Gun Range

[FullMetalJacket]

I went to a gun range yesterday with my dad, uncle and a friend. We were there all day and was well worth it. The first gun that I shot was a bolt action rifle M1917 Enfield, Shot off 30 rounds at 3 targets. Man those rilfes have some serious kick but it feels awesome. Out of of a score of 300, my score was 218. The targers were 100 yards away. The black circle(Most Points) has a diameter of 6 inches. It looks like a dot from a 100 yds away. Without a scope, I think I did pretty well considering I have no shot a rilfe in 16 months until yesterday. I was 18th out of 35 people that shot. Some of the other scores of the other shooters were above 250. Later that day, I shot a few clips of the M1 Garand. I was loving life. The recoil is very smooth and it is a very nice rifle. My dad is considering buying the M1 and Springfield 03' from a military/government warehouse in Alabama where by uncle bought his M1. I also shot a semi-auto shotgun that is owned by a navy SEAL. That shotgun is awesome just cause its semi. If my dad is able to buy those guns, Ill be sure to be going to the gun range a lot to work on my marksmanship.

[namgrunt]

FMJ
If you dad has a friend with an M1A1 (M14), ask him how it shoots. If you get the opportunity to fire one, you'll find it has about the same recoil as an M1. The M1A1 has a 20 round box magazine instead of an 8 round clip. Mechanisms are slightly different, since there is no "follower guide" in the M1A1, but the sights are almost identical in function. They do have different "point of aim...point of impact" adjustment settings. If you enjoy shooting, I think you'll like it. The M14 was the main battle rifle when I first joined the Marines. Overseas, I carried the full automatic version, with bipods and a selector switch to choose the rate of fire. It is an outstanding rifle.

[FullMetalJacket]

Yeah I see what you are saying. I wanted to go with the M1 cause it was the primary rifle in WWII. Many believe,and so do I, that the M1 was the rifle that won the war. I also prefer the M1 cause the clip ejection after the final round is fired. But the M1 does tend to over heat bigtime and the M14 is inner cooled.
I know one man that owns the M14, and so does my dad. He used work with my dad and he is the one that works at another gun range where I first shot the M1 and M14. So my dad has to ask him but the only problem is that man moved to Arizona.
Either rifle would be amazing to own and shoot if that chance does arrive to me.

[namgrunt]

Actually, no M14s are now available for sale to the general public. They were buyable about 25 years ago, but no more. The original rifles had a "selector assembly" below the receiver housing. The assembly had a lock installed on it, preventing fully automatic function, but allowing semi-automatic fire. Those men designated Automatic Riflemen had the lock replaced by a switch, which was a rotating cam unit. In conjuction with a part called a "disconnector rod", it allowed full auto fire as long as the trigger was held to the rear of the trigger housing. I was an AR Man, so I was issued such a weapon, along with the extra magazines necessary.

However, too many grunts figured out how to circumvent the locking device, and could select full automatic by jury-rigging the lock assembly. M-14s sold to the public still had the locks on the receivers. These were machined to remove them and overcome the possiblity of some knowledgeable gunsmith altering old service rifles and selling them to criminal elements as fully automatic weapons. To further "demilitarize" the old M14, the bayonet lugs were milled off as well. Somewhere along the line, the rifle's designation was changed to M1A1. No M1A1 has a lug on the flash surpressor to attach a blade.

Thought you mignt want to know a bit of the piece's history. I had to turn in my last M14 (semi-automatic) in 1968, and was given the M16A1 in return. I was gypped, but thats another story, and a personal opinion as well.

[FullMetalJacket]

Thats something new I learned today. Thanks.

[jdfairman]

Thats a long-running debate. I have never had the pleasure of shooting an M14 or M1a1, but I've gotta take up for the M-16... at least the A2 version. I've heard people rag on them, but I think credit needs to be given where its deserved. At MCT and later at OCS, I was issued the sh--ttiest hunk of junk imaginable. No bluing remained on them; the retaining pins as well as the receiver was loose. Everything indicated these rifles had been without a doubt rode hard and put up wet, but I cleaned them up relatively well and greased the bolt carrier group real good with CLP. Neither one of them jammed... even with blanks.

[gatormatt]

My rifle jammed all the time at OCS. Finally a Captain told me to clean my magazines (which they had earlier told us specifically not to do). After that, everything worked fine. Anyone know why they would tell us not to clean the magazines?

[jdfairman]

I have no clue. They told us the same thing in class; however the PltSgt and S.I.'s always told us to clean them. I always cleaned mine out anyways. Didn't make sense to leave them nasty.

[namgrunt]

Lt(s)
When we received our M16A1s, they were still going through "teething" troubles. Undoubtably, cleaning the magazines was part of the solution. However, when we turned in our trusty M14s, we were handed a totally unfamiliar weapon. given a few lectures as to care and cleaning procedures, spent a couple of hours trying to coordinate the sights, then sent into combat operations with the new toys. I didn't like the sights either, since you adjusted elevation with the front sight post, and windage with the rear sight apreture. Thats dumb!

When they fouled, the familiarity with the weapon system wasn't there. When you had rounds zinging past you position, you wasted time trying to unscrew what you remembered of the demonstrations and lectures. We had three months to learn the M14 in boot camp. The automatic muscular response wasn't there with the M16. They even broke down funny.

The principal problem I enountered was creasing of the cartridge casings by the multiple lug bolt face. One cartridge was penetrated to the powder chamber when I pulled the magazine out to unjam it. Why that round didn't cook off in the magazine well is a mystery.

I could take apart an M14 blindfolded, and put it back together, knowing it would function. I knew the forward and rearward movements of the action, and could analyze a malfunction almost automatically. It was usually just a loose gasport endbolt. A quick cinching with my combo tool, and I was back in business.

I only trusted breaking down the M16 during daylight hours, when I could see what was going on inside. I didn't trust the weapon, and that made all the difference. I wasn't the only man who had problems either.

I've seen reports which claim ammo was issued which had the incorrect propellent mixture, causing incomplete powder burning. This blew crud into the magazine, and helped foul the follower springs. The original weapons, issued to ARVN troops, used the correctly formulated powder mix, and were "self-cleaning." That had been one of the selling points, along with the intentional tumbling of the projectile when it struck matter, such as flesh, or trees, or water. The result was explosive. Impressive to look at, but useless if the weapon kept jamming.

The service has had about 40 years to fix the faults with the Mattel Specials. They are now the third most used weapon in the world's military forces, right behind the Kalashnikovs. Personally, I still don't trust the M16, but that is just me.

[cmbell]

The M16A2 is a decent rifle. The only faults I saw with them was that with blanks they seemed to jam alot. Even tap rack bang would'nt even work sometimes. A little speck out dirt can cause a jam also. The only way to keep the M16A2 from messing up is to keep it clean..

I've never had a chance to fire a M14..

[namgrunt]

Cmbell
I agree with the little speck of dirt observation. The M16 was the first battle rifle I'd seen with a hinged DUSTCOVER. The tolerances were (are) too tight. Drop it in the mud and gunk with an open dustcover, or dive into a big water buffalo pie when hitting the deck, and you'd better have a big rock for cover, while you got it "cleaned" enough to function.

With the M14, you poured the water out of the barrel, and returned fire. If you went barrel first into the mud, then you removed the magazine, cleared the chamber, and ran your cleaning rod through a couple of times, otherwise, you were good to go.

The M14 also felt natural with a bayonet on the end of the flash surpressor. You could parry and thrust without having your hand far from the safety and trigger. With the M16, it felt unnatural to fight with your hand on the pistol grip, and if you used the narrow part of the buttstock/buffer assembly, your hand was away from the trigger. It just wasn't natural.

If you ever have a chance to try an M1A1, you'll love the distance you can reach with regular ball ammo. This is in contrast with the specialized ammo developed for distance with the M16. You could hit to 500 meters easliy with iron sights. It was required, in order to qualify at the rifle range. If you were good, 700 yards wasn't far fetched. The original M16 didn't have the distance nor the accuracy with the smaller round.

the M14's recoil is similar to a 30.06 caliber piece. Easy to get used to, and not noticeable when you are in the middle of a fight. The front sight isn't as steady as an M1, but it doesn't have the extra wood on the fore end for weight. Find a friend who has one, and badger the guy to take you shooting. You'll love it.

Semper Fi!

[FullMetalJacket]

namgrunt, Im not sure if I am correct here but didnt a Navy man figure out the problem with the A1? I remember watching something of that on the history channel months ago.

[namgrunt]

FMJ
You've got me on that one. I don't know who fixed the problem. I was evacuated to the States, and spent the remainder of my active service assigned to a hospital barracks before being seperated from active service. I didn't serve with a grunt unit again, and didn't follow further developments with the weapon. Of all the long guns I own, none are an M15/ M16, nor any variant on that design.

I also don't have cable, so I don't get to see much of the history channel unless I'm at my in-laws house. That is where I've caught some episodes of "Mail Call", R.Lee Ermey's show. I will do a search along that tangent, now that you have piqued my curiousity. Thanks for the info.

namgrunt

[FullMetalJacket]

No problem, I remember hearing something about that, not sure if you knew anything about that cause of your knowledge on rifles. Hope you do find something on that topic because thatll be someting you learned about just like how I learned more about the M14.

[david43844]

Well I now know why I can't find an M-14 on the open market.......Darn it!! Would'nt have an M-16 or AR-15 if it was given to me......

[FullMetalJacket]

check this out:
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m1a-stan.shtml

[jdfairman]

The problem with the early models was indeed use of the wrong type of propellant.

[FullMetalJacket]

You know when they figured that out during Viet Nam?

[AndyN1981]

Just wanted to know if anyone has experience with the M4 Carbine or Commando and what they thought about it. I've heard it's a good gun to have and also wanted to know if in the Marines you'd get the chance to choose your own weapon? I know in Boot Camp everyone trains with the M16A2 so I was wondering if that's the weapon everyone has to use?