Tommygunn Posted June 24, 2007 Report Share Posted June 24, 2007 Reason I ask, and this is to do with the type of grenades the Americans use, is that since the AR series is gas operated, gas will leak from the system and not propel a rifle with maximum efficiency. I suggest that since you cannot lock or seal an AR platform then they must use bullet trap type rifle grenades. I would also say that the 'developmental' M16A1 featured above is just there by chance and that the forward assist has nothing to do with the operation of the rifle grenade itself. It is also probably reasonable to suggest that the prototype shorties and belt fed are weapons made up from laboratory stock and therefore developers of 'special, one-off' weapons have not got their hands on the newer full length M16's with forward assists, especially so since the one featured is an intermediate development M16A1. Caveat: Educated speculation. Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 It is also probably reasonable to suggest that the prototype shorties and belt fed are weapons made up from laboratory stock and therefore developers of 'special, one-off' weapons have not got their hands on the newer full length M16's with forward assists, especially so since the one featured is an intermediate development M16A1. Caveat: Educated speculation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting. I just thought it was a cool picture. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted June 25, 2007 Report Share Posted June 25, 2007 Yeah, that too. Link to post Share on other sites
dookieboy Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Good job M14 this shouold really be stickied Link to post Share on other sites
happy.al Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 A Dump question, what pouches were used to fit the Thompson mags in? And would this pouch fit a MP5 mag? Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Original 20/30 round mag pouches plus basically any pouch or satchel they could find that had the depth. There was nothing that was designed in the day for the Thompson, certainly not off the shelf. Link to post Share on other sites
screamin_weasel Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 BAR belts were also used in 'Nam, obviously as people have said BAR;s were being used, the mag pouches are ideal for m14 mags aswell. Link to post Share on other sites
Deve Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Thompson mags are more often than not seen carried in Chicom chest rigs, or in the later OG mag bag for the M3 Greaser/Thompson. Link to post Share on other sites
M14 Posted June 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 The M3 pouch that attaches to a belt fits thompson magazines. Link to post Share on other sites
dookieboy Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 I talked with a veteran the other day and he said the flak jackets wear worn but more often than not they took them off because of the continous heat. And 90% of people had writing on their helmets / ###### on them. Just to let everyone know... Link to post Share on other sites
M14 Posted June 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 I talked with a veteran the other day and he said the flak jackets wear worn but more often than not they took them off because of the continous heat. And 90% of people had writing on their helmets / ###### on them. Just to let everyone know... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I told you peoples. Flak jackets were not worn as often as you people think. They just make you tired and sweat. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Since when did us 'peoples' insist that soldiers constantly wore flak jackets. I know I didn't. There is plenty footage/photos out there showing soldiers not wearing flak jackets in combat. Link to post Share on other sites
Insanejoe Posted June 27, 2007 Report Share Posted June 27, 2007 Imported by H&T too probably... Or would it be the same G33 and a typo? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, G3 as in the roller locker delayed blow back 7.62x51mm Battle Rifle based on the CETME designed by ex-Mauser engineers. I do believe a number of the Hi-standard silenced .22lr pistols ued by the OSS in WWII found their way into our soldiers hands in Vietnam but no one makes an airsoft version of that. Remington 700's(tanaka and KJW etc. make them) will work for a sniper loadout as the Army and Marines earlier in the war used civilian match grade target rifles with civilian scopes. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 No, G3 as in the roller locker delayed blow back 7.62x51mm Battle Rifle based on the CETME designed by ex-Mauser engineers. Uh, what do you mean by this statement? Basically every weapon used in WW2 and after (and before) was used in Vietnam. For certain all German, Russian, French and American weapons plus a sprinkling of UK. Link to post Share on other sites
KK-pilot Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Quick question, anyone know how much were the older M43-shovels being used in 'Nam? I've heard something that they were lighter than the M56-shovels. Link to post Share on other sites
vietnammarine Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 M43 E-tool: Used by Marines through all war. Flak jacket: - Army more in static position - by Marines generally said "everywhere and still", on the beginning of war quite a lot of Marines did not wear them, but from 1967 it is hardly possible to find Marine w/o flak jacket. Link to post Share on other sites
LeeC Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 BTW ERDL was issued alot more than a few hunderd sets for evaluation. While it was initally trialed by SF there are plenty of pics/references of it being standard issue to the army and marines - so much so infact training staff prefered TS to set them aparts having BTDT There were also 2 versions lime green and brown dominant Link to post Share on other sites
M14 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 BTW ERDL was issued alot more than a few hunderd sets for evaluation. While it was initally trialed by SF there are plenty of pics/references of it being standard issue to the army and marines - so much so infact training staff prefered TS to set them aparts having BTDT There were also 2 versions lime green and brown dominant <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I heard that a few hundred were sent to nam in the expiremental stage but I know it was used more. ERDL fatiuges were even isued to my father in German during the Vietnam war. Link to post Share on other sites
LeeC Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 they were in the early to mid 60's by 68 they were issue - recall reading somewhere that 18 odd thousand were sent over in 1 year alone. the SASR bought borrowed and stole them by the bucket load - they only lasted one recon patrol (Aussies went out for far longer than even the LRRP) but they prefered them to tiger stripe. Link to post Share on other sites
vietnammarine19 Posted June 28, 2007 Report Share Posted June 28, 2007 Regarding ERDL: Marines were issued completely by ERDL´s from Nov 1968, change took a bit of time, but app.in the early 1969, all III MAF had ERDLs. But you can still find combinations with older types of uniforms. Link to post Share on other sites
NickN Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 M14 Originally going to become the militarys next major rifle before the M16 replaced it, the M14 was used in Vietnam but many were only used on semi auto becuase of the big calibre and light weight, on full auto the muzzle climb would become too great. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's something of a myth. While it's not entirely false, it's also not entirely accurate. Look at these videos. Do you see any uncontrollable muzzle climb that wouldn't exist on other fully automatic weapons? http://youtube.com/watch?v=zgvnMhY6S6w The muzzle rise of an M14 is really not much different from any other fully automatic battle rifle. It doesn't matter what you're looking at: An M14, a G3, an FAL, whatever... it's going to be equally hard to place rounds on target with any of these rifles if you're using fully automatic fire. The issue with controllability is due to the .308 round, not the inherent design of the M14. The whole "oh noes, muzzle climb on the M14 is tooo muchly!!!!!!!!" is just something that critics decided to pin on the M14 because it was the last .30 cal rifle used before the switch to .223. Link to post Share on other sites
Tommygunn Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Here's some film I lifted from 'Dear America, Letters Home From Vietnam' showing a Marine(?), during the Tet Offensive, firing an M14. Initially he is all over the place, understandable given his situation, but on the whole he gets the rest of the shots going where he wants them. Also, 'Dear America, Letters Home From Vietnam' is an excellent documentary. See it if you can...and 'Winter Soldier'. NickN, Those guys in the vids are cheating, using pistol a grip stock, vertical grip and using the slings as a brace. Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Blackgoat Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 Yes, the main problem of the M14 against FAL and G3 in its lack of a pistol grip, making full auto extremelly hard to control. Of course, it is hard to control any 7.62 rifle in full auto... Which is why the US turned to the 5.56... and now we start abandoning full auto in rifles, for the benefits of double-taps, maybe we should go back to proper calibers? Link to post Share on other sites
NickN Posted June 29, 2007 Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 NickN, Those guys in the vids are cheating, using pistol a grip stock, vertical grip and using the slings as a brace. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Of course they're going to use the sling to help control. If it's there, why not? Slings are often used for target shooting as well. It's very common to use a sling to aid in shooting. There was only one video with the pistol grip and vertical grip. That was the M14E2 stock. If they would have fielded that stock with the M14, everybody would have had that level of easy control. But nooooo, they had to go with the new .223 cartridge and the AR-15. Link to post Share on other sites
M14 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2007 NickN, there are many many reasons the U.S. military decided to stop the 7.62mm M14s and issue the .223 M16. One main reason is that the military did a study during the Korean war and most soldiers held their fire untill the enemy were a lot closer than the high ranking generals thought, making the larger caliber weapons like the M1 garand and the later M14s long range capibility and pure power more of a disadvantage where smaller caliber weapons would of worked just as well. A average combat load of M14 ammunition is about 100rds. For the same weight as 100 7.62mm rounds, a soldier carrying a M16 can have almost 300rds. Large caliber weapons were just not nessesary anymore. Muzzle climb on a U.S. issue Vietnam era M14s is pretty bad, especially when a soldier is sooting it standing up. To not waste ammo some guys even took off the selector switch and stuck it on semi. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.