Modacity shooters' thread

[TVTyrant]

The M14 may be a glorified target rifle, but the weapon its based on was one of the finest rifles to ever serve. And as far as the American military having a protectionist attitude, its because we believe in one thing in are firearms designs- accuracy. The American military tradition was founded on it, and if a weapon does not perform to the standard of accuracy we set, we won't adopt. Thats why you see AR-15s, M1As, and M700s winning shooting competitions so often.

I like the FAL, but I was never really sold on it. Maybe its because I've never really liked FN, since half of there stuff is just Browning's designs recycled and the other half are just German designs recycled. Not really much ingenuity in there products, and most of them were overly expensive in my mind.

[rossmum]

FN is not just Browning's designs recycled, Browning actively took his designs to FN since they were willing to produce them with such quality. Hell, the HP was completed by Dieudonne Saive after Browning died. To say something is a recycled Browning design is totally redundant anyway since nearly every modern firearm owes its existence, in some way, to Browning. FN obviously believed in the 'if it ain't broke' formula, turning the BAR into the Model D and then the MAG-58 (arguably the best GPMG in the world and leaps and bounds better than the M60).

Meanwhile in 'MERICUH,

.280 British, a promising intermediate calibre that had both range and controllability at the same time, was destroyed totally by America's insistence on a full-size rifle round. Thanks to the US wanting to fight the last war (as usual), the EM-2 was canned and the FAL was upsized to within an inch of its life. Europe was stuck with battle rifles until the late 70s because of this, and when the US finally realised that full-size rifles as standard issue became obsolete in World War fucking Two and developed 5.56, everyone then got stuck with that. Now, of course, America realises that is just as shitty and there's a lot of call for 6.8... which is nearly identical to .280 British in terms of ballistics. Fucking unbelievable.

Even after the FAL was upsized to pander to the whims of the US, the selection process was totally rigged against it. Requiring the ability to load from stripper clips? Just what the fuck use would that be on any post-1945 battlefield? Of course, rather than selecting the rugged, reliable, and sensibly designed FAL, they went with the M14. For all intents and purposes the M14 is a target rifle and is really just a select-fire M1 that feeds from a mag rather than an enbloc, so while the rest of the world was embracing the age of ergonomically designed, rock-solid, and versatile rifles (i.e. the FAL and, much as I hate on it, the G3), America was prancing about with the same weapon they'd been using in the last major war with only a few tweaks here and there.

This is the same country that refused to install British 17pdr. guns in their tanks because they were "foreign". While British armoured regiments were out wrecking shit with the Allied version of the 88, the US was still fiddlefucking around with which of their guns to put on the Sherman, and they didn't really have an adequate tank-killer until the 90mm guns found on some late-war TDs and the Pershing.

Christ, the American military procurement system is the most fucking retarded thing. They are singly responsible for essentially halting all progress in the field of military small arms for three fucking decades. Accuracy doesn't matter a damn in urban combat, jungle combat, or pretty much any fucking place that isn't a desert (so I guess for once their obstinate stupidity has paid off). Reliability, controllability, versatility and efficiency are the hallmarks of a true military weapon. That said, there's no reason they can't be accurate too, it's just that they'll still be rejected by the US because they aren't from 'MERICUH.

[PenGuin1362]

The M14 is a beautiful rifle. Have you ever fired one? They're incredibly reliable, and insanely accurate. The recoil is heavy but not as bad as other rifles I've fired. I was at the range one day and my friends grouping with his friends M14 was tighter than the grouping of any FAL I've ever seen. Accuracy is incredibly important in a battle rifle because they are rifles designed to be precise, used mostly on single shot. They're not assault rifles. Honestly I'd take an M14 over an FAL every day having seen both in action (love FAL's though) Keep in mind though we only use the M14 as a Designated Marksmen rifle, in which it does it's job perfectly. And We have begun to adopt the SCAR, as of right now only SOCOM will get it because they don't see the necessity to spend the money on resupplying an entire army...when we don't have the money. Not like that's stopped us before though >_<

The adoption of the 5.56 was the worst idea in the world. It was developed during Vietnam under the principle idea of wounding rather than killing. If you wound your assailant than he's comrades will have to go get him and drag him to safety. At that point you can then take down the two man coming to rescue him. However, this rarely proved to be effective and most of the time where enemies were taken down was behind lines where no one had to expose themselves. The 5.56 is not a round meant for fighting a war, it was designed to wound, not to kill. Stupid fucking idea.

While it's definitely important to have a functioning rifle, Accuracy, ESPECIALLY in urban combat where you're going to be aiming at nothing more than a head 80% of the time is incredibly important. That's why the US hasn't adopted a new rifle. While the M16 jams easily it's not nearly as bad as it used to be (and how the rest of the world still perceives it to be). Unfortunately it does jam at a higher rate than most AR's on the military market, but still their accuracy cannot match that of the m16 (it's a trade off really, tighter tolerances = great grouping but easier malfunctions. Personally I'm so glad to see the military begining to adopt the MK 17 SCAR. It's highly durable, it uses the 7.62, and it's accuracy is quite admirable.

And I've seen countless reports and documentaries comparing firearms (not just from America) The reason we don't adopt certain firearms is because they really just don't compare, nothing to do with being from America. As a matter of fact, a lot of our firearms aren't America. The military side arm is the Beretta M9, Italian, The standard sub-machine gun is the MP5, German, Most of our police forces use either Glock or Sig Sauer, Austrian and German respectively. And SOCOM has the MK23, also German. I'll admit there are certainly some horrendous decisions by Military brass in terms of fire arm adoptions (especially the 5.56) But I wouldn't make the argument we don't adopt anything that's not American cause quite frankly that's just not true.

[Warsaw]

Wait, Ross, did you just say accuracy doesn't mean a damn in urban combat? Seriously, shame on you.

As a side, I still hate the SCAR. It looks and feels like a rectangle slab of plastic and metal. I'll take a 416 or 417 any day, even with the H&K price premium. Speaking of which, the Marines have adopted a modified 416 under the guise of needing something to replace the M249 SAW. Loophole. Typical Marines.

[TVTyrant]

Sadly in my original post I was going to say something about how much I liked the .280. I should have kept it to avoid your rant lol.

The adoption of the 5.56 made sense in its original form. But FN fucked it up. The original version used a 55 grain bullet that had an extremely thin jacket at the cannelure. The bullet essentially acted as an effective round should, entering the body and completely shredding within tissue. The original M16, while jamming all the time so no one noticed, shredded Vietnamese forces, and had insanely deadly effects on enemy combatants. I asked a family friend one time about it, and he said the exit wounds on the backs of Viet Cong were almost always fist sized, and that bursts would toss people to the ground just as effectively as rounds from a 7.62. In the 1970s NATO adoption trials though, the FN SS109 was the version backed by Americas European peers. They wanted to use a firearm designed to fight third world countries as the standard arm against the Soviets, who were (just as the Americans were) aready beginning to equip body armor to their standard infantry units that could stop submachine gun rounds. The Euro folks were afraid that at distances the original M193 round would not penetrate (it wouldn't tbh) so they actually forced the Americans into the SS109, which is the round that has given the M4 and many other short barreled 5.56 weapons the reputation of not breaking up in tissue, this not imparting any energy, and because of the short barrels they have a hard time even achieving the velocity to fully use the steel penetrator thats inserted into the bullets. Thus, struggle.

Fake E: Totally agree on the procurement thing btw. Our system is totally fucked, and we need to overhaul massively. Hell, 50 years ago the thing needed a massive facelift.

[rossmum]

The M14 is a beautiful rifle. Have you ever fired one? They're incredibly reliable, and insanely accurate. The recoil is heavy but not as bad as other rifles I've fired. I was at the range one day and my friends grouping with his friends M14 was tighter than the grouping of any FAL I've ever seen. Accuracy is incredibly important in a battle rifle because they are rifles designed to be precise, used mostly on single shot. They're not assault rifles. Honestly I'd take an M14 over an FAL every day having seen both in action (love FAL's though) Keep in mind though we only use the M14 as a Designated Marksmen rifle, in which it does it's job perfectly. And We have begun to adopt the SCAR, as of right now only SOCOM will get it because they don't see the necessity to spend the money on resupplying an entire army...when we don't have the money. Not like that's stopped us before though >_<

By 'accuracy' I meant something like a FAL is more than enough. You don't need the precision of a DMR for every soldier. The M14's ergonomics might be nice at the range (hell I bet you they're great) but they are RUBBISH for a combat rifle. There's a reason every other country ditched traditional stocks by the mid-50s. It is complicated to strip compared to the FAL which breaks open easily in much the same fashion as an M16, and its layout in general is less than ideal. A fine rifle it may be but I would not be caught dead with one in the field unless I was a marksman, in which case it does become an excellent combat weapon.

The adoption of the 5.56 was the worst idea in the world. It was developed during Vietnam under the principle idea of wounding rather than killing. If you wound your assailant than he's comrades will have to go get him and drag him to safety. At that point you can then take down the two man coming to rescue him. However, this rarely proved to be effective and most of the time where enemies were taken down was behind lines where no one had to expose themselves. The 5.56 is not a round meant for fighting a war, it was designed to wound, not to kill. Stupid fucking idea.

Yes, and now we're all stuck with it thanks to NATO standardisations. I really wish a country that actually knew what the fuck it was doing (looking at the UK here) was the one who got to have the final say on what gets standardised, because the US is the big retarded baby of weapons selection.

While it's definitely important to have a functioning rifle, Accuracy, ESPECIALLY in urban combat where you're going to be aiming at nothing more than a head 80% of the time is incredibly important. That's why the US hasn't adopted a new rifle. While the M16 jams easily it's not nearly as bad as it used to be (and how the rest of the world still perceives it to be). Unfortunately it does jam at a higher rate than most AR's on the military market, but still their accuracy cannot match that of the m16 (it's a trade off really, tighter tolerances = great grouping but easier malfunctions. Personally I'm so glad to see the military begining to adopt the MK 17 SCAR. It's highly durable, it uses the 7.62, and it's accuracy is quite admirable.

Addressed above. Surgical accuracy is not a worthwhile tradeoff for sheer ruggedness and ease of use in combat, which is why the US remains the only country to have taken the M14 into combat. Everyone else was sensible and took either the FAL or G3, and it never seemed to cause them any problems.

And I've seen countless reports and documentaries comparing firearms (not just from America) The reason we don't adopt certain firearms is because they really just don't compare, nothing to do with being from America. As a matter of fact, a lot of our firearms aren't America. The military side arm is the Beretta M9, Italian, The standard sub-machine gun is the MP5, German, Most of our police forces use either Glock or Sig Sauer, Austrian and German respectively. And SOCOM has the MK23, also German. I'll admit there are certainly some horrendous decisions by Military brass in terms of fire arm adoptions (especially the 5.56) But I wouldn't make the argument we don't adopt anything that's not American cause quite frankly that's just not true.

The M9 is a horrible choice for a military sidearm. It's huge, it's heavy, it has an open-cut slide so it's even easier for dirt and shit to get into the action and gum it up, and despite its nice features like a good trigger and decent controls, those three big points should have killed it. Instead, it was adopted over far superior designs like the HP (or its modern cousin, the CZ-75), the P226, and the USP. The MP5 is a decent choice other than being roller-locked and expensive as fuck for a piece of stamped metal, but if you go HK there's not much else you can do and it's reliable enough. Your police have good sense. The Mk.23 is a brick, personally I can't justify carrying something that big.

The whole 'IT AIN'T MADE IN 'MERICH' thing isn't much of an issue anymore, but up until the 70s or so it was. Look back at what you guys used pre-1970 and you'll see what I mean. Now the choices are just straight-out political, that or whoever makes them is King Pogue of Pogue Mountain (and also retarded).

[TVTyrant]

I think the rubbish thing depends on where your fighting. Im almost certain that if we ever saw a big conflict in France/Western Germany the M14 would see alot of effective use. And what do you mean its not rugged? The M1 design is one of the most rugged, lasting deigns in the world. Those guns last forever man. I agree the design was outdated for a full service rifle by the 1960s, but there are good points in the design.

As far as using weapons MADE in America I agree with that sentiment. Now, being designed and being made are two very different things however. I would have no problem if a country designed a rifle that fulfilled all the aspects laid before them by the US military and was a significant enough improvement to warrant re-equiption of are armed forces. But having the design physically made in the US is something I think alot of people on our shores agree with. Maybe its just an American thing, but last time I checked the militaries of Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, China, and Korea predominantly used rifles manufactured in their own countries and I personally don't see anything wrong with that.

[Warsaw]

The M14 is actually quite rugged. Ergonomic, perhaps not, but rugged it was.

Even though our procurement system is indeed rubbish, I do have to point out one thing: it costs the US a hell of a lot more to re-equip its armed forces compared to ANY European country (save Russia...which is EurAsian at any rate) due to sheer size alone. That makes any proposal require double and triple takes by those in charge.

Also, I don't honestly know why we needed a new pistol. We got along just fine with the 1911, if they really wanted more ammunition capacity they could have saved serious money and had it re-chambered in .40 or 9mm. Optionally, make it double-stack. All servicemen I know have said the issued M9s are pieces of shit with warped barrels, etc.

[Cortexian]

I can H&K whore all I want bro, I'd pay the premium price for them because I AM a huge self-admitted fanboy.

[rossmum]

Why though? Some of their newer designs are nice I guess but you could buy something functionally identical (or superior) for a lot less cost from basically any other manufacturer