"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m,
David
E. Powell writes
Very true - and the US Garand was a good gun.

Easy to knock it with hindsight as overpowered and with that niggle
of
the eight-round clip feed, but it was a reliable, effective, durable
semi-automatic rifle that led the world at the time.

Yes. And the fact that the M-14/M-21, which the USMC is reissuing to
riflemen, had a lot of M-1 heritage says something, too.

They are? Why? The USMC (and the Army) snipers have moved beyond the
M-21;
as to riflemen, can't see where the M16A2 is not sufficient (and if you
want
to make it more effective in that 300 meter category, field an
telescopic
sight for it).

It is called the USMC Designated Rifleman or Designated Marksman program,
IIRC. It issues M-14s (scoped I think) to some volunteers/highly skilled
shooters. To take on targets needing precision during small engagements to
compliment unit fire and designated scout/sniper teams. There was news
about
it a while back.

OK. To an army puke, the term "rifleman" is indicative of the personnel who,
along with a SAW gunner and a designated grenadier, make up the standard
infantry squad. IIRC the Army has also been talking about increasing the
number of snipers in its units--down to the company level, in addition to
the current battalion level scout/snipers. But to be honest, fr the role you
are describing, and if you are still talking about engagements in the 300+
meter range and below, I can't see where they are going to gain a lot from
going to the M21 versus just issuing telescopic sights for the M16A2, which
is plenty lethal and accurate out beyond even that range.


I can't see where the M-21 offers much to the rifleman in a
squad that the M16A2 can't deliver (past claims of the 5.56mm not
packing
enough wallop being discounted as less than entirely credible).

I have heard those claims regarding the 5.56 put around lately, too, but
who
knows? I'm just going on what I have heard, and the M-14/M-21 are
certainly
fine rifles at average and above average combat ranges.

They are plenty accurate in the hands of a decent shooter, and the 7.62mm
gives you a longer lethal range. But if the objective is to have godd
designated marksmen at the platoon or thereabouts level, I still can't see
where the M16A2 is deficient. When you start looking at the ranges where the
7.62mm pays real dividends (those 500-600 meter shots), you probably really
need a fair amount of specialty training to developa relaible shooter, and
he is going to have to practice regularly. Having lugged the M14 a few
miles, and having fired it a few times, I can vouch that the weight is not
as attractive as it is for the M16 series (not a decisive factor, but it
does impact upon the equation). Ammunition basic load will be lower (but if
the guy is supposed to be delivering one-shot/one-kill results, no biggie).
Of course they are apparently still available in the thousands, stored over
the past decades for God knows what reason...

Brooks


Brooks

snip