I'm sure you're correct on the bayonet lug but you have to remember
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
..In reference to bayonet lugs, I believe it was the Infantry School and not Ordnance who insisted on that...
TIS has a bayonet on their patch. :rolleyes:
If Bunker Four had their way, we'd still wear tricorns and use these (LINK). :wry:
Quote:
It would be interesting if an arms maker would manufacture M1 Garand rifles in the .276 caliber in which it was first designed, with a 20-round box magazine instead of a clip. It goes without saying that a reverse-engineered product with design modifications would introduce new bugs that would have to be ironed out.
Talk to Beretta, bet they have a bunch of these they'd like to move (LINK). Bugs already worked out, rebarrel and a new bolt and you're good to go.
Though that .276 is OBE due to metallurgical, chemical and manufacturing improvements.
Yep, and I broke a couple of 'em doing that here and there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
Army manuals from before World War II were explicit about the need to slide the right hand from the small of the stock to the butt of the stock when assuming the prone position. The manuals included step-by-step sketches or photos showing how to do it, and that was in the days of walnut stocks.
However and as is often true, what the manual shows and what Joe does are often quite different. As I said above, we don't train well -- we teach a lot but we don't train. We don't because it's tedious to do it to build the necessary muscle memory and most trainers are too lazy to spend the time and effort required.
Incidentally, that technique is one reason the M1 stock is much thicker at the small than was the 03 or even the 03A1. It worked with the M14, did not work with the M16 and couldn't work with the adjustable stocks.
The Micarta stock on a BAR would take it though it got chewed up on gravel in the process. It flat did not work with the M1A1 Carbine... :D
While this is correct in the initial two statements,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
...
One other problem with comparing the M4 system to other historic small arms, is that never before have soldiers and police forces built up such insane round counts in training. Because of this, we know more now about what makes guns go (or not go) than ever before. Plus, training is different now than it was then. No-one took an M14 to a 360 degree firing range and shot 2000 rounds in two days, combined with rough handling.
this (from your TIME link) sort of disputes that last item:
""
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. (emphasis added /kw) ""
Admittedly, there's a difference between tests and heavy firing in training by some organizations. Problem is Joe rarely gets to fire as much as those organizations do.
Quote:
Partially, it's because of lack of parts, but also because they are relatively fragile and unreliable.
Or it could be due to a lack of parts and being unreliable because very few if any there today know how to check, gauge and fix minor ills... :D
Not that I'm denying the fragility part, neither the M14 or the M16 / M4 get any applause in that area.
Last time my son was there, he carried one similar to that shown below which he used 'til he left (that Texas Guardsman in the pic is not him...). No problems. He's doing different stuff this time so he has an M4 as he did on the first tour. He's comfortable with either. Whatever works...
As for the M4, no question it's very reliable in well trained hands. So was the M14. However, in the hands of Joe, both were and are merely adequately reliable, a somewhat lower plateau. Again, whatever works...