Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?
Summary: Rifle's OK
Message-ID: <1991Jan7.051146.8339@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 7 Jan 91 05:11:46 GMT
References: <1991Jan4.010534.16506@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan5.021709.27698@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The OCF Gang: Making Tomorrows Mistakes Today
Lines: 52
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gwh%headcrash.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)

In article <1991Jan5.021709.27698@cbnews.att.com> cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) writes:
>I remember from the M14/M16 argument during the mid-60's that the
>mean battle range in Europe was 500 yards; this was the argument
>for keeping the 7.62 mm NATO-compatible M14.  The M1 and M14 are
>both quite accurate at 500 yards.
>The M16, on the other hand, is effective out to about 300 yards.

Faulty reasoning.  For one, you switched from 'accurate' to 'effective' in mid-
comparason 8-) ...
	The problem is that _no_ service rifle is "effective" further than it 
can be accurately fired.  Neither the M-14 or the M-16 nor for that matter a
bolt action rifle w/o telescopic sights is 'effective' past 300 meters.  You
simply can't hit. [not totally true, but most soldiers aren't true marksmen]

>I believe that most of the other NATO armies have stayed with
>the 7.62 mm rifles.  

Britan now uses the L85 5.56mm bullpup rifle, which has the added bonus of a
low-magnification sighting scope.  Germany has the 7.62mm G3 rifle, but is
replacing it with a 4.5mm caseless, the G11.  The rest of NATO is scattered
mostly with Fn variants.

>The advantages for the M14 in the desert would be (a) greater
>effective range (b) more reliable in sand/dirt (c) ammo common
>to M60 MG and other NATO forces.

a) see above
b) the M-14 has an exposed action.  I've never personally doused one with sand,
but i doubt it's very good for it.  The M-16 is on the other hand enclosed
except for a (closable) ejection port.  The M-14 may be more reliable 
inherently but i doubt the sand will but close the reliability gap, if not
nullify it.
c) The Saudi's use a 5.56mm rifle (Steyr AUG bullpup).  We use one, as well as a
light MG in that caliber.  So do the Israeli's.  Everyone in the Gulf either
uses a 5.56mm rifle or a 7.62S Russian Kalishnikov.

>Marines stayed with the M14 after the Army went to M16, but later
>gave it up sometime in the late 60's, I think.  The Marines are
>still serious about rifle marksmanship, though.

They ought to be; it was a Marines group that designed the M-16A2 upgrade.


  == George William Herbert ==  ** UNIX ate my last .sig, Waiting for Plan 9! **
 == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ########## I do Naval Architecture,  ###########
== + Anywhere, at my price. + ==## Spacecraft Design, UNIX Systems Consulting ##
 == + gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu + == ## RPG writing/development, and lots of other ##
  == +   (415) 849-4853   + ==  ### random stuff, of course.  I'm a JOAT 8-) ###