Marines grade their equipment

Geezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
98
Location
NOVA
Thought this was interesting. I'd just give a link, but you'd have to log on to the Post to read it

[ QUOTE ]
Tom Ricks's Inbox
Washington Post - Sunday, February 4, 2007
This item, passed along by a retired Marine officer, reminds me of what professional soldiers talk about during their downtime. It is drawn from Military.com, a commercial Web site specializing in military affairs.
* * *
How Marines Feel About Their Gear
Military.com {vbar} January 23, 2007 (Editor's note: This piece was forwarded to the Military.com staff without attribution, which is usually a show-stopper for us, but it has such good detail that we wanted to share it with readers of Warfighter's Forum.)

1) The M-16 rifle: Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder-like sand over there. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. Marines like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round because of its poor penetration on the cinderblock structures common over there. Even torso hits can't be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.



2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon), .223 cal. Drum-fed light machine gun: Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of junk. Chronic jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly (not fun in the middle of a firefight).



3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Thumbs neutral. Good gun, performs well in desert environment; but Marines don't like the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: They've seen bad guys hit multiple times but continue to fight.



4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Thumbs up. The Marines use this weapon frequently for clearing houses with good effect.



5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun, developed to replace the old M-60: Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down. Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.



6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. "Ma deuce" is still worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, and the most coveted weapon in theater.



7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody who is authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get his hands on one. With few exceptions, this weapon can reliably be expected to drop the enemy with a torso hit. The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK military model and supposedly love it. The old government model .45's are being re-issued en masse.



8) The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and grunts love the 7.62 round.



9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and accuracy, and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle suicide bombers (they're actually stopping a lot of them) and barricaded enemy. Definitely here to stay.



10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. A heavily modified Remington 700. Great performance. Snipers have been using heavily with great effect. Rumor has it that a Marine sniper on his third tour in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record with over 100 confirmed kills.



11) The newer body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47 round. The bad news: Hot as hell to wear, almost unbearable in the summer heat (which averages over 120 degrees). Also, the enemy now goes for head shots whenever possible. All the B.S. about the "old" body armor making our guys vulnerable to the IED's was a non-starter. The IED explosions are enormous and body armor doesn't make any difference at all in most cases.



12) Night Vision and Infrared Equipment: Thumbs way up. Spectacular performance. Our guys see in the dark and own the night, period. Very little enemy action after evening prayers. More and more enemy being whacked at night during movement by our hunter-killer teams. We've all seen the videos.



13) Lights: Thumbs up. Most of the weapon mounted and personal lights are Surefire's, and the troops love them. Invaluable for night urban operations.

[/ QUOTE ]


Looks like the vote's for bigger bullets.
 
This stated Marines but also states M24 sniper rifle.... The Marines use the M40A3, the Army uses the M24.

I suspect this is not good info...
 
[ QUOTE ]
This stated Marines but also states M24 sniper rifle.... The Marines use the M40A3, the Army uses the M24.

I suspect this is not good info...

[/ QUOTE ]

There are comments on this same thing on other boards, and I wondered about it too. Since both are based off the Rem. 700 and pretty similar, I'm not sure it wasn't just a mis-speak on someone's part, or that Army and Marine feedback got run together.

I heard enough firsthand gripes about the M-16 and the 5.56 in 'Nam to give the current opinions credence. Mine never flopped, but I was kind'a anal about maintenance, and didn't spend extended periods in the field. I've heard in several places that the M2 and Barrett have gotten kudos. Most of the comments seem pretty valid to me.
 
This info si probably media started as some of the info seems to be "read over" as its what keeps being stated over and over.
The whole gribe with the m-16 gets on my nerves , not so much the gun but the caliber , if you trying to shoot through brick walls get a bigger **** gun , your not gonna find a "personal freindly" weapon that is going to do you much good in a fire fight that will shoot through bricks and have enough umph to do any good. The 308 round will break some bricks but its not going to do a whole lot more after that. The ammo they are issued is crap , the spec-op guys and SEALs get to carry the 77gr Match King ammo which does a great job on bodies but not so well on armor and the general grunt can't get it. I've got several friends that are over their and the M-4 is the weapon of choice becasue they can use any ammo they want.

As for the function of the M-16 , its one of the best battel weapons out their IF you take care of it , their are alot of things that can be done to it to make it more relaible but seeing as alot of these guns are 20+ yrs old or more and built by the lowest bidder your gonna have trouble with them no matter where your using it. The sand over their gets into everything no matter how well its made the only way to matain a weapon over their wis with
"dry lubes" and to blow the weapon out frequiently.

Also the 9mm is a poor choice if your gonna be shooting FMJ ball ammo this has been proven time and time again. Why the US is still "tieing the hands" of our troops is unknown to me , we have some of the best soldiers in the world and they are given some of the crappiest tools to try to work with.
 
The Washington Post is hardly the place I would look for expert opinions on military small arms. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Who on this board would pick .223 as their first choice for deer hunting? Imagine the deer has an AK or RPG pointed back at you. Good for the Marines for going back to 308. Gotta like those in command for taking care of their guys and business.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The Washington Post is hardly the place I would look for expert opinions on military small arms. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I was surprised to see it there too. How you feel about Military.com, where it was originally posted?

http://www.military.com/forums/0,15240,123028,00.html (copy and paste to address line to see the article)

There's four pages of feedback ("Join the discussion" link) that range from calling it all BS to agreeing with everything.

Guess it just depends on one's individual experience, and what one's heard from people they trust.

Ford vs. Chevy, anyone? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
(Editor's note: This piece was forwarded to the Military.com staff without attribution, which is usually a show-stopper for us, but it has such good detail that we wanted to share it with readers of Warfighter's Forum.)


This has been around a while.

lots of bs there.

I Have not heard any troop complain about the m16/m4 or 249 weapons system.

Matt
 
[ QUOTE ]
Guess it just depends on one's individual experience, and what one's heard from people they trust.

Ford vs. Chevy, anyone?


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%. Time and place for each caliber and gun (I haven't picked up a piece of military hardware since 1972 so obviuosly I know nothing about the new weapons systems).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Who on this board would pick .223 as their first choice for deer hunting? Imagine the deer has an AK or RPG pointed back at you. Good for the Marines for going back to 308. Gotta like those in command for taking care of their guys and business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try Deer hunting with plate carrier, mav, 6 loaded 7.62 mags, radio gear etc. Now remember it's hot sometimes.

Also try getting in and out of vehicles all day long. Working in confined spaces with several other team members etc.

That m14 starts to suck pretty quick.

Matt

BTW Deer are alot tougher than Humans
 
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine the deer has an AK or RPG pointed back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not have to imagine. I can just reach over and check my pulse to see whether the M-16 will out perform the AK-47.
 
I would take a 223 loaded with a 77gr Match King over a 308 with a FMJ ball round any day on human targets and light armor.
I think that the idea of going to a bigger bullet like the SPC idea is a good but I don't think that the complete retooling of the gun is called for nor is it worth the trouble if you still gonna be shooting FMJ ammo
Simply necking the 223 case up to 6mm would make for a more effecient round in the short barreld M-4 and it would feed alot better also. capped with a 70-80gr bullet it would have 600yd ballistic capibility much better on target performance and all that would be required would be a barrel change.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would take a 223 loaded with a 77gr Match King over a 308 with a FMJ ball round any day on human targets and light armor.
I think that the idea of going to a bigger bullet like the SPC idea is a good but I don't think that the complete retooling of the gun is called for nor is it worth the trouble if you still gonna be shooting FMJ ammo
Simply necking the 223 case up to 6mm would make for a more effecient round in the short barreld M-4 and it would feed alot better also. capped with a 70-80gr bullet it would have 600yd ballistic capibility much better on target performance and all that would be required would be a barrel change.

[/ QUOTE ]

JD, aren't rank and file all restricted to FMJ regardless of whether its 5.56, 7.62, 9mm or .45?
 
FMJ is not a fast requirement, Sierra MatchKing bullets are allowed when last I checked. The Hauge Convention has been examined by lawyers apparently, MatchKings are not forbidden for use against enemy combatants.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top