"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.

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.

Brooks

snip