lot of the weight on your neck.

3. You had to be finicky about keeping dirt out of the operating rod recess in the M-60 receiver, keeping the belt clean (we'd cut the ends off inflatable mattress sections and put those over the belts, which helped a bit) and keep plenty of oil on the working parts. But the gas regulator on the MAG-58 required as much attention- it could come apart if you didn't re-assemble it properly and was a female dog to get really clean if you didn't have the reamer set- if the gas regulator went TU then the gun would be a heavy bolt action piece. The ammo belts had to be kept as clean (same for all belt-fed weapons, really) and the inside of the receiver was prone to rust in humid conditions. The bolt didn't like fine dust at all, probably due to the MAG-58's tighter tolerances. We may have had a bad batch, but the return springs also seemed to fail more often than the M-60.

4. The barrel of the M-60 was quicker to change- flip the barrel release catch with your thumb, pull the reciever backwards to clear it and the No 2 would slap the new barrel on then take care of the hot barrel. It took about 2 seconds. The MAG-58 was as easy to remove the barrel, but more fiddly to fit the new one, wasting a couple of extra seconds. And you'd also have to fiddle with the gas regulator when doing sustained firing, where the M-60 had a nice, simple piston that kept working.

5. Weight was slightly less than the MAG-58 (1.5kg/ 3lb), but it really didn't make a difference (except for the poorer balance).

6. The M-60 had a better beaten zone with 1m X 87m at 600m. The MAG-58 was .6m X 95m at 600m (if my increasingly erratic memory is working). For a Sustained Fire MG (ie tripod, C-2 sight and all the bells and whistles) the MAG-58 was better as it was more effective for enfilade fire, but for a section gun the broader the beaten zone, the better.

One single caveat, John- we'd only had the MAG-58 for 12 months before I left grunts and were still getting used to it. But most of my mates in the battalions were wishing the M-60 would come back for quite a while, even once they'd got used to the MAG-58. And the MAG-58 was much better than the L4A4 Bren- for a while the rifle group carried a Bren to give more firepower in an assault, but the (30 round) Bren mag's were a pain to fill quickly and there was never enough ammo for them.

In any case, both are superior to the Minimi. As TT said, twice the firepower for thrice the weight. And half the punch of either of the real GHPMG's.

CheshireCat, we played a little bit with the MG-3 on one EX in '79. Not enough experience to comment, but our gunners preferred their '60's- possibly because they were used to them.

Cheers.

Dal- editted for typo's again.

Edited by Dal
Link to post
Share on other sites

standard combat load in my day was twenty one mags, and three belts of 7.62 (everybody but the radio guy). I had a guy with an M79 looking over my shoulder with about sixty rounds of HE and a dozen buckshot rounds. He also had a CAR15 slung on his back. Even the first sargent carried the three belts plus a half dozen M16 mags for a just in case. Never ran out of belts (15 total), but got down to two full mags a couple times. Always kept my 45 under my ammo vest, as a guy with a pistol was a special target. The real problem with a heavy machine gun (like the M2) was lack of mobility. Your pretty much stuck in one place.

gary

I have a co-worker who was in the 506th/101st in RVN. He tells me that every man in his platoon carried 200 rounds of M60 ammo in a box over his pack, and they each (other then the pig gunner and the radio man) carried 36 mags of M16 ammo, along with multiple canteens, plus all their other gear. The term "government mule" comes to mind.

As far as early M16s, the M16A1 I got issued in South Korea circa 1979 had the lower stamped "XM16" - I guess it was upgraded at some point. There were also examples of US Army-issued M16s in South Korea that had been manufactured at least in part in the Philippines. I've read that all U.S. Army M16s were U.S.-built but I can attest that's not true. I have a feeling that there were some weapons-related shenanigans between the ROK and U.S. supply systems and that there was some "cross-mixing".

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a co-worker who was in the 506th/101st in RVN. He tells me that every man in his platoon carried 200 rounds of M60 ammo in a box over his pack, and they each (other then the pig gunner and the radio man) carried 36 mags of M16 ammo, along with multiple canteens, plus all their other gear. The term "government mule" comes to mind.

As far as early M16s, the M16A1 I got issued in South Korea circa 1979 had the lower stamped "XM16" - I guess it was upgraded at some point. There were also examples of US Army-issued M16s in South Korea that had been manufactured at least in part in the Philippines. I've read that all U.S. Army M16s were U.S.-built but I can attest that's not true. I have a feeling that there were some weapons-related shenanigans between the ROK and U.S. supply systems and that there was some "cross-mixing".

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

as far as I know all U.S. issued M16's were built by Colt in New York (I think). 36 mags, sounds like they were using 20 round mags (we did too). but you really only put 18 rounds in a 20 round mag as the internal springs wouldn't handle 20 rounds over a period of time (one of the untalked about issues with the m16). Even in 1968, 30 round mags were hard to come by. I had a small handfull. We carried three belts because there was only six of us. We literally wpre the belts wrapped around out chests and waist. Water was always an issue with us. We started out with the small canteens, but later got the bigger ones. I did an OP with the 101st down by Quang Nghai once, and we had ROKMC guys on the southern flank. Can't remember what they were using except for a 75mm Pack Howitzer. Their AO looked like a moon scape when they left!

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I know all U.S. issued M16's were built by Colt in New York (I think). 36 mags, sounds like they were using 20 round mags (we did too). but you really only put 18 rounds in a 20 round mag as the internal springs wouldn't handle 20 rounds over a period of time (one of the untalked about issues with the m16). Even in 1968, 30 round mags were hard to come by. I had a small handfull. We carried three belts because there was only six of us. We literally wpre the belts wrapped around out chests and waist. Water was always an issue with us. We started out with the small canteens, but later got the bigger ones. I did an OP with the 101st down by Quang Nghai once, and we had ROKMC guys on the southern flank. Can't remember what they were using except for a 75mm Pack Howitzer. Their AO looked like a moon scape when they left!

gary

As far as issued M16s, we all thought all US issue was US-made. When I was in South Korea there were issues with US weapons being stolen off of US bases, the most notorious at the time being a bunch of .50 cals disappearing out of an armory at Camp Humphreys. The word at the time was that they probably had ended up in the ROK army. This was an "unofficial" requisition - the official requisitions had the ROKs buying weapons from us. With some of us finding Philippino-made M16s in our stock the feeling was that the US was probably subsidizing the ROK army with weapons and spare parts directly out of the Army stocks in Korea, and that stuff turned in for rehab probably came back as a mix of Korean-owned and US parts, thus parts rifles, with a mix of Colt and "other" in one rifle - these rifles probably would never go back to CONUS. There was a lot of quiet stuff going on with the ROKs - we had two ROK troops in my BCT company, who didn't speak a word of English. Who they were, why they were there, etc wasn't discussed. Why two Koreans would go through US BCT is a mystery to me.

My co-worker from the 101st confirms what you are saying as far as M16 magazines - they were wrapped in multiple belts across both shoulders/chest and waist. As far as 30-round mags we had a mix of the 20- and 30-round ones in Korea but the command told us that the 30-rondn types were no longer approved and to turn them in. I had a few in their original plastic wrappers that I stashed under my metal locker until a surprise inspection (looking for drugs) found them. Of course the HQ people made a big deal out of it, confiscated them, and then kept them for themselves...

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as issued M16s, we all thought all US issue was US-made. When I was in South Korea there were issues with US weapons being stolen off of US bases, the most notorious at the time being a bunch of .50 cals disappearing out of an armory at Camp Humphreys. The word at the time was that they probably had ended up in the ROK army. This was an "unofficial" requisition - the official requisitions had the ROKs buying weapons from us. With some of us finding Philippino-made M16s in our stock the feeling was that the US was probably subsidizing the ROK army with weapons and spare parts directly out of the Army stocks in Korea, and that stuff turned in for rehab probably came back as a mix of Korean-owned and US parts, thus parts rifles, with a mix of Colt and "other" in one rifle - these rifles probably would never go back to CONUS. There was a lot of quiet stuff going on with the ROKs - we had two ROK troops in my BCT company, who didn't speak a word of English. Who they were, why they were there, etc wasn't discussed. Why two Koreans would go through US BCT is a mystery to me.

My co-worker from the 101st confirms what you are saying as far as M16 magazines - they were wrapped in multiple belts across both shoulders/chest and waist. As far as 30-round mags we had a mix of the 20- and 30-round ones in Korea but the command told us that the 30-rondn types were no longer approved and to turn them in. I had a few in their original plastic wrappers that I stashed under my metal locker until a surprise inspection (looking for drugs) found them. Of course the HQ people made a big deal out of it, confiscated them, and then kept them for themselves...

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

when I was down on Dottie for an OP with the 196th back in the spring of 68, I saw many Arvins with the new 30 round mags. But we couldn't lay our hands on one for hell or high water. Later in the year I found out why they had them, and we didn't (won't go there in this thread). We also noticed that what few NVA we saw and local VC had brand new M16's and new M60's!! That question was also answered in September. Dottie sucked on a good day, and was no better on a bad day. I went thru the ammo cut off right after the Dottie excursion, and went thru the bomb shortage in that same spring (we never saw a bomb shortage, but heard there was one). It got so bad that arty units were down to less than a dozen rounds per tube because two Senators got the ammo resupply cut off (I often wonder how many lives were lost).

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

when I was down on Dottie for an OP with the 196th back in the spring of 68, I saw many Arvins with the new 30 round mags. But we couldn't lay our hands on one for hell or high water. Later in the year I found out why they had them, and we didn't (won't go there in this thread). We also noticed that what few NVA we saw and local VC had brand new M16's and new M60's!! That question was also answered in September. Dottie sucked on a good day, and was no better on a bad day. I went thru the ammo cut off right after the Dottie excursion, and went thru the bomb shortage in that same spring (we never saw a bomb shortage, but heard there was one). It got so bad that arty units were down to less than a dozen rounds per tube because two Senators got the ammo resupply cut off (I often wonder how many lives were lost).

gary

I remember reading reports somewhere about weapons, ammo, and other supplies being unloaded at the Saigon docks, being loaded into ARVN trucks, and promptly driven over and delivered to the opposition. There was probably also a huge amount of gear being "diverted" from U.S. warehouses. Not to mention all the Saigon REMFs with the latest-issue jungle fatigues, boots, etc.

In South Korea much of the Army logistical system and also the AAFES system was mostly run by locals. I guess it's a way of subsidizing the local economy....also as far as KATUSA troops (augmentation to the U.S. Army), they were paid for by the U.S. at the U.S. rate, and the Korean government paid the KATUSAs at the much lower Korean rate.

I've always said that we have the best allies that money can buy.

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

WAshington DC

November 2012

Marines "Ruining Next Generation Combat Rifle"

Less than one year after the United States Marines joined the US Army program to create the US Military's Next Generation Combat Rifle program (NGCR)the services have run into bitter disagreement about the requirements and standards involved. The friction comes as the US Army tries to prepare itself for challenges of the 21st century, along with the Marines who are more traditional and rigid. The latest controversy has been the USMC's new requirement that the NGCR must be able to "Knock a German off his trench at 120 paces" The US Marines are sometimes viewed by Department of Defense outsiders as "Anachronistic" and their unique requirements for both land and sea have ruffled many feathers in the pentagon and in other procurement programs.

"They're Ruining the NGCR" Said one source who preferred to remain anonymous. "This last requirement is simply too much, and refuses to take into account 21st century warfare." However, Other sources were relieved "This is much better than the previous requirement that it be able to mount a Mameluke Sword for close in fighting"

General Rues, who is overseeing the Army side of the program said that the problems are not nearly as bad as some have said "You have to know how to talk to Marines" He says patiently "They asked that the rifle be light and compact so it could easily be transported via pack mule or donkey through the jungles of typical Banana Republics. The Trick was simply to agree and then make sure the specs fit well for a Humvee or Bradley, which it does so everyone is happy" When Pressed however the General did admit that some requirements were "overly specialized" as he tactfully put it. "I still don't know why they insisted the NGCR 'have flame thrower capability for 21st century Japanese pillboxes typically found on Iwo Jima and Okinawa'"

The Marines insist that the Army is painting them in a bad light, and blaming them for the inevitable problems found in all procurement programs. General Amos the Commandant of the Marine Corps says the Marines are actually thinking ahead "Our requirement that it fire standard 10MM caseless rounds, to take on 22nd century Xenomorphes show our commitment to getting this weapon right this century and beyond" he says.

This comes hot on the heels of accusations of Marines ruining other acquisition programs. The US Air Force still holds the Marines responsible for the cancellation of its Next Generation bomber after USMC insistence that it be able to take off a ship and also hover. The Army's Next Generation Battle Tank Program has been badly mauled by the USMC developing it go 60 MPHs over water and "fight in the high seas that are typical of 21st century tank warfare" so much so that the Army tried to cancel the Program. Only last second intervention by the navy kept the program alive, who have adopted the vehicle themselves as The Littoral Combat Tank (LCT) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

General Amos the Commandant of the Marine Corps says the Marines are actually thinking ahead "Our requirement that it fire standard 10MM caseless rounds, to take on 22nd century Xenomorphes show our commitment to getting this weapon right this century and beyond" he says.

Forget the rifle, just nuke 'em from space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the only way to be sure......

I think we should have a new standard ammo round size - 1mm. But the casing size would be something around 230mm...

That way your average rifleman (excuse me - rifleperson) could reach out to 25+ miles, and also still be effective at close ranges...

But then they would have to close the USMC and Army sniper schools...

Such tough choices for DOD - what to do, what to do?

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only last second intervention by the navy kept the program alive, who have adopted the vehicle themselves as The Littoral Combat Tank (LCT) .

:rofl: Battleship of the 21st century! I can see a new online game coming out of this. World of Water Tanks (WOWT)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...