deputy125

i ran across this article.

while long, it sure does get interesting about the initial problems of the introduction of the m-16 in vietnam from a soldier's perspective and how much crap they had to endure to get the problems corrected-------including a first hand account of th infamous letter to a congressman to get it right----this feller had a hand in it.

this link is to part one........at the bottom of the article will be a link to part 2.
just goes to show how screwed up things can get when politics and money get involved.....

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/index.html

Snuffy

I don't know about now but when the draft stopped so did the hand to hand combat training. Along with the rifle and baronet drills. I often wondered why they even had basic training for the soldiers they sent me. I guess they did learn about the mess call pay day, the ones I got didn't seem to know much more than that. And were full of whinning and excuses that would choke a government mule. God help you if you raised your voice to one and you sure wasn't going to raise a hand to one either. Plastic stocks are good for something easy carry, that's about it from my side of the world.

Terry_P

I always wondered how you could butt stroke someone with one of those toys. I fired both the M-1 and M-14 for record including the M-14A2 (full auto) and thought they were both excellent weapons. To me it seemed strange going to a 223 caliber for combat. I read about trials with a 6.8mm caliber as a replacement but also heard it was dropped for "financial reasons". Same ole same ole.

Snuffy

In a jungle evrioment your weapon catchs on anything and everything. for a liter fast firing weapon my vote would have been for the M2 carbine. Shots were short range only most of the time.
And we had thousand if not millons of them at that time.
A pasting thought some say at 100 yards they won't kill ok stand in front of me at 100 yards and let me shoot you after all it won't kill you right.

snuff I don't know what branch of service you were in but it wasn't mine.
pete
73-94
cav.

sheepdog

...can't get the link to open, but I've read it before....

...in the Corps, they gave us in boot camp enough close combat to make us want more...enough knife training to give us confidence against a rifle at close range...my boys are Army Reservists and got no knife training at all...I was surprised...a good knife is a good friend...even on the streets today...the thing that changed when I was in boot camp was they began to be PC about how we "expressed" ourselves...Congress had an investigation going about how the Marines were training us to be bloodthirsty killers....well....I'm 60 and haven't used it yet...but that training has given me the confidence to go through a lot of situations on the street both on and off the force...good training is never wasted...the warrior mindset never dies...

...I learned the M14 in boot camp...then, in ITR, they gave us the M16---I felt like I'd been robbed...the only way the M16's good for close combat is if it has a razor-sharp bayonet fixed...I missed the strength and weight of the M14....never saw combat, though...so others may disagree and I bow to their experience...and thank them humbly for it...

sheep they still had the M-14 when I was in but only for the snipers.hell when I was in the 2nd acr we still had grease guns in the armsroom rack for the tankers and scouts .
we didn't train with knifes but trust me I got the chit stomped out of me with the big Q-tip.

pete

sheepdog

...I was, too, until they gave us knife training...then I beat the Qtip every time...it's motivating, isn't it!!! Which would you trust more, the M3 or the M1 Carbine????

which one makes the biggest hole .I have owned several M-1 carbines over the years.I have shot coyotes with them some took two hits to put them down.imho it is just one step above throwing rocks.neat plinkers not enough balls IMHO.

Et2ss

I still had the M-14 when I hit my boat in the mid eighties. Then they switched out to the M16. I guess the thought of a 7,62 Nato round being fired inside a 2-1/2" thick pressure hull at depth wasn't the best. We still had the 1911 too. Not sure when the other services got stuck with the M9, but when I got out in 92 we still didn't have them.

Machinist

Tough call. I trust the carbine action much more for reliability but I trust the .45 cartridge much more than the .30 carbine for stopping. I think I would go for the carbine for reliability and accuracy but I would hope for a good handgun for close quarters action.

I have never shoot either gun mentioned so my opinions are of very limited value. It's just my choice.

we got issued the M-9 right afterdersert storm.yet another pistol pushed on the army without any balls.they bought extra mags from the cheapest bidder and got just that...crap.
pete

Machinist

I think the Sig 220 or 225 would have been MUCH better choices. I think the Sig passed the tests but they wanted the Italians to buy something of ours so the decision was made for political reasons. BAH!!

sheepdog

...you been hangin' wit' BH, too much...now cut that "Bah" stuff out!!!!!

Machinist

Pffftt!!

( That's a voiceless bilabial fricative )

sheepdog

...with a political inflection!!!

Machinist

sheepdog

...OK, so you AREN'T the one who Joe ordered the $400.00 gilt-edged Family Bible for the day before his sudden death...we'll take it back...here's the deposit..we were just leaving....town.....

sheepdog

...still can't get the link...I'd like to read the story again...