Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Respect the achievements and the elegance in their design... but recognize when their peak has passed.</div></div>

The above statement also applies to the AR-10. To argue otherwise leaves question to the logic used to come to the conclusion being argued. </div></div>


Simply stating a fact in that it is based on better technology. Keyword: BETTER. Notice "Best" never entered into the picture? </div></div>

The fact is that neither BETTER or BEST entered into the picture.
Notice your own words: "significant difference in technology".

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniper2ndrep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aint we just a fucking know it all poet..Have you carried or used an M14 or 1911 within the last decade or so in harms way? I doubt it so your opinion means jack and shit.. BTW smart guy the Marines are picking up another 5000 1911's. </div></div>

Some ODA teams are running around with 1911's.
I wouldn't say that the M9 9mm is inneffective as I have seen many a dead man who fell to the fatal end of that little 9mm round!
Its just that 230 grns of anger vs what the 9mm pulls out brings about a bit more happiness to those on the correct side of it.
Now, the benefits of the 9mm is that the pistol carries higher capacity. Many argue why? Some say it is because the military doesn't do a sufficient amount of pistol training so soldiers need the extra rounds to hit their target(which after watching people shoot pistols I could agree with),others say that it was a fad thing when the 9mm came out, and some say that the 9mm is easier to shoot accuratly vs the .45 because of less felt recoil.

I personnaly like the 1911! Great system with lots of goodies to add on and improve on it.
I wonder how much different the Beretta's are in the civilian market vs what we are issued? And the issue magazines, wtf?


Back to the M14. It is a system which is filling a technology gap for the time being until a reasonable solution or improvement comes along! It punches out a bit farther, hits harder and scares the shit out of the locals when they see you humping it around! They know what it means and what it is for. I personnaly love its mechanical build, functioning as it is cold, heartless and plain old mean!!!! and it scares the shit out of the locals (the bad locals). It has proven to be reliable in theater. I never had any issues with it and have fed everything from LR to crap ball ammo through it without failure.

Its a good system!!! Are there systems out there that are more accurate and more advanced? Sure there are, but at the time the military has not accepted them and/or has not fielded them to the extent that units feel they need! The M110 is out but not in large numbers, a BN only has a couple of M24's and M107's (which your not humping very far anyways). All your doing is adding some more tools to the kit bag for the soldiers to use! After that it is their judgement based on experience not just their own but of their peers that helps them to tailer which system to take on which mission.

Just my opinion/.02

</div></div>

I personally agree with everything you said- Never once did I say the 1911 and M14 are bad weapons. But there are a few out there who are convinced they are the end all-be-all. Was the M9 a good replacement for the M1911A1? Not a chance. I would argue both have some draw backs which are easily corrected by off the shelf pistols being built right now. And yeah... the mag on that M9??? No idea... there really is no solution for that mag- wolf springs don't totally solve the problem, beretta brand mags seem to do okay but they have problems too. I'd have liked to see the objective combat pistol program come to fruition instead of being killed so early. We'd have likely been fielded a new HK .45

No arguments on the M14 serving as a good fill-in. It makes sense, they are on hand already and can be issued immediately, providing more range. But again, it would seem some of their fan base cannot come to terms with the fact that the M14 is not making a permeant comeback, nor should it. If there are better options available (and no doubt there are), we should be striving to obtain those better options.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Respect the achievements and the elegance in their design... but recognize when their peak has passed.</div></div>

The above statement also applies to the AR-10. To argue otherwise leaves question to the logic used to come to the conclusion being argued. </div></div>


Simply stating a fact in that it is based on better technology. Keyword: BETTER. Notice "Best" never entered into the picture? </div></div>

The fact is that neither BETTER or BEST entered into the picture.
Notice your own words: "significant difference in technology".

</div></div>

Where are you going with this?

 

[stefan73]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stefan73</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sniper2ndrep</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Aint we just a fucking know it all poet..Have you carried or used an M14 or 1911 within the last decade or so in harms way? I doubt it so your opinion means jack and shit.. BTW smart guy the Marines are picking up another 5000 1911's. </div></div>

Some ODA teams are running around with 1911's.
I wouldn't say that the M9 9mm is inneffective as I have seen many a dead man who fell to the fatal end of that little 9mm round!
Its just that 230 grns of anger vs what the 9mm pulls out brings about a bit more happiness to those on the correct side of it.
Now, the benefits of the 9mm is that the pistol carries higher capacity. Many argue why? Some say it is because the military doesn't do a sufficient amount of pistol training so soldiers need the extra rounds to hit their target(which after watching people shoot pistols I could agree with),others say that it was a fad thing when the 9mm came out, and some say that the 9mm is easier to shoot accuratly vs the .45 because of less felt recoil.

I personnaly like the 1911! Great system with lots of goodies to add on and improve on it.
I wonder how much different the Beretta's are in the civilian market vs what we are issued? And the issue magazines, wtf?


Back to the M14. It is a system which is filling a technology gap for the time being until a reasonable solution or improvement comes along! It punches out a bit farther, hits harder and scares the shit out of the locals when they see you humping it around! They know what it means and what it is for. I personnaly love its mechanical build, functioning as it is cold, heartless and plain old mean!!!! and it scares the shit out of the locals (the bad locals). It has proven to be reliable in theater. I never had any issues with it and have fed everything from LR to crap ball ammo through it without failure.

Its a good system!!! Are there systems out there that are more accurate and more advanced? Sure there are, but at the time the military has not accepted them and/or has not fielded them to the extent that units feel they need! The M110 is out but not in large numbers, a BN only has a couple of M24's and M107's (which your not humping very far anyways). All your doing is adding some more tools to the kit bag for the soldiers to use! After that it is their judgement based on experience not just their own but of their peers that helps them to tailer which system to take on which mission.

Just my opinion/.02

</div></div>

I personally agree with everything you said- Never once did I say the 1911 and M14 are bad weapons. But there are a few out there who are convinced they are the end all-be-all. Was the M9 a good replacement for the M1911A1? Not a chance. I would argue both have some draw backs which are easily corrected by off the shelf pistols being built right now. And yeah... the mag on that M9??? No idea... there really is no solution for that mag- wolf springs don't totally solve the problem, beretta brand mags seem to do okay but they have problems too. I'd have liked to see the objective combat pistol program come to fruition instead of being killed so early. We'd have likely been fielded a new HK .45

No arguments on the M14 serving as a good fill-in. It makes sense, they are on hand already and can be issued immediately, providing more range. But again, it would seem some of their fan base cannot come to terms with the fact that the M14 is not making a permeant comeback, nor should it. If there are better options available (and no doubt there are), we should be striving to obtain those better options. </div></div>

On the money!

The guys deserve the best imo! After all it is their ass that is hanging out there!

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But again, it would seem some of their fan base cannot come to terms with the fact that the M14 is not making a permeant comeback...</div></div>


Nobody thinks the M14 was/is making a permanent comeback.

It is the fan base of other platforms that cannot come to terms with the fact that the M14 will continue
to be used for the foreseeable future and that the system will continue to evolve while it's being used.

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

You guys do realize that when the article this thread was based on was written, the gas .308's had not yet proven themselves and early releases had countless problems?

Point being that in the context of this thread, the arguement has changed with the KAC award. I don't think any sane person would argue that a LOT has changed in the last year and KAC was surely listening. The fact that the M14 had to be fielded as a stop-gap when it was says something very loud, and it would be foolish to ignore the lesson here.

In the end, the M14 doesn't need to be defended but when someone does defend it, O---M---G you'd think someone squashed a bag of puppies in front of a preschool and its either percieved as a slam on the AR-based platforms, or an unwillingness to let go of the past.

I don't believe either to be the case and neither should you. A generation of Americans trusted their lives to these platforms and that souldn't be taken so lightly just because someone built a better mousetrap. Those same people will be defending the AR when its in danger of passing into obscurity. Just watch.

 

[henschman]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I love the M-14, and there is nothing I would rather carry into battle, but I have to question the wisdom of the military using the Sage stocks on the rifles. I get that a telescoping buttstock is helpful, since the troops have to wear bulky body armor nowadays and it helps with getting proper eye relief to be able to shorten the stock. I get that an M-14 with optics needs to have an adjustable cheek rest. I also get that the troops are sometimes required to mount an AN-PEQ or something on the rifle, so the ability to have picatinny rails on the forearm is nice. However, it seems to me that these issues with the M-14 design can be resolved without adding a monstrous metal chasis that makes the rifle so heavy that is difficult to field.

The regular old GI-stocked M-14 is not a heavy rifle... they weigh just over 9 pounds. But that Sage stock bumps it up to over 11 lbs., and that's without any accessories (still lighter than an M-110 SASS at 13.7 lbs., but I digress). I have handled M-14s with the Sage stocks, and that is not something that I would want to hump into the field... especially with a full combat load, field pack, and kevlar. The same thing goes for the Troy MCS and JAE stocks that are available for these rifles. I ruled out all of those stocks for my own personal battle rifle because of the weight issue.

I really think that the best stock for the M-14, to meet the requrements the troops have for it, would be something like the Vltor Modstock. That is basically a GI synthetic stock with the ass end chopped off and an aluminum adapter installed in its place, which allows the installation of an M-16 collapsible stock assembly and an M-16 pistol grip. The whole buttstock assembly can adjust height by loosening a bolt, so you can acheive proper cheek weld while using either a scope, or the rifle's excellent iron sights (which are the best damn sights ever designed for a rifle, before or since, in case anybody was wondering).

The Vltor Modstock meets the telescoping butt and adjustable cheek height requirements... as for accessory rails, it is quite easy to drill the forearm of the stock and mount a section of picatinny rail on the side. This has been done by plenty of folks on standard wood and synthetic stocks, before any of these chasis systems were around.

As for weight, the Vltor Modstock is actually a hair lighter than even the GI fiberglass M-14 stock. It is the lightest stock available for these rifles. The whole rifle would weigh in right at 9 lbs. even. The Vltor stock also allows for even more storage than the GI stock, since it has 2 storage tubes on the stock, a compartment in the pistol grip, and the whole "buffer tube" is hollow with a watertight cap on it. By contrast, the Sage EBR stock doesn't have any storage at all.

Now one thing that the Sage and those other "chasis systems" have that an Vltor or GI stock wouldn't have is tension bedding. Those stocks clamp to the barrel and receiver, which makes the rifle a little more accurate. This may be enough to quibble about for the bench huggers out there, but for a battle rifle, M-14 is plenty accurate already. A plain old rack grade M-14 or M1A is an 800 yard rifle with iron sights and 147 grain ball ammo, if the shooter knows what he's doing (if you doubt it, come to the Appleseed at Badlands Tactical Training Facility in Grandfield, OK on Nov. 20-21, and I'll show you what a plain old rack grade M1A can do on silhouettes out to 1000 yards). Rack grade M-14s are usually capable of 2 MOA or under, and most do a lot better than that. With M118 match ammo, like the DM's get overseas, most folks can get 1 MOA groups out of a standard M1A.

Now I have heard it being bandied about in very vague terms that the M-14 is not a "modern" battle rifle and is somehow inferior to certain unnamed modern designs. Could you who hold this opinon please get a little more specific? What design do you feel is superior to it, and in what specific ways is the other design superior?

I have shot a lot of rifles and have done a lot of research in my own personal quest to build the ultimate battle rifle, but I have not found anything that would do the job better than the rifle I was just talking about... an M-14 with an Vltor Modstock.

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ReaperDriver</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The REAL question is: Are the AR pattern .308 battle rifles and DMRs being overshadowed by newer designs like the SCAR 17? </div></div>

I almost forgot you asked this and like you I believe this is the milion dollar question. I think we're definately moving towards a multi-role platform and we're seeing this with the battle between Remy, Barrett, and AI for the next sniper rig.

I was recently shopping for my next stick and looked at the ACR. It felt flimsy and I couldn't buy off on it. I then handled a SCAR and was left with pretty much the same impression. After all, a modern AR platform is a thing or beauty to anyone that appreciates sculpted metal. For those of you old enough, think back to the AR's introduction...it had already been out for years and I was just an adolescent listenning to body count reports on the evening news during Nam, but even as a kid I remember what was received as "the cheap plastic rifle".

When I think back its hard not to rethink my recent impressions of the ACR and SCAR. I believe they are the future but they'll have to prove themselves worthy just like the AR-10 based platforms recently did. The next generation will be some form of those platforms that can be reconfigured by the operator for the mission.

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: henschman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...I have to question the wisdom of the military using the Sage stocks on the rifles.

...it seems to me that these issues with the M-14 design can be resolved without adding a monstrous metal chasis that makes the rifle so heavy that is difficult to field.</div></div>

Good observation and I agree. My M1A was actually quite "tossable" for its size before I went with a JAE stock and it was quite light. It would have made more sense as a fill-in to just leave well enough alone. Hell the SEAL teams fielded the M14 into the 90's with great success without any bells and whistles. Adding a bunch of rails to the platform was really unnecessary considering its role.

 

[henschman]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Ultimately, any service rifle is going to be a compromise, based on the political realities of the day... it has been known for over 100 years that the optimal caliber for a battle rifle, considering max effective range, trajectory, ballistic coefficient, and kinetic energy, is somwhere between a 6.5 and 7mm. The Brits were about to transition to a high-velocity .276 cartridge before WWI, but then war broke out and they didn't want to switch horses in the middle of a stream. Our military was all set to adopt the .276 Pedersen back in the 1920s, which was what the M-1 Garand was originally designed for, but the Great Depression happened and they couldn't justify spending money on that when they had such a large stockpile of '06, so they quickly redesigned the M1 for the older round. And then after WWII, instead of going to a more advanced caliber, we adopted the 7.62x51 because it was designed to have the same trajectory as a .30 '06, so we wouldn't have to change our training on full distance shooting. The British were once again going to adopt such a caliber after WWII with the .280, but NATO standardization won out and they went with the 7.62. Then thoughts about the role of infantry arms changed, and everyone started designing rifles to be effective at close range with a high potential to wound, rather than to kill, anticipating a large conventional land war with the Soviets, and the 5.56 was born. Now we find ourselves in a war in which half of the fights happen out past 500 yards, and when we would rather kill the enemy than wound him, and we have to rush our old battle rifles back into service... which are themselves shooting a caliber that is designed to mimic the ballistics of a round that should have been replaced in our arsenals in the 1920s.

So I'm definitely not saying the M-14 is perfect... it's just the best we've got right now. The perfect battle rifle wouldn't be a 7.62x51, and it sure as hell wouldn't be a 5.56. Once again there have been tests done with calibers like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel, but it looks like the military is going to try to patch up the situation by adopting a heavier 77 grain 5.56mm bullet, instead of adopting a tool that would be better suited for the job.

As far as what I think the perfect battle rifle would be, I think it might be a bullpup... something like the Kel Tec RFB... in a caliber something like the .260 Remington. The RFB actually shows a lot of promise as a design. You could have a 22" barreled bullpup that would be about the same size and nearly the same weight as an M-4 carbine, which coulde be used in close quarters, but would be much harder hitting with better penetration than a 5.56; yet it would also have a flatter trajectory and longer max effective range than the 7.62 NATO, for long-range work. It ought to have a flat-top design, like the RFB, for ease of mounting optics. But unlike the RFB, it should have a front sight base way out on the end of the barrel, like a proper rifle should, so you could have some halfway decent iron sights (a must for any battle rifle). It should also be a modular design, with both a barrel and action that is easy to swap out for different lengths/calibers.

Have any of you read Major Thomas Ehrhart's recent essay on Taking Back the Infantryman's Half-Kilometer? It is a very informative write-up on this subject. His suggestion for a quick yet economical fix is to adopt upper receivers for the M-16 series in a more capable caliber, such as 6.5 Grendel. He also addresses the woeful state of our military's marksmanship training. Here is a link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/Incre...-Half-Kilometer

 

[bmt]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: henschman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Have any of you read Major Thomas Ehrhart's recent essay on Taking Back the Infantryman's Half-Kilometer? It is a very informative write-up on this subject. His suggestion for a quick yet economical fix is to adopt upper receivers for the M-16 series in a more capable caliber, such as 6.5 Grendel. He also addresses the woeful state of our military's marksmanship training. Here is a link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/Incre...-Half-Kilometer </div></div>

That's a good read.

BMT

 

[battle-scarred]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

In the end, the tool that is used to accomplish the task is not as important as the one who uses the tool. Smart troops, good training and proper shot placement make all of these arguments essentialy moot, within reason of course.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: henschman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Have any of you read Major Thomas Ehrhart's recent essay on Taking Back the Infantryman's Half-Kilometer? It is a very informative write-up on this subject. His suggestion for a quick yet economical fix is to adopt upper receivers for the M-16 series in a more capable caliber, such as 6.5 Grendel. He also addresses the woeful state of our military's marksmanship training. Here is a link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/Incre...-Half-Kilometer </div></div>


Got to be honest with you--- I wasn't all that impressed with that report. He starts it off by saying half of engagements happen beyond 300m... That would largely depend on your location. But otherwise, he continues to mention the most common method of attack is for the enemy to use medium and heavy guns from an elevated position, around 500 meters away, often using indirect fires. His answer for this is a rifleman? Sorry, but no- that is not the right answer. That is called inverse fire-superiority- when the enemy has medium to heavy weapons and indirect... while you have, what you would presume by his description... light to medium weapons. It's called you got yourself into a position you have no business being in. Of course you'd do much better with a harder hitting caliber. That being said, the 5.56mm is effective at 500m- most Army soldiers however have almost no experience shooting that distance. Either way, we are ignoring that as a platoon, there should be a couple M240's in the mix, and depending on the mission, maybe even a mortar team with a 60mm tube.

The answer for facing indirect and heavy weapons fire is NOT rifle fire- you have a much bigger problem on your hands than caliber if you find yourself with all light weapons, dealing with indirect and heavy weapons.

No doubt it is nice to have your rifleman be able to provide effective fire out to 500m... but we already have that capability. We just need to train for put it to use. My only exception to that- it almost sounds as if this guy expects to train your typical infantryman to be able to reliably hit a target out to 500 meters in varying terrain. This is an expectation I find unrealistic. We're dipping into territory of knowledge too difficult for a large number of our trigger puller's to actually understand and put into effective use. The idea that bullet impact changes depending upon the angle of fire when the distance remains the same- good luck teaching that on wide scale use. Give a small basis of knowledge, some hands on shooting and send em out smartly! The details will be lost on 90% of them. I'd rather have one good MG crew , a DM and 7 trigger pullers than 10 semi-good riflemen.

Caliber- would it be nice to have something that shoots a bit more flat and arrives on target out to 600m with more punch? Sure... But the 5.56mm isn't given the credit it's due. As I recall, beyond about 250m or so, it actually has more energy than the 7.62x39. I'd have to double check that, but I think my recollection serves me right.

 

[Zugustaz]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

What was this thread about anyway? I forgot after reading 2 or 3 pages, looked alot like a giant sh*tstorm to me.
If it was about m14's being upgraded then I guess that the forum topic is correct. I would rather have an upgraded 14 than a standard warehouse 14 anytime, so in that way yes they are being issued better rifles. Surely people can agree with that?

 

[Only10x]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

tag

 

[Outerspace]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

henschman, appreciate your comments, look forward to more.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: henschman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


As for weight, the Vltor Modstock is actually a hair lighter than even the GI fiberglass M-14 stock. It is the lightest stock available for these rifles. The whole rifle would weigh in right at 9 lbs. even. The Vltor stock also allows for even more storage than the GI stock, since it has 2 storage tubes on the stock, a compartment in the pistol grip, and the whole "buffer tube" is hollow with a watertight cap on it. By contrast, the Sage EBR stock doesn't have any storage at all.</div></div>

Not so fast... the SAGE EBR stock (M14ALCS/CV) with the receiver extension tube
has a watertight cap, tension bedding and it can be as light as the Vltor Modstock.


This 1st generation Mod 1 is heavier than the M14ALCS/CV mentioned above, but it's still very light.

1.90508795 kilograms

M14s with 18.0" barrels bolted into these stocks have proved themselves worthy. Example

 

[EricCartmann]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Most M14-EBRs are heavy, but it's not because of the stock, it's the way it's configured. I think Sage stocks get a bad rap because they "look" heavy.

If you put a bipod, high mag scope, PEQ, on any rifle it will be heavy.

McMillan stocks for the M14 are heavier than the Sage-M4 according to Mr. Scale. However, the scale weight does not matter to all you operators, right? Its what looks and feel heavy determine what is heavy right? For some reason a M14-McMillans feels "solid" while a Sage feels "heavy". I never understood that one.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I guess heavy is relative. I never found a M14 an its ammo load to be heavy myself. Then again we were never used as pack mules as guys are today. We got along just fine in every environment we had to deal with using only butt packs.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Then again we were never used as pack mules as guys are today.</div></div>

Oh so true

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I write this as an old has been. I'll not be called on to carry any rifle in combat again.

Having said that, I like the clasic M14s, the new after market crap is Uuuggglllleeeyyy.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when better training might be the best/cheaper ticket all around.
</div></div>

What better training do they need?
</div></div>

Combat Marksmanship, small unit Tactics, total asset use, targeting leadership selection. Leave the hearts an minds crap in some feel good liberal war collage/think tank. Bring back gigs like Phoenix, Farm Boy, an Dark Light then see how long they an those that harbor/support them want to play.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This ain't no teen beauty contest.

 

[bmt]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan

</div></div>

Curious. . .

Is the scope on a cantilever mount?

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BCP</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">when better training might be the best/cheaper ticket all around.
</div></div>

What better training do they need?
</div></div>

Combat Marksmanship, small unit Tactics, total asset use, targeting leadership selection. Leave the hearts an minds crap in some feel good liberal war collage/think tank. Bring back gigs like Phoenix, Farm Boy, an Dark Light then see how long they an those that harbor/support them want to play. </div></div>

I think you've got some of that spot on, some of it a bit off base.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Combat Marksmanship, small unit Tactics, total asset use, targeting leadership selection. </div></div>
Agreed to an extent



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Leave the hearts an minds crap in some feel good liberal war collage/think tank. </div></div>
If this were a force-on-force, nation on nation war of the scale of WWI, WWII or Korea, you would be correct. But we're dealing with an insurgency- for which the only way you truly win is to win over the population. Alienate the population and you will NEVER win.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bmt</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan

</div></div>

Curious. . .

Is the scope on a cantilever mount? </div></div>

Yes it is.

The TACOM M14EBR-RI uses the SAGE Detachable Cantilevered Sight Base (PN: M14DCSB)

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Another look

 

[bmt]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

Thanks, H2OMan.

Sweet rigs, they are.

BMT

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Leave the hearts an minds crap in some feel good liberal war collage/think tank. </div></div>
If this were a force-on-force, nation on nation war of the scale of WWI, WWII or Korea, you would be correct. But we're dealing with an insurgency- for which the only way you truly win is to win over the population. Alienate the population and you will NEVER win. </div></div>

We tried that in V/N and the cost was what? In Cambodia an Laos H&M was scrapped and those folks knew right quick there was no middle ground, you help them you die. After 8 months of two opp's running we knew who, when, where, an how. Things ran very smooth after they clearly understood, we were not there to play, and our book had no rules.

Nation building is for Poly-Tic types, the Military should never be used, handcuffed, which is what H&M is all about.

H&M is B/S from a war point of view, from a Money point of view it's the best thing going for those that supply the Beans an Bullet's.

Until we cut the chains an loose our Pit Bulls again, its about nothing but money, which H&M is but another tool to keep the assy line running with.

The nightly news does a good job of fogging the masses, but those that have been down the road, can still smell the true story for what it really is.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

Nobody else has answered this question so I'll now ask you.

H&M you say, is the way to go.

Question,...If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?
They have said publicly what their goals are, keep playing their game, and they will reach those goals.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Leave the hearts an minds crap in some feel good liberal war collage/think tank. </div></div>
If this were a force-on-force, nation on nation war of the scale of WWI, WWII or Korea, you would be correct. But we're dealing with an insurgency- for which the only way you truly win is to win over the population. Alienate the population and you will NEVER win. </div></div>

We tried that in V/N and the cost was what? In Cambodia an Laos H&M was scrapped and those folks knew right quick there was no middle ground, you help them you die. After 8 months of two opp's running we knew who, when, where, an how. Things ran very smooth after they clearly understood, we were not there to play, and our book had no rules.

Nation building is for Poly-Tic types, the Military should never be used, handcuffed, which is what H&M is all about.

H&M is B/S from a war point of view, from a Money point of view it's the best thing going for those that supply the Beans an Bullet's.

Until we cut the chains an loose our Pit Bulls again, its about nothing but money, which H&M is but another tool to keep the assy line running with.

The nightly news does a good job of fogging the masses, but those that have been down the road, can still smell the true story for what it really is.

</div></div>

I've been down the road- more than once. Our successes in Iraq? The result of a comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy... Which included... you guessed it, Hearts and Minds.

I never said we should refrain from eliminating the enemy- that isn't what hearts and minds is about. It's about winning over the population to your side, through whatever means are required- it's taking those who are on the sidelines and bringing them to our side.

If you think we can just run through the countryside tossing every house, arresting every MAM and searching the women... and have any success at all... you're horribly wrong. That's how the soviets got their asses handed to them.

As far as nam goes- people need to stop comparing every insurgency in existence to nam. The dynamics are not even close to the same. In nam we were literally fighting a national force in addition to the insurgency. Last I checked, the Pakistani army isn't actively conducting extensive combat operations against our efforts.

But if you want to pile on the nam examples- it is a good example of how to LOSE and insurgency. The north and the NLF won the propaganda campaign. Why? Because of our heavy handed tactics on the civilian population and lack of focus on intelligence gathering.

Don't confuse conventional warfare with fighting an insurgency. Those who honestly believe H/M is BS will forever be destine to repeat unlearned lessons from the past.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody else has answered this question so I'll now ask you.

H&M you say, is the way to go.

Question,...If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?
They have said publicly what their goals are, keep playing their game, and they will reach those goals. </div></div>

I am now convinced with this comment that you have no idea what hearts and minds is actually all about. Allow me to explain:

-The determined enemy is still your enemy and you still hunt him relentlessly.
-The enemy fighting you to make a living or to ensure safety for his family has the <span style="text-decoration: underline">potential</span> of being loyal to the establishment if you provide for his needs.
-The persons sitting on the sidelines, giving material support to your enemy for all reasons other than idealistic has the potential to be your friend.
-Those totally unaffiliated can be swayed to support you or the enemy with relative ease.

The ultimate point here is, if you make the entire populous your enemy, you will lose. If an insurgency could be won through nothing but brute force- we would have been drawing down in Iraq a lot faster than we did.

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

I know one thing about hearts and minds...if you haven't won them in 9 years, another 5 isn't going to change anything. I don't believe you can label what's going on in the Stan a simple insurgency that H&M can affect. I'd love to be wrong on this but I don't see it happening.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody else has answered this question so I'll now ask you.

H&M you say, is the way to go.

Question,...If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?
They have said publicly what their goals are, keep playing their game, and they will reach those goals. </div></div>

I am now convinced with this comment that you have no idea what hearts and minds is actually all about. Allow me to explain:

-The determined enemy is still your enemy and you still hunt him relentlessly.
-The enemy fighting you to make a living or to ensure safety for his family has the <span style="text-decoration: underline">potential</span> of being loyal to the establishment if you provide for his needs.
-The persons sitting on the sidelines, giving material support to your enemy for all reasons other than idealistic has the potential to be your friend.
-Those totally unaffiliated can be swayed to support you or the enemy with relative ease.

The ultimate point here is, if you make the entire populous your enemy, you will lose. If an insurgency could be won through nothing but brute force- we would have been drawing down in Iraq a lot faster than we did. </div></div>

I know what it's about, it's the same code Police forces in all country's use.

You went all the way around the question,... If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?

As for the Russians in A-stan until a guy named Robert K Brown and his rag tag group started taking notes for reading fodder sold to couch rangers, A-stan was a none starter with us.
Once we started funding those we now fight, with small arms and advisers(much like Iran an Pakistan is now doing)then upped the anti with stingers, the Russians had no problems. Once stingers and other restricted weapons systems were back door'ed the worm turned.

H&M is a feel good way to run the total money up, and good folks are paying that price everyday. I'm old school an know the meaning of the word War. Problem is we now fight "Military Shooting Wars" like we have run the "War" on drugs, Poverty, ect.

 

[battle-scarred]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nobody else has answered this question so I'll now ask you.

H&M you say, is the way to go.

Question,...If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?
They have said publicly what their goals are, keep playing their game, and they will reach those goals. </div></div>

I am now convinced with this comment that you have no idea what hearts and minds is actually all about. Allow me to explain:

-The determined enemy is still your enemy and you still hunt him relentlessly.
-The enemy fighting you to make a living or to ensure safety for his family has the <span style="text-decoration: underline">potential</span> of being loyal to the establishment if you provide for his needs.
-The persons sitting on the sidelines, giving material support to your enemy for all reasons other than idealistic has the potential to be your friend.
-Those totally unaffiliated can be swayed to support you or the enemy with relative ease.

The ultimate point here is, if you make the entire populous your enemy, you will lose. If an insurgency could be won through nothing but brute force- we would have been drawing down in Iraq a lot faster than we did. </div></div>

I know what it's about, it's the same code Police forces in all country's use.

You went all the way around the question,... If they had our Military and Stores, how would they use it today, tomorrow, next week?

As for the Russians in A-stan until a guy named Robert K Brown and his rag tag group started taking notes for reading fodder sold to couch rangers, A-stan was a none starter with us.
Once we started funding those we now fight, with small arms and advisers(much like Iran an Pakistan is now doing)then upped the anti with stingers, the Russians had no problems. Once stingers and other restricted weapons systems were back door'ed the worm turned.

H&M is a feel good way to run the total money up, and good folks are paying that price everyday. I'm old school an know the meaning of the word War. Problem is we now fight "Military Shooting Wars" like we have run the "War" on drugs, Poverty, ect. </div></div>

dp425 went around your question because it probably made no sense to him. H&M is just another tool in the military tool box, and part of a comprehensive strategy that might be too difficult for some (you) to understand. Please explain to me, what is inexpensive about waging all out war on a populace. Is it the killing tons of people and creating future enemies part? Is it the dropping quarter million dollar bombs part? Or is it the part where we lose lots of troops? W/E

 

[ReaperDriver]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This thread has devolved well away from M-14s, but that's probably just as well. As far as H&M's go.... I would have to agree that in a COIN type conflict, without winning over the populace - you're fighting a losing battle. Iraq is a perfect example - until Gen Patraeus showed up, we were killing the enemy but also pissing off the populace and thereby losing an incredible opportunity for intel and cooperation. Once Gen P won over the Sunnis and and turned them against AQ, primarily because AQ in Iraq was pissing off the locals too, we turned the tide.

In Asshole-istan, we cannot "win" unless we convince the locals that they are better off with us than the Taliban. The main problem in Afg is the culture is totally different than in Iraq. Iraq, for the most part, was a fairly well educated, secular, middle class economy with a srong central gov't. Afg, OTOH, is for the most part a totally tribal based warlord agrarian country with no real sense of "country". And in Afg, outsiders - no matter how much we profess to want to help them - are completely distrusted. In addition, the tribal society in Afg is all about siding with the "winner". Hence the reason the populace perpertually sits on the fence. They are hedging their bets in case we are just another transitory colonial power, as they have for centuries.

So unlike Iraq, I don't know that even the best run counter-insurgency operation will succeed. ESPECIALLY now that we've made clear our intentions of leaving on a fixed timeline (nice job Mr President - you dumbass!).

For some really interesting reading and insight into the Afg and regional (Paki mindset) - read Steven Coll's "Ghost Wars".

BTW - H&M's doesn't mean you don't hunt and kill the enemy ruthlessly. But it does mean that you try your best to not also kill and piss off the locals needlessly. It means if you kick in someone's door at 4am looking for an HVI and your intel was bad, you apologize to the homeowner and buy him a new door.

 

[Wild_Bill]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

This thread is killing me but there are 2 m ain Questions i am realy interedted the first was H2O you bragged that the M14's would be at Camp Perry but after the match you just skipped the Question on how they performed? MMM mabe because the did not.

the seccond and most important Question will you be attending the Bash? with your pimped out M14? i realy want to see what results you get in your first match?

And if everyone can see the accuracy and reliability of you shooting your rifle when i bet you will have your ass handed to you by bolt action rifles.

The debate will go on has the soldier realy been supported with a better system not realy it is still a M14 and if they are to be the same barreled actions just with a scope and stock i dont see a massive enhancement. Also you H2O compared the price of 3 grand to upgrade a M14 directly agains a complete fully replaced system that was more remember that you are using a seccond hand rifle as the base for the build you can not say that the M14 is cheeper because if they were actualy made from scratch they would likley be a lot closer in price.
I carried the SLR in the Australian army it was very reliable and always perfomed it is actualy more reliable than either the AR10 or M14 however it was not what i would call the most accurate and mounting scopes was always an issue but it perfomed very well to 600 yards.

Honestly more training ont he rifle systems that are fielded and on training would be more benifite than replacing the Ar's with M14's honestly i would prefer if it was me to have a rem700 on my back in 308 and an AR to fight with then if you were in a position to take long shots at a position you could setup and take the shot with the correct platform to get the job done and it would be easier to fight carrying a bolt action strapped to your back and carrying a assult rifle than trying to fight in areas with an upgraded heavy M14.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">dp425 went around your question because it probably made no sense to him. H&M is just another tool in the military tool box, and part of a comprehensive strategy that might be too difficult for some (you) to understand. Please explain to me, what is inexpensive about waging all out war on a populace. Is it the killing tons of people and creating future enemies part? Is it the dropping quarter million dollar bombs part? Or is it the part where we lose lots of troops? W/E </div></div>

The question is yet to be answered because everyone knows the answer.

H&M is not a tool to shorten but a way to prolong war. With your analogy we should still be fighting, Japan, an Germany.

War cost money an lives, when lives mean nothing, and there is money to be made, all sorts of tools are fabricated, to prolong the event. I've said it before and I'll say it again, with this group, if your not willing to kill the unborn, we are going to lose this one. We have embolden many of our enemy's around the world by playing nice, and not wanting to offend anyone. That's going to come back to haunt us before it's over.

Wars are not over the same day bullets stop flying,...

 

[battle-scarred]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">dp425 went around your question because it probably made no sense to him. H&M is just another tool in the military tool box, and part of a comprehensive strategy that might be too difficult for some (you) to understand. Please explain to me, what is inexpensive about waging all out war on a populace. Is it the killing tons of people and creating future enemies part? Is it the dropping quarter million dollar bombs part? Or is it the part where we lose lots of troops? W/E </div></div>

The question is yet to be answered because everyone knows the answer.

H&M is not a tool to shorten but a way to prolong war. With your analogy we should still be fighting, Japan, an Germany.

War cost money an lives, when lives mean nothing, and there is money to be made, all sorts of tools are fabricated, to prolong the event. I've said it before and I'll say it again, with this group, if your not willing to kill the unborn, we are going to lose this one. We have embolden many of our enemy's around the world by playing nice, and not wanting to offend anyone. That's going to come back to haunt us before it's over.

Wars are not over the same day bullets stop flying,... </div></div>

I wouldn't really compare WW2 and the conflict in A-stan. Apples and Oranges. However, we did use H&M tactics in germany and japan by rebuilding their infrastructures and supplying humanitarian aid. Now those countries can be considered allies. War is not a black and white situation, so the plan to fight said war needs to be comprehensive and multi-faceted. Kill Kill Kill doesnt always work that well, although its always in the toolbox.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bmt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, H2OMan.

Sweet rigs, they are.

BMT </div></div>

Yes they are.

I have the SAGE mount, but opted for the SEI mount (pn #2006) on my Crazy Horse M14 EBR-RINM-SEI
rifle because I can easily get at my iron sights without removing the mount and glass.

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't really compare WW2 and the conflict in A-stan. Apples and Oranges. However, we did use H&M tactics in germany and japan by rebuilding their infrastructures and supplying humanitarian aid. Now those countries can be considered allies. War is not a black and white situation, so the plan to fight said war needs to be comprehensive and multi-faceted. Kill Kill Kill doesnt always work that well, although its always in the toolbox. </div></div>

I would, they both attacked us first,(even though we sowed the seeds with the latest group in the late 80's). H&M after the bullets stop flying yes, as we did "After" VE an VJ day.

We tried H&M in Cambodia but found other methods produced the result's we were after much cheaper, quicker, and less deadly for our side. Last I checked, Cambodia or Laos had no interest in wanting more of it. Had we applied same in V/N the outcome may have been different save a/the war with China and Russia the next day.

War,... is black and white. Conflicts should be short and fought via pitbulls only, no matter who's dirt it is. When Our Military starts down anything other than total war, there is to much money on the table and many in the rule making room have a vested interest in keeping the War alive.

 

[Wild_Bill]

Re: Marksmen issued better M14 rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bmt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, H2OMan.

Sweet rigs, they are.

BMT </div></div>

Yes they are.

I have the SAGE mount, but opted for the SEI mount (pn #2006) on my Crazy Horse M14 EBR-RINM-SEI
rifle because I can easily get at my iron sights without removing the mount and glass. </div></div>

So come on H20 anser the Question Will you be at the fall bash next month you are realy quick to but in and contradict others saying everything is better with a M14 so put your actions into the system instead of your words?

Also how did the M14's go at camp perry?

You seem to come straight in and say dont look at anything else but a M 14 when any one asks about a 308 Ar but can not anser 2 simple questions.

Also because you can use your open sights aswell as your scope that would meen you should be ready to compete?

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't really compare WW2 and the conflict in A-stan. Apples and Oranges. However, we did use H&M tactics in germany and japan by rebuilding their infrastructures and supplying humanitarian aid. Now those countries can be considered allies. War is not a black and white situation, so the plan to fight said war needs to be comprehensive and multi-faceted. Kill Kill Kill doesnt always work that well, although its always in the toolbox. </div></div>

I would, they both attacked us first,(even though we sowed the seeds with the latest group in the late 80's). H&M after the bullets stop flying yes, as we did "After" VE an VJ day.

We tried H&M in Cambodia but found other methods produced the result's we were after much cheaper, quicker, and less deadly for our side. Last I checked, Cambodia or Laos had no interest in wanting more of it. Had we applied same in V/N the outcome may have been different save a/the war with China and Russia the next day.

War,... is black and white. Conflicts should be short and fought via pitbulls only, no matter who's dirt it is. When Our Military starts down anything other than total war, there is to much money on the table and many in the rule making room have a vested interest in keeping the War alive. </div></div>


I'm astonished a combat vet would actually call war black and white. There isn't a damned thing black and white about it- it's entirely gray

 

[BattleAxe]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm astonished a combat vet would actually call war black and white. There isn't a damned thing black and white about it- it's entirely gray </div></div>
I think its a very personal experience for everyone that lives it and in that context it won't fade to gray for them because you see it differently. Some people come back and lead normal lives. Others have PTSD and are mentally/physically scarred for life. Some don't come back at all. It's very black and white for some and I can understand his side.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: battle-scarred</div><div class="ubbcode-body">dp425 went around your question because it probably made no sense to him. H&M is just another tool in the military tool box, and part of a comprehensive strategy that might be too difficult for some (you) to understand. Please explain to me, what is inexpensive about waging all out war on a populace. Is it the killing tons of people and creating future enemies part? Is it the dropping quarter million dollar bombs part? Or is it the part where we lose lots of troops? W/E </div></div>

The question is yet to be answered because everyone knows the answer.

H&M is not a tool to shorten but a way to prolong war. With your analogy we should still be fighting, Japan, an Germany.

War cost money an lives, when lives mean nothing, and there is money to be made, all sorts of tools are fabricated, to prolong the event. I've said it before and I'll say it again, with this group, if your not willing to kill the unborn, we are going to lose this one. We have embolden many of our enemy's around the world by playing nice, and not wanting to offend anyone. That's going to come back to haunt us before it's over.

Wars are not over the same day bullets stop flying,... </div></div>


Okay, lets tackle this question directly- even though it has nothing to do with H&M. Who exactly are you referring to when you say "they"? THEY is far too broad of a term.

THEY- Entire country of afghanistan: would likely do the exact same thing they would do now if we were not there- fight against each other until someone becomes strong enough to make a dictatorship.

THEY- terrorists... do the same thing they always do, attack the bases of freedom

THEY- The current government of AStan- tell us to go away, they don't need us anymore... then fight amongst themselves until either the government or the insurgents win.


Now, let me try to spell this out for you- Germany, Japan, Korea... all conventional conflicts. Here:

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Conventional Warfare</span>:</span>
"Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons and battlefield tactics between two or more states in open confrontation. The forces on each side are well-defined, and fight using weapons that primarily target the opposing army."

Stop trying to place a large square peg in a small round hole.

When I was younger I didn't understand the concept of H&M- I believed the answer was an iron fist. Shoot first, ask questions later. As I gained more experience, knowledge and spent time around men with a less narrow mind-set, I began to understand that warfare in general can not be codified into one narrow set of terms for which A+B=C. No conflict is exactly like the next and in fact many conflicts share virtually nothing in common other than weapons and violence. The way you win one war may or may not share some of the formula for the way you win the next war. Total war against a population only works in the short term if you intend to colonize that country and build an empire. I say short term, because history has proven that you will only rule a people not of your own for so long before the rise up again.

The key thing you keep ignoring is the fact that we are not fighting a government- there is a huge psychological difference between total conventional war waged against a nation and as you argue for, total conventional war waged against a populous. The line is very clear for the populous what your intentions are in conventional war. The enemy is well defined. The populous understand they are not your enemy or target. They are able to deny involvement because they do not wear the uniform, they are not party members, they just want the war to be over. There is structure to conflict. They do not take it personal.

When the enemy is dressed just like the populous, operates out of a family village, gets it's material support from the good-will of neighbors... and you then proceed to go in and treat everyone as if they are the enemy... it now becomes personalized. You just personalized that conflict with everyone you alienated by treating them like the enemy. You showed them that your fight isn't just with the Taliban or AQ, but with every Afgan.

Two primary things build an insurgency:
-the enemy providing for the populous better than the establishment (in all facets of life).
-alienating the populous (if they are going to treat us and kill us like they hate us, they must hate us... and we might as well fight back).


Let me re-cap for you...

Conventional warfare=easily defined as fighting the established ruling party. Easy for the populous to deny you have a direct fight with them- it is only their leaders

Insurgencies= difficult to define a specific enemy... even more difficult for the populous to identify that your fight is not with them.




In conclusion- Apparently you believe the solution here is to carpet bomb villages and cities as was done in WWII. Because the people of Afghanistan will not see a readily visible military objective in doing so, they will be unable to depersonalize the act. You will make enemies of everyone you do not kill.

The dynamics of COIN obviously go much deeper than you've ever given consideration to.... and perhaps much deeper than you are even willing to give consideration to.

 

[DP425]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DP425</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm astonished a combat vet would actually call war black and white. There isn't a damned thing black and white about it- it's entirely gray </div></div>
I think its a very personal experience for everyone that lives it and in that context it won't fade to gray for them because you see it differently. Some people come back and lead normal lives. Others have PTSD and are mentally/physically scarred for life. Some don't come back at all. It's very black and white for some and I can understand his side. </div></div>

Maybe him and I are looking at it from different prospectives... But IMO, there is nothing black and white about combat- rules are emplaced in an attempt to give it structure... and that works for day to day BS... but when the lead flies for real, structure goes right out the window. As someone else on here has said, I guess it would apply... Your mileage may vary

 

[Mike Petersen]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match. It was only the second time the shooter had fired the weapon and reviews so far from the USAR rifle team have been very favorable. I just wanted to answer your question but stay out of the mud slinging.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bmt</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: H2O MAN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

TACOM M14EBRs in Afghanistan

</div></div>

Curious. . .

Is the scope on a cantilever mount?</div></div>

Just an FYI, that is probably a fake picture, because Rangers don't were patches in the field...not even in training so I highly doubt that is real, as well I have worked with all 3 BN and I have never seen an M14 with them... they can afford the better stuff. Maybe an assaulter line unit has a few, but the certainly not the sniper cells. So I can say they aren't even curious about it as it has never once came up.

 

[MK14 SEI]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EBRbuilder</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The EBR at Camp Perry shot a 184 out of 200 on its firt outing in the 1000 yd scope match. It was only the second time the shooter had fired the weapon and reviews so far from the USAR rifle team have been very favorable. I just wanted to answer your question but stay out of the mud slinging. </div></div>

Thank you!

 

[Guest]

Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan

PM sent