Why does anyone need an AR-15 ?

[blackhawknj]

Because they aren't man enough to handle an M-14 !

[swampyankee]

M-14,just another gas gun. You mean a 1903 Springfield. Now that's a man's rifle.

[bruce]

This is to early in the morning! I haven't even finished my first mug of coffee!

The 03 chambered in the renowned .30-06 caliber was queen of the battlefield with a justly earned reputation unmatched by any and envied by all.

The M-1 Garand was everything the 03 was not. It reflected the hard realities of the battlefield and the determination of JMG and others that the American serviceman would have in his hands the best possible weapon no if but when the next serious war developed. The M-1 was everything anyone could want throughout WWII and Korea. No one had anything that remotely matched it. One can only wonder what would have been the outcome had any of the axis nations had a similar general issue rifle at the start of WWII. The M-14/M-1A was a thoughtful product improvement of the M-1 that reflected conclusions drawn from WWII/Korea. It failed to anticipate the full swing to an all out assault carbine. Had it been lighter, smaller, shorter, etc., who's to say would would have been the outcome. The M-16/AR-15 ... simply the very best assault carbine available that has proven its effectiveness for over 40 years. None of these rifles were ever ideal in every possible setting. No rifle possibly can be. These rifles in their era were exceptional. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

For just about anything that needs to be shot ... AR-15 is an excellent rifle chambered in a outstanding caliber.

M-1A/M-14 was a fine product improvement of the M-1 Garand.

[Major Tom]

While the M-14 is a fine rifle (I carried one n 'Nam), I like the M-1 garand and my M1903A3. I own an AR-14 M4 which is also a fine rifle.

[Allen]

I feel that once the M16 jamming problems were reduced which caused many, many GI deaths, that it was a suitable (if necessary) replacement for the M1 carbine--not the M14. My 2 cents worth, I own M1A's, AR's and carbines.

[Sunray]

"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
"...Axis nations had a similar general issue rifle..." Same result. W.W. II was not ended by the use of a semi-auto rifle. It was ended by the massive difference in industrial capacity. And the bull dozer and 2.5 ton truck.
"...assault carbine..." The M-16 and it's offspring are not 'assault carbines'. They're not assault rifles either.
The M1A is not a battle rifle. It's a sporting rifle that looks like a battle rifle.
The AR-15 is not a battle rifle either. It too is a sporting rifle that just looks like a battle rifle.

[swampyankee]

[QUOTE=Sunray;515036]"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
.303 was a queen but the 30-06 was the KING.
I don't see a lot of new rifles chambered in .303 lately, still a lot in 30-06.

- - - Updated - - -

Gas guns the rifles of wimps.

[RED]

[QUOTE=swampyankee;515046][QUOTE=Sunray;515036]"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
.303 was a queen but the 30-06 was the KING.
I don't see a lot of new rifles chambered in .303 lately, still a lot in 30-06.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are both wrong. There were around 5.5 million Garands produced and a paltry 17 million .303 Enfields. By far and away the most produced military rifle ever made was the 7.62X54 Mosin-Nagant with somewhere between 35 - 60 million produced and are still being made. Just my .02.

BTW, my # 1 loved rifles are my 1903's... all of which have been what most guys call "Bubbaized." I call them custom built actions.

[bruce]

"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
"...Axis nations had a similar general issue rifle..." Same result. W.W. II was not ended by the use of a semi-auto rifle. It was ended by the massive difference in industrial capacity. And the bull dozer and 2.5 ton truck.
"...assault carbine..." The M-16 and it's offspring are not 'assault carbines'. They're not assault rifles either.
The M1A is not a battle rifle. It's a sporting rifle that looks like a battle rifle.
The AR-15 is not a battle rifle either. It too is a sporting rifle that just looks like a battle rifle.

With respect, perhaps the "queen of the battlefield" is a title that applies appropriately to the .303 British. Do very much appreciate that error being brought to my attention. It would be more accurate to say that the .30-06 was the King of the battlefield. When Townsend Wheelen used the term "queen" it did have a different connotation that is the case today.

As to the matter of how WWII was ended ... trucks and equipment are fine things. Wonderful for getting men into position, etc. But in the end, trucks never won a fight any more than a bulldozer. Men win fights. Men use guns to take and hold ground. It's that simple. Somebody has to close with the enemy and get the business settled. Just pointing cannons at people without the use of infantry ... you end up with plowed ground.

The M-1A ... it is what it is, the civilian legal version of the M-14. Actually, it is equal to the M-14 which, without the selector switch in place, was just a semi-auto battle rifle.

The AR-15 is a carbine in the eyes and estimate of most folks. This may not satisfy the cognizant who delight in debating small distinctions that are mostly irrelevant. The M-4 which is simply a M-16 brought up to date, is most certainly a carbine. There is not much need for a full size/caliber battle rifle. Even shortly after WWI folks with experience rapidly concluded that such rifles as were commonly used in the war were completely appropriate for the previous war. The British and US set about seeking to develop semi-auto rifles of about 7mm (excellent bore choice). If the depression had not made such a change impossible, the US would have entered WWII with a ten shot M-1 Garand chambered in .276 Pederson. For just about any use in the field, it would have been outstanding. Practicality won out. It just made more sense to keep the supply system as simple as possible. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[bruce]

Re: Bolt/Semi-autos. A few nights ago was reading about the "mad minute," etc. Good bedtime reading. Reality was ... few could do better than 20 rounds a minute. Any of the rifles of that era produced so much recoil that no one could sustain significantly high rates of fire with any bolt-action rifle. For a while someone might punch out 40-50 rounds. But, very much doubt that any Tommy or Doughboy or Fritz could sustain anything amounting to a high volume of fire from their issue rifles. Now, that reality changed dramatically with the introduction of the M-1 Garand. Many of us know by experience that it is entirely possible to maintain sustained rates of fire with a M-1 Garand that would simply lay any man with a bolt-action rifle in the shade. If the semi-auto rifle was not superior, every nation in the world would have continued to issue bolt-action rifles to its troops. The superiority of the M-1 Garand was immediately recognized not simply by upper echelon folks, it was recognized by the men who used them. One afternoon I came out of the woods behind the house of one of my church members. I was carrying my Remington 03-A3 rifle in issue condition. My church member served with the USMC in the PTO. He looked at my rifle and then said, "This thing'll get you killed! It'll get you killed! To slow preacher! To slow!" He said he started out with a 03 rifle. He said just as soon as he could "that thing had a accident..." and that he got his hands on a M-1 Garand. A little over 40 years after the war, he was adamant that the M-1 Garand was the reason he and other men like him had a chance to live. Sincerely. bruce.

[JB White]

Even shortly after WWI folks with experience rapidly concluded that such rifles as were commonly used in the war were completely appropriate for the previous war. The British and US set about seeking to develop semi-auto rifles of about 7mm (excellent bore choice). If the depression had not made such a change impossible, the US would have entered WWII with a ten shot M-1 Garand chambered in .276 Pederson.

Bruce, just to add a little more history: The British actually introduced a .276 round well before WW1...on the heels of the Boer Wars. In 1911 the .276 Enfield was already developed and its host rifle (the Pattern 13) was entered into record a few years after that. WW1 simply stalled it due to logistical reasons and the post war financial slumps killed it.
What happened as a result of that was the morphing of the P13 into the P14 which eventually gave us the M1917....a real mans rifle! :)

[bruce]

Was not aware the British had thought to move to a smaller round. Guess the realities of post war budgets hammered more than just Springfield Armory.

Have always liked the M-1917. In many ways, it was a better infantry rifle for US use in WWII. The SMLE was wonderful for the mud and filth, but it suffered from not being particularly accurate. From end user reports, the M-1917 did fine in the trenches. But then so did the 03, M-98, etc. From what I've read, the P-14/M-1917 was a very accurate rifle that produced excellent results on the range and in the field. Sincerely. bruce.

[JB White]

I'm sure you've heard this before. The Germans showed up with hunting rifles. The Americans showed up with their target rifles. The British came to the war with battle rifles. :)

[togor]

Imagine if the IJA had the AK-47 in the Pacific campaign. Maybe doesn't change the outcome but it sure puts our beloved Garand in a different light.

[JB White]

Imagine if the IJA had the AK-47 in the Pacific campaign. Maybe doesn't change the outcome but it sure puts our beloved Garand in a different light.

"Guns of the South". Story of the Confederate Army with AK-47's.

[blackhawknj]

MacArthur disapproved the adoption of the .276 round on logistical grounds, citing the huge amounts of 30/06 ammo on hand, the fact that the BAR and various machine guns were in 30/06. And War Department budgets in 1932 were VERY tight.
The British faced the Boers with their 7MM Mausers in the Second South African War, no doubt that inspired their .276 Enfield.
Given the resupply problems the Japanese usually had I doubt they could have kept their troops supplied if they had AK-47s.

[Former Cav]

If you wanted to go by sheer numbers of production wouldn't the AK-47 be the winner then?
I have my M1A's (can't afford a REAL M14, if I could, I would, likewise for the select fire FN/FAL).
have my AR's in "service rifle" (NRA classification) and "match rifle", and just alll around plinker.
also the SAR 48
and of course the AKS-56 (not sure on the number and the box is too high up to read) but it is the polytech version of the semi only AK-47
Which do I like best?
well, for NRA over the course, my AR-15,
I had the M16 in Vietnam and I had ONE stoppage which actually saved my life as I hit the dirt right before a burst of AK would have hit me in the chest.
We were advancing into Cholon during TET II of 68.
For sheer stopping power at 200 yards plus on an enemy soldier, I'd take the M-14. The Garrand would be a second choice only because it holds 8 rounds vs 20. A BM-59 (kind of like the Garrand with a 20 round box magazine) would be the best IMHO, as you got the 06 round, 20 of them, and then the weight to deal with the recoil so you can get back on target quicker.
The FAL is a good rifle, but the sights are not near as good the the M1 and M14 or M16.

[Vern Humphrey]

While the M-14 is a fine rifle (I carried one n 'Nam), I like the M-1 garand and my M1903A3. I own an AR-14 M4 which is also a fine rifle.

As an Adviser in '66 and '67, my issue weapon was an M2 carbine. It got wrapped around a tree, and I bummed an M1 off the ARVN. My second tour as a company commander, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me 2 M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21) I had one man who had been through the 3rd Marine Division sniper school. He got one and I took the other one,

I take the position that with trained men, an M1 or M14 and enough ammo to accomplish the mission is LIGHTER than an M16 and enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

And I wouldn't look down my nose at an M1903A3, either.

[Former Cav]

I take the position that with trained men, an M1 or M14 and enough ammo to accomplish the mission is LIGHTER than an M16 and enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

And I wouldn't look down my nose at an M1903A3, either.


I agree, ONE round from these will STOP them...whereas with the .223, it will take a while for them to die unless you did a head or heart shot.

- - - Updated - - -

OH yes, and another GOOD answer to the question on this string
Why does anyone need an AR-15 ?

to piss off a liberal !!:1948:

[Vern Humphrey]

Bruce, just to add a little more history: The British actually introduced a .276 round well before WW1...on the heels of the Boer Wars. In 1911 the .276 Enfield was already developed and its host rifle (the Pattern 13) was entered into record a few years after that. WW1 simply stalled it due to logistical reasons and the post war financial slumps killed it.
What happened as a result of that was the morphing of the P13 into the P14 which eventually gave us the M1917....a real mans rifle! :)

Yes, but the .280/,276 British round was based on the .280 Ross and was about the same as the 7mm Remington Magnum. Since the British were virtually married to cordite, it is a mystery how such a round would have faired in combat.

[Allen]

I take the position that with trained men, an M1 or M14 and enough ammo to accomplish the mission is LIGHTER than an M16 and enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

And I wouldn't look down my nose at an M1903A3, either.

.308 holes make invisible souls.

[blackhawknj]

Military doctrine for decades has been to wound, incapacitate, take them out of the fight-and take the fight out of them. The 223 is a good anti-personnel round, though there is some evidence that our current enemies use drugs to numb their systems. But the 223 is too light to be an all purpose round.

[ddiwd]

A

Let me qualify my answer first. I have an AR-15 and have never fired an M14 (Springfield M1A) and my knowledge of the M14 is from reading. With the AR-15 being a 5.56 or 223 Remington as opposed to the M14 being a 7.62 or 308 Winchester, the AR-15 would be cheaper to shoot. You can also get a great deal of accessories for the AR quite readily. I would imagine that the M14 would have much better terminal ballistics at the same ranges. Personally I believe the 7.62 is a better stopper that the 5.56. If you like the style of the AR-15 and the 7.62 stopping power check to see if you can find an AR-10. This is what Eugene Stoner originally brought to the military trials when they were looking for a replacement for the M14. The military then told him to design it for a smaller caliber and the result was the AR-15. If I had to choose between an AR-15 or the Springfield M1A I would choose the M1A. It is better at longer ranges and in many states it is of a legal caliber to hunt deer with. That is if hunting deer with a military rifle is your cup of tea.

[SUPERX-M1]

The best rifle is artillery.

FN-FAL was contending with M14. Springfield Armory was contentious , arrogant, and protecting their fiefdom, and m14 won. SA lost control of small arms development thereafter. SA and others were hostile to Stoner, AR 10, and m16.

USA forced 7.62 on nato and then forced 5.56 also.

There are books on the introduction and development of m16, Stoner, .

[Major Tom]

[QUOTE=Vern Humphrey;515243]As an Adviser in '66 and '67, my issue weapon was an M2 carbine. It got wrapped around a tree, and I bummed an M1 off the ARVN. My second tour as a company commander, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me 2 M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21) I had one man who had been through the 3rd Marine Division sniper school. He got one and I took the other one,

Vern, you reminded me that when I was in 'Nam (66-67) we were issued the M14. Occasionally other troops would come by. I saw my first M16 carbine and also the M16 with grenade launcher carried by 25th infantry.

[blackhawknj]

Artillery works great when you have clearly delineated front lines and beyond a certain point you know it's enemy territory.
And your artillery men know their stuff. There were a lot of complaints in Vietnam that the Army's artillery performed poorly compared to WWII and Korea, the "2nd looie" was the usual scapegoat, many of the OCS/Officers Basic Course graduates I have talked to from that time have said their training was no good, either too hurried or rushed or simply omitted a lot, the NCOs they had to rely on weren't that good, their superior officers more concerned with punching their tickets and passing the buck than in correcting problems so people could perform properly.

[Vern Humphrey]

Artillery works great when you have clearly delineated front lines and beyond a certain point you know it's enemy territory.
And your artillery men know their stuff. There were a lot of complaints in Vietnam that the Army's artillery performed poorly compared to WWII and Korea, the "2nd looie" was the usual scapegoat, many of the OCS/Officers Basic Course graduates I have talked to from that time have said their training was no good, either too hurried or rushed or simply omitted a lot, the NCOs they had to rely on weren't that good, their superior officers more concerned with punching their tickets and passing the buck than in correcting problems so people could perform properly.

I graduated from Artillery OCS in '63 and wangled my way back into the Infantry. When I went through the training was very thorough.

As a company commander, I had a really good FO and between us, we could use artillery as it should be used. For example, one time we had a long night march along the coast. We set up illumination concentrations on the horizon (there were always illumination rounds going off at night) and as we marched, we would occasionally call for three concentrations and shoot azimuths to those lights on the horizon to confirm that we were on track. It worked beautifully!

[jjrothWA]

5.56mm is a good varmit round, whne the varmints are shooting back, I'll take a Cal.30!

[Vern Humphrey]

5.56mm is a good varmit round, whne the varmints are shooting back, I'll take a Cal.30!

Amen! I bummed an M1 from the ARVN unit I advised my first tour, and got my battalion commander to get me an M14 sniper rifle (pre-M21) on my second tour.

[jmm03]

Vern, pardon my ignorance (and not to derail the thread) but could you explain the azimuth location method briefly please? Thanks, Jim

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, pardon my ignorance (and not to derail the thread) but could you explain the azimuth location method briefly please? Thanks, Jim

You have a map and compass. You shoot an azimuth to each illumination round (that is, measure the angle). You know where the illumination rounds are bursting, and from each you plot the back azimuth.

For example, suppose one bursts due South from you. From the point on the map where it burst, you draw a line going North. Another one bursts due West. From that point, you draw a line going due East. A third one bursts Southeast of you. You draw a line from that point going Northwest.

The three lines will intersect at a point -- and that's where you are.

[jmm03]

Thanks Vern, I thought it had something to do with triangulation relative to the map position,I wasn't getting the relation to the illumination. Jim

[blackhawknj]

When you have well trained crews under commanders who subordinate everything else to training, you can do such things.
There were the problems in Vietnam of requiring different ammunition for the rifle and machine gun,
admittedly due to the often dense foliage the troops often left their M-16s on full auto, using them the way the Soviets used their PPSh and PPS submachine guns in WWII.

[Vern Humphrey]

When you have well trained crews under commanders who subordinate everything else to training, you can do such things.
There were the problems in Vietnam of requiring different ammunition for the rifle and machine gun,
admittedly due to the often dense foliage the troops often left their M-16s on full auto, using them the way the Soviets used their PPSh and PPS submachine guns in WWII.

I charged $50 for firing an M16 full auto, and taught my troops how to shoot in combat.