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">Your are wanting to placate the M14 as a long range glassed weapon only, which it was never intended to do from the drawing board. It was to replace the M1 as a battlefield weapon only. Can it be made for long, yes. Can it work short, yes. Can it full fill a S.A.W. roll, again, yes. Does it do all jobs better than something else out there, no. Is there anything out there in US inventory that can step into it's shoes for all the same jobs it can preform, no.
You can beat this horse more, but in the end it's a poor Craftsman that blames his tools.
</div></div>
A Craftsman doesn't expect his circular saw to act as a table saw, a router, a jointer and a sander.
We are not in the practice of using one weapon for all purposes- that has proven ineffective in the past, and fortunately we learned from our mistakes. Placing emphasis on the ability to use the M14 in a large number of roles, each already tasked to weapons better suited is akin to attempting to sell a craftsman a circular saw and telling him... if you're a true craftsman, you'll make it work for everything.
Plain and to the point, it was designed as a battle rifle for engagements of moderate range. It did this well. Don't take away from that by attempting to sell it into uses for which it falls woefully short. </div></div>
I'm not the one trying to sell it as that. Point I was trying to make, was it was made to do things it was never designed to do, by guys that did/do not sit around looking for outs, all the time. Those guys made their tactics fit the weapon, not the other way around.
Every time we go down this road we beat our lips about how we need XXX to win, but our enemy seems to get along just fine with stuff much older, heavy'er, an junky'er. Might be a lesson for us, in that. Then again we are real good at over paying for perceived needs, when better training might be the best/cheaper ticket all around.
</div></div>
I see what you're saying. But at the same time, that same enemy do not do too well in a gun battle against us. In fallujah, Ramadi and Sadr city we killed hundreds, most likely thousands of enemy in a very pitched battle. Could we focus a bit more on the basics of marksmanship? Sure, who couldn't? But the fact is, we are currently the best trained force this country has ever known. We have been running the same rifle for, as someone noted... 40 years. I wouldn't call a weapons upgrade a "perceived" need. Our current weapons are not desperately in need of replacement, they are serving us fairly well. But after 40 years... it's about time to look for something better. Just because our illiterate, tactically deficient enemy uses AK's barely holding together doesn't mean we should be happy with "good enough". 3rd world insurgents are not going to be our main enemy forever. At some point we will fight a competent, well trained and well equipped enemy enemy. I'd rather carry a more modern designed weapon with high tech coatings when it comes time to face an enemy that doesn't rely largely on luck and suicide as their main tactics.
