Army searching for a new rifle

@APACHERAT how long did it take you to get over it all -- if ever?

Just wondering.

You don't need to answer this if you don't want to.

 

I never did, and for ten years I went around thinking that 13 months of my youth was stolen from me. Ten years of heavy partying, etc. thinking I could make it all up. I couldn't. But basically I block a lot of it out of my memory. So there's a lot I don't remember.

A few years ago I hooked up with an old friend who I spent six months with in Vietnam. Hadn't talked to him in over 35 years.
He would say "remember when" or "remember when you" and I would reply "I don't remember" or "are you sure that was me?"
Sometimes I remembered, some times I didn't.

Block it out or down the road you might start having troubles. Then some pantywaist liberal is going to tell you that your broken and better file a VA PTSD claim.

If I had to do it all over again and knowing what the outcome was, yes I would. As long as you gave me back the body I had 45 years ago and no stupid ROE.

 

The purpose of a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) is laying down suppressive fire. From 1958 until 1984 the Marine Corps didn't have a real SAW. The M-14 was suppose to have been the replacement for the BAR but at 9.5 lbs. it was to light to accomplish the mission as a SAW. The BAR was an excellent squad automatic rifle at 19 lbs. So during the Vietnam War neither the Marine Corps or Army had a real SAW. What they did was put a bi-pod on the end of a M-16 A1 and called it the squad automatic rifle.

Have you ever heard of the Stoner-63 ?

When I was based out of Hoi An there was a Navy PBR base close by. You could always distinguish who were "Brown Water Sailors," Navy "SeaBees," "UDT" and Navy "SEAL's."

The SEAL's always seem to be armed with .357 Mag revolvers instead of .45 pistols and they always had Stoner-63's along with their CAR-15's.

The Marine Corps tested the Stoner-63 in actual combat in Vietnam and didn't adopt it. It seems that the Stoner-63 might have made a good SAW even though it was kinda light at 10 lbs. In it's light machine gun configuration still kinda light at 11.5 lbs. But the Stoner-63 was the Navy SEAL's weapon of choice back in the day. -> http://specialoperations.com/28755/stoner-63-trumpet-seals/

 

One of the big problems with providing an AW prior to the adoption of the SAW boiled down to ammo supply.

One thing that has to be considered whenever equipping a unit is ammunition supply. And you do not want to have to have your people carry 4 or 5 different kinds of ammo. Yes, a squad could have used a 7.62 or some other round, but that means that they can no longer exchange ammo as needed from weapon to weapon. And when one kind of ammo runs out, then you are humping nothing but a paperweight.

The M249 was a good design, because it could accept both belted 5.56 from a drum, but also from M16 clips if needed if they run out of drums. And if the riflemen run out of clips they can strip off the belt from the drum and feed it into their magazines.

 

I remember a lot of noise about the 'Stoner system', supposedly a complete interchangeable small arms system, and then it seemed to disappear overnight by the mid-1970's; this is the first mention of it I've seen in decades.

 

Stoner 63 weapon system: light machine gun XM202 and Mark 23 (Mk.23 mod.0)(USA)

Stoner 63A weapon in Commando light machine gun configuration, same as US S.E.A.L. Mark 23 Model 0 gun. Weapon is shown with complete set of subassemblies and barrels, necessary to convert to other configurations, such as magazine-fed light machine gun or assault rifle.
photo: Western Firearms




Stoner 63A weapon in Commando light machine gun configuration. Note that it is late version, with right side belt feed.
photo: Western Firearms




Stoner 63A weapon in magazine-fed light machine gun configuration, with longer and heavier barrel. Note that sights are offset to the left because of overhead magazine.
photo: Western Firearms




Stoner 63A weapon in magazine-fed light machine gun, partially disassembled.
photo: Western Firearms




Earlier version of Stoner 63 light machine gun, with left-side feed, mounted on tripod.




Diagram from original US patent, granted to Eugene Stoner for design of Stoner 62 / 63 weapon system, showing assembly of rifle (top) and belt-fed LMG (bottom) configurations.



data for Stoner 63A Commando / Mk.23 mod.0 LMG



Caliber: 5.56x45mm M193
Weight: 5.31 kg empty
Length: 1020 mm
Length of barrel: 400 mm
Feeding: magazine 30 rounds or belt 100 or 150 rounds
Rate of fire: 700 - 1000 rounds per minute



Eugene Stoner, one of designers of M16 rifle, left ArmaLite in about 1961 and joined the Cadillac Gage Corp. There he began development of an entirely new weapon system. It was probably the first truly modular system, that consisted of about fifteen subassemblies which could be assembled in any configuration, from an assault rifle and short carbine up to a lightweight or even a general purpose machine gun. First prototypes, chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition, appeared in 1962, known as Stoner 62. Just a year later Stoner turned out a new system, chambered for 5.56x45 M193 US service round, and known as Stoner 63. This system, developed and promoted until the early 1970s, was extensively tested by the US military as the XM22 (Stoner 63A rifle), XM23 (Stoner 63A carbine), and the XM207 (light machine gun with belt feed). The only military application of the Stoner 63 system, however, was the Mk.23 model 0 belt-fed light machine gun configuration, used in limited numbers by US Navy Special Forces and Marine Corps in Vietnam. In general the Stoner system, while having the advantages of modularity and interchangeability of parts and thus great flexibility in tactical use, was somewhat too expensive and also slightly over-complicated for a dedicated light machine gun (or any other configuration). It was also somewhat dirt-sensitive and required much attention and maintenance.

Overall, some 3,500 to 4,000 Stoner 63 weapon kits were produced between 1962 and 1971. Of those, some 2400 Stoner 63 Light machine guns were purchased by US Navy for issue to special forces in Vietnam, and about 100 more were bought for US Navy S.E.A.L.'s in improved Mk.23 mod.0 version.

The Stoner 63 is more than just a single firearm; it is a modular kit, which contains about 15 sub-assemblies. Different combinations of those sub-assemblies (barrels, feed units, trigger units, sight units) allow the assembly of various firearms on the single receiver unit. All versions had quick-detachable barrels, which was a handy option for a light machine gun. For LMG versions, Stoner 63 system has several styles of barrels, with different lengths and profiles. US Navy's Mark 23 model 0 machine guns used short, fluted barrels, but other versions (with long barrels) also saw combat in Vietnam.

The stamped steel receiver contains an universal bolt group, with a multi-lug rotating bolt and a long stroke gas piston with gas tube. The receiver also has several sets of mounting points for attachment of all other sub-assemblies and the quick-detachable barrel. In rifle and carbine configuration, the receiver is so orientated that the gas system lies above the barrel and the feed unit mounting points are below the receiver. In all machine gun configurations, either belt or magazine fed, the receiver is turned “upside down”, with the gas system being below the barrel, ejection to the left side, and the feed unit above the receiver. In machine gun configuration, the trigger unit has no hammer; instead, its sear interoperates with the cut in the gas piston rod, allowing only full automatic fire, and only from an open bolt. The magazine feed unit can accommodate proprietary curved box magazines for 30 rounds, and can be used both in rifle and machine gun configurations. The belt feed unit could be used only in machine gun configurations. Early weapons had left-side feed, which sometimes caused jams because ejected shells reflected back into ejection window. Late production light machine guns had right-side feed which eliminated this problem. Early belt-fed LMG's were issued with 100-round box or 150-round drum belt containers. Late production LMG's with right-side feed were issued only with 100-round box containers, made from plastic. All containers were clipped to the bottom of receiver. Different rear sight units were available for various configurations, with the front sights being mounted on quick detachable barrels.

On earlier Stoner 63 system weapons, the charging handle was located on the right side of the bolt carrier; the safety and fire selector were combined in one control, located on the left side of the trigger unit. On the modified Stoner 63A system, the charging handle was attached to the gas piston rod, and projected from the top in rifle / carbine configuration, or from the bottom in MG / LMG configurations; the safety was made as separate lever at the front of the trigger guard, with the fire mode selector still located on the side of the trigger unit, above the pistol grip. Standard buttstock and forearm were made from plastic. All Stoner 63 light machine guns were issued with detachable folding bipods; while tripod and even vehicle mountings were developed by Cadillac Gage Corp, it seems that these never were used in combat.

For description and images of Stoner 63 rifles and carbines please follow this link.

http://modernfirearms.net/machine/usa/stoner-63-e.html

 

Well it certainly sounded like a good idea at the time, didn't it?. It still does, actually, though I haven't heard anything about new plans lately. Lot of new materials science advances since then, and better precision machining techniques..

 

The article makes it clear why the Stoner-63 wasn't adopted.

"Some what to expensive"
Murphy's Law of Combat:
Rule # 12
Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. -> https://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/military_humor_murphys_laws_of_combat.asp


"somewhat dirt-sensitive"

Anyone who know's me know I'm not a big fan of "AR's" (Armalite actions) AR-15's, M-16's. M-4's etc. They require constant cleaning or you'r ****ed big time in a fire fight.

You can bury a M-1 Garand or M-14 in the sand, dig it out and it will fire without a stoppage. AR's likely wont.

M-1's and M-14's are gas operated using a short stroke piston. AR's uses a gas tube that cycles the action and where does all of the gas and crap goes when cycling the action ? Into the the action and trigger housing group.

 

Those of us like you @APACHERAT and I who have had the benefit of experience with the M-14 are the only ones who know better than to trust an AR (Armalite Rifle) design.

But all the new kids on the block worship AR's because they have been brainwashed all their lives.

Good luck trying to spread the word on that though.

I suspect they will just crucify you for it.

 

The only ones who would crucify me for not being an "AR" fan are those who have little experience or knowledge of firearms.

There are more than a few on the PF who know their **** about guns like Turtle Dude, US Conservative, etc. One thing I've learned, nobody is right or nobody is wrong and I respect everyone's opinions unless they don't know what they are talking about.

If you ever gone too those gun forums like https://www.ar15.com/forums/b/3_AR_15.html you notice there are a lot of opinions and the members are pretty civil with each other even though they have opposing opinions.

I'm old Corps and old schooled. It has to be cold hard forged milled steel not stamped steel. Don't like plastic, it has to be hard wood walnut or laminated plywood stocks like the Mauser Kar-98's have.

In boot camp we were issued the M-14 and qualified on the 500 yard KD range at Edson Range.

At 2nd ITR we were issued the M-14. One day we spent the entire day getting familiar the M-16 A1. I remember the first time we were allowed to fire the M-16 full auto and my M-16 has a stoppage after the second round. Not a good feeling.

Since my MOS was 0849 I never went to BIT's at Camp Horno but instead attended the Naval Gunfire School at Coronado NAB. We were issued the M-1 Garand. But never shot it.

Would be issued the M-16 at Staging Battalion at Camp Las Pulgas. Would experience two more stoppages with the M-16.

So when I arrived in-country and was issued the M-16 I wasn't that big of a fan of the M-16 not knowing if when I pulled the trigger would I have a stoppage or not. Not a good feeling to have in combat.

Did have one stoppage but it had more to do with the magazine. You didn't load the 20 round magazines with 20 rounds. 15 to 18 rounds was the rule of thumb or you were likely to have a stoppage. The 30 round mags didn't start showing up in Vietnam until I had already finished my tour of duty.

When I arrived in-country (June of 69) there were some senior SNCO's and field grade officers who were on Iwo Jima or Okinawa during WW ll and more than a few who served in Korea during that war and all preferred the M-1 Garand over the M-14 or M-16. While all of the other Marines were experienced with both the M-14 and M-16 and the majority preferred the M-14.

When I was a short timer FNG's were showing up in-country and I learned that these newbies only experience with the M-14 was on the KD range during rifle qualification during boot camp. That by June or July of 69 after boot camp you were issued the M-16 during ITR and BIT's. So these new Marines showing up only experience with the M-14 was during boot camp and all they knew was the M-16 and they liked the M-16 because that's all they knew. They never used a M-14 on a combat range or in combat.

When I served in the crotch the Corps had three service rifles that were issued. All FMF units not in the Nam were issued the M-14. All Marine security units like Marine Barracks on naval bases and all Marine ship detachments were issued the M-1 Garand. All West-Pac Marines in Vietnam were issued the M-16 A1.

Not once was the M-16 referred to as an assault rifle because it didn't meet the definition used by the military at the time as being an assault rifle. There are only two real assault rifles ever fielded, the Sturmgewehr-44 and the AK-47. Those are true assault rifles.

I think it was in the early 1980's when the U.S. military changed the definition of what an assault rifle is and dropped calling infantry rifles like the M-1 Garand or M-14 as "battle rifles."

 

"Old school"...more like "obsolete dinosaur".

Your claims that wood stocks are better than composites and that M-16 isn't an assault rifle are both objectively wrong.

 

Both the Sturmgewehr-44 and the AK-47 had wooden stocks.

The M-14 wooden stocks in Vietnam had issues in the wet, humid climate, swelling. I'm sure the 03-Springfield's and M-1 Garand's had the same issues in the jungles in the South Western Pacific during WW ll.

The Marine Corps solved the problem with the M-14 wooden stocks, fiberglass stocks. I remember the day we were told to turn in our M-14 wooden stocks for fiberglass stocks. Good bye linseed oil but the fiberglass stocks were 1/2 pound heavier.

Before 1980 both the M-14 and M-16 were referred to as "service rifles" or "infantry rifles." After 1980 the M-14 became a "battle rifle" and the M-16 became an "assault rifle."

From 1944 to the early 1980's the definition of an assault rifle was...
A shoulder fired rifle.
Capable of full auto fire
Chambered for a cartridge larger that a pistol round but smaller than a full power rifle round.

In the early 1980's the U.S. Army adopted the following definition for being an assault rifle.
It must be an individual weapon.
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine
And it should at least have an effective range of 300 metres (330 yards)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being called such.

Examples:
Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 meters.
Select-fire rifles such as the FN / FAL battle rifles formerly infantry rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges



Here's what the Germans did during WW ll with the Sturmgewehr-44. They took the standard 7.92×57mm Mauser cartridge and shorten the shell casing by 26 millimeters and you have the first assault rifle cartridge, the 7.92 X 33mm.

The Ruskies with their SKS and AK-47's, they took the standard Russian 7.52 X 54mm R cartridge, shorten the shell casing by 15 millimeters and you have the 7.62 X 39mm.

Guess what ?
If you take a M-14 that still has it's full auto selector switch on it and take the 7.62 X 51mm cartridge and shorten the shell casing lets say by 15 millimeters guess what you have ? The M-14 assault rifle chambered for the 7.62 X 36mm.

Is the Remington .223 or 5.56 X 45mm really an intermediate rife cartridge ? It's a high power varmint rifle cartridge isn't it ?
It travels faster, flatter and has more range that the 7.62 X 39mm or the 7.92 X 33mm.

The question to be asked, 52 years ago was the Remington .222 or .223 classified as an intermediate rifler cartridge ? I don't think so. It was a high power varmint cartridge used for shooting little four legged varmints at long ranges.

 

Thank you for confirming that your claim that the M-16 is not an assault rifle was false. You could have just admitted it in far less words.

By the way, modern AK's don't have wooden furniture and modern composites are lighter than wood.

You are out of touch with the modern reality of war.

 

You don't want a weapon being to light.

The reason why the M-14 didn't replace the BAR as a squad automatic rifle was because at 9.5 pounds it was to light and if you ever fired the M-14 in the full auto mode you know what I'm talking about.

The rule of thumb in most cases, 10% increase of the weight of a rifle or hand gun decreases the recoil by 10%.

Have you ever fired a Thompson submachine gun full auto ? at 10.8 pounds the M-1928 A1 Thompson has very little recoil.

Ever fired a BAR ? At 19 pounds it has half the kick than a M-1 Garand.

Before the Vietnam War and adopting the M-16 the infantryman was a rifleman who would engage the enemy out to 900 yards or more and would take deliberate aim of the enemy.

Today the infantryman is point aiming and a fire team or squad send rounds down range into the "beaten zone."

It explains why ammunition expenditure by infantrymen / riflemen in heavy combat during WW ll was from 50 to 80 rounds per day. What is it today ? With the average combat load of 210 rounds and soldiers and Marines find themselves running out of ammo in just one fire fight.

The way we have been fighting since the Vietnam war requires a damn good logistical support in place for resupplying the grunts in the field today.

 

Thanks @APACHERAT for the backgrounder. All info I did not know. I was in pre-1980 so I never ran into these definitional issues.

My M-14 at OCC at Quantico was a "US Rifle M-14". My M-16 at TBS there was 5.56 Rifle M-16.

I'm pretty sure the USMC uses both still right now, with one of the four infantry fire team marines having the M-14's since they have a somewhat longer reach than the 16's or 4's have. I only heard that from a recently returned Marine from A-stan however. He is the only guy I know who went there. I have another friend from Iraq, but he was a tanker not infantry.

With a 20 inch barrel on the 16's that seems rather short to me to be called a rifle. And being made out of tin and plastic I would not consider it a battle rifle like the 14's because it is not very good for butt stroking (no pun intended). I call these long guns "carbines".

A carbine according to the classic definition from the 1500's to the 1900's is a long pistol or a short rifle. Case in point -- the M-1 Carbine (which has a barrel length of 18 inches).

They (the instructors) told us that the M-16 was desirable for Viet Nam because engagements there were closer -- normally less than 100 yds -- and the ammo was lighter. Hence the USMC switched to the M-16 "carbine" from the M-14 "rifle". Nobody with experience with the M-14's liked the M-16's. They all felt that the 223 ammo was inferior to the 308.

My service weapon was a Springfield 1911A1 however so the M-14/M-16 debacle was not my problem. I grew to love my 1911A1 and to this day I sill carry a 45ACP.

Thanks again for the history. I knew another fellow like you with extensive hardware experience but his went all the way back to 1911. He is no longer living however. He was an old WW2 vet like my dad. But my dad was a tanker not infantry. He spent his life riding around in Sherman and Patton tanks.

 

The modern Ruger Mini 14's came out around 1975. When they did I bought one for myself right away. When the newer 580 series came out recently I bought one of those and gave my old one to a friend who was just starting out shooting and needed a home defense long gun for him and his wife.

I love my Mini 14 because it reminds me so much of the M-14. Naturally it is lighter as is the ammo too. As a carbine it fits more easily in my car as well.

There are various nations that use the combat versions of the Mini's for their armed forces.

This would also be my suggestion to the Pentagon -- switch to Ruger Mini 14's.

 

I know, I cited that part in my post. I was talking about the general concept in the second part, but I guess that wasn't clear. Couldn't find much in the way of new system designs since then that went anywhere, outside of some high end civilian target rifles/pistols/carbines and some 'survivalist' do-it-yourselfers here and there.

 

308 was the original patent. It was modified to 223 for the military. They won't be going to 308.
6.5 Grendel likely

 

Four or five years ago there was talk about the U.S. military going with the 6.5 Grenedel. Don't know what happened, Obama's sequestration I suppose.


Two good articles. Not my opinions but someone else opinions.

It obvious the author isn't a big fan of the .308 and makes some good points.

 

The Japanese Arisaka was also a 6.5 ... 6.5x50.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arisaka

 

6.5×50mmSR Arisaka (center) with .303 British (left) and .30-06 (right).

 

My personal view is that for antipersonnel applications the 6.5x50 is the best for 50 to 750 yards.

Oswald used a 6.5x52 Carcano.

Good choice.

 

Charles Whitman shot 49 people from a long distance with 18 kills from a long distance with a Remington 6 mm bolt action Remington Mod 700 and a Remington pump action Mod. 14 chambered for the .35 Remington.

 

We are also fighting against enemies with similar firepower to us. In WW2, the Germans had bolt action rifles and a smattering of SMGs and usually a machinegun every 10 men, but the majority of their men had bolt action rifles. It doesn't take much for 50 rounds to overpower the 12 rounds per minute that a German could do if he wasn't aiming and was just working the bolt as fast as he could.

Enemies today have small arms on par with what we have. That takes more ammo expenditure to suppress.

The only place where you are going to find a battlefield where you can engage at 900 yards is Afghanistan. Modern combat everywhere else occurs at ranges of less than 300 yards, usually less than 100 yards.

As for "you don't want a weapon being to light", I'll trust modern day special operators over you. They are the one's who specifically commissioned the Mk.46 and Mk.48 because they wanted even lighter machineguns.

 

Yeah, amazing. He murdered people with no tactical training who didn't know how to take cover. Real impressive to kill civilians.