Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov (Don Newcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.021828.27885@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 5 Jan 91 02:18:28 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 92
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Don Newcomb <navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?

First I would like to say that my remarks may sound somewhat 
strident but are not intended to denigrate the question or
it's author.

> WWI had trench warfare with positions fairly far apart, and
>the .30-'06 was a round well suited to that situation (in the
>'03 Springfield, and the later M1 Garand, both battle rifles.)  

Actually the M1903 Springfield and Cal .30-1906 cartridge were
not well suited to trench warfare. The rifle was slow and over-
powered for assault on trenches. It had been designed for the
classic open field operations of the American West and was
intended to replace both rifle for infantry and carbine for
cavalry. Many troops abandoned the '03 in favor of the 12 ga.
pump shotgun or Winchester M1908 semi-auto sporting rifle
for use in the trenches.

>The M1 Garand carried over for use in WWII, but for those more 
>fluid circumstances a rifle more along the lines of the "sturmgewehr"
>seemed appropriate so that the M14 was introduced, and it was used 
>later in Korea and to some extent in Vietnam.

The only thing the M14 has in common with the German "Sturmgewher"
is the presence of a removable magazine. Most are not selective
fire. While the M14 has been used in Korea, it was not introduced
until the late 1950s, after the Korean Conflict.

>By then the M16 (a true assault rifle) was in use, and so
>that is what has been distributed to the troops in the Persian Gulf.

I don't know if the semantic debate over whether the M16 is or is
not an "assault rifle" has been settled. There are two definitions
of "assault rifle". They both begin,
  "A straight stocked, pistol gripped, magazine fed, selective fire,
   individual shoulder weapon, firing .....", but then diverge:
   1. "an intermediate power cartridge."
   2. "a cartridge with terminal balistics similar to a .30-30"
The M16 fits #1 but not #2. I do not think that the U.S. military
refers to the M16 as an "assault rifle." In any case the semi-auto
rifles the press assails as "assault rifles" don't fit either definition.

>  Looking at TV presentations of the desert landscape, I
>wonder if the M16 is the right rifle for the circumstances?

Suffice it to say, the M16A2 is probably the best all around service
rifle the U.S. has ever fielded. It is as accurate as either the service
grade M1 or M14 at ranges to 500 m. and can put a lot more hits on target.
The only valid objections I have heard to this rifle are:
 1. In very rough service (e.g. paratroops) the adjustable rear
    sight has been known to be knocked off.
 2. The stock won't fold.
 3. The rear sight mount is to high for convenient use of optical
    sights.
 4. The U.S. should have sought NATO cooperation rather than
    introducing the 5.56 unilaterally in the 1960s. (This is more
    of a historical/political point and the Belgians got the
    last laugh anyway.)

Some of the ridiculous objections I have heard are:
 1. The 5.56 mm projectile is subject to large wind deflection at
    long ranges. (Important to target shooters but if you need
    long range in combat, get a howitzer or sniper)
 2. The 5.56 mm projectile won't penetrate both sides of a _____.
    (tank, bunker, body armor, helmet, outhouse etc)
    at 1000 m. (The service rifles of the late 1800 were designed
    to be used at 1200 m and beyond, but today's rifles are
    designed to put the most hits on VISIBLE targets with the
    least tactical load for the soldier.)
The soldiers of the last century were walking rifle platforms.
(And the rifle was  only a convenient handle for the bayonet :-) )
The main weapon of todays 'foot' soldier is a radio, rocket,
target designator etc.) The rifle is used for personal defense
and security.

The only rifle I would trade an M16A2 for is the Swiss SG90.
The British Enfield bullpup is also very good.

===================================================================
|				|  		 		  |
| Donald R. Newcomb		| "If I had it to do over again,  |
| Naval Oceanographic Office    | I would not even be a Communist,|
| navoceano@oacis.span.nasa.gov | and if Lenin were alive today,  |
| (SPAN) OACIS::NAVOCEANO       | he would say the same thing..." |
| (601) 688-5998		|                  Todor Zhivkov  |         
|				|				  |
===================================================================