Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Laconia View Post
    Okay. it's the "CAR" 15. One would think that a combat veteran would know his weapon nomenclature.
    It's a very minor point, not really warranting such commotion.

    Leccy: There were more than a single version of the Car-15 over the years, with the later versions looking very like todays' M-4, and in those early days we just called them "Shorties" They had (for the civilian market) a very short barrel, which required a permanently affixed flash hider in order to reach the Federally required 16+ inch length (to avoid being classed as a short barreled rifle , that needs some paperwork to obtain legally)

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    249

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    It's a very minor point, not really warranting such commotion.

    Leccy: There were more than a single version of the Car-15 over the years, with the later versions looking very like todays' M-4, and in those early days we just called them "Shorties" They had (for the civilian market) a very short barrel, which required a permanently affixed flash hider in order to reach the Federally required 16+ inch length (to avoid being classed as a short barreled rifle , that needs some paperwork to obtain legally)
    There are lot's of folks these days who misrepresent their military service and the poster could be one of those. A few red flags are men who like to talk about their combat experience and don't know their CAR's from their KAR's. Most of those who actually were at the sharp end of the stick rarely talk about it, so that is why I brought it up relating to this particular individual. Don't be fooled.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    We'll see.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    It's a very minor point, not really warranting such commotion.

    Leccy: There were more than a single version of the Car-15 over the years, with the later versions looking very like todays' M-4, and in those early days we just called them "Shorties" They had (for the civilian market) a very short barrel, which required a permanently affixed flash hider in order to reach the Federally required 16+ inch length (to avoid being classed as a short barreled rifle , that needs some paperwork to obtain legally)
    I have very limited experience with the platform myself, a few in NI and a few that were issued for jungle warfare training when we still had the old SLR (a mix of various AR15/M16 models).

    The similar AR 18 is a little different as it was the basis for the SA80 - heavily modified of course.

    I assume the 16+ inch rule was why i have seen a few Stirling SMG's in the US with a barrel that is long enough to poke the eye out of anyone you are effectively shooting at. The reputation of the stopping power of the 9mm was pretty poor with us at any distance past 5m - although actual practical experience proved the reputation wrong it still was the percieved 'wisdon' of the masses.

    There was a shortened version of the SA80 made (L22) and issued to tank and some air crews, for a while at least, although I had never seen it when I left.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    National Firearms Act firearms are those that fall outside the usual sporting classes(though some have been specifically excepted and put on the exemption list.) Any firearm with a shoulder stock of any kind is a Rifle (or Long Gun) and these must have a minimum barrel length of 16 inches. Most makers add a bit to that just to avoid accidental violations, so 16.5 is usually the mark. This is measured with the bolt, or block or whatever it uses in the closed, and locked position, and measured to the muzzle. This same method is applied to shotguns, though the minimum length for them is 18 inches, regardless of the shoulder stock being present.
    In order to get firearms with barrels shorter than the standards allow, one has to go through the BATFE and via a Form 1, or Form 4, do the paperwork for an N.F.A. Firearm,in this case SBR, or SBS (short barreled whichever) providing mug shots, fingerprints, and a Tax of $200 and waiting for several Months for the paperwork to make it's way through the mill.
    As far as rifles of any sort were concerned, in the Army after Basic training, I never saw a Rifle excepting for yearly qualification. We had an Arms Room full of them, but never much used them. The M-60 Tank being our primary weapon, and the 1911-A1 .45 pistol our primary side arm. We did have M-3 sub Machine guns, but never fired them in the years I was there. These were also the primary weapon for the Bomb Squad work we occasionally did.
    The M-14 was much talked about, many would have preferred them if for nothing more than the larger bullet. Those among us who were in the Jungles however, were happy with the M-16's . These days, although I enjoyed shooting the M1A, and a few M-14's, they are truthfully too Rube Goldberg for serious work .

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    It's a very minor point, not really warranting such commotion.

    Leccy: There were more than a single version of the Car-15 over the years, with the later versions looking very like todays' M-4, and in those early days we just called them "Shorties" They had (for the civilian market) a very short barrel, which required a permanently affixed flash hider in order to reach the Federally required 16+ inch length (to avoid being classed as a short barreled rifle , that needs some paperwork to obtain legally)
    Eh, I'm not sure it's so minor. I haven't heard of many Vietnam era Special Forces units holding onto their M-14's nor solely using one form of ANY rifle. Many were armed with a hodgepodge of guns from what I have read, including Swedish sub machine-guns, CAR-15's, M-16's, and AK's. I find it a bit difficult to believe an "A-team" carried only M-14's. Especially since it was the "Green Beret's" that initially tested and favored the AR-15 in the early days of the conflict - one of the main reasons the Army began equipping infantry units with the rifle...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 08-30-2016 at 12:28 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,313

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Eh, I'm not sure it's so minor. I haven't heard of many Vietnam era Special Forces units holding onto their M-14's nor solely using one form of ANY rifle. Many were armed with a hodgepodge of guns from what I have read, including Swedish sub machine-guns, CAR-15's, M-16's, and AK's. I find it a bit difficult to believe an "A-team" carried only M-14's. Especially since it was the "Green Beret's" that initially tested and favored the AR-15 in the early days of the conflict - one of the main reasons the Army began equipping infantry units with the rifle...
    I had meant the mistaken use of Kar Vs. Car. An easy enough mistake to make. It did not include any of the M-14 issues.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    I understand, just saying overall the gist of the posting has a couple minor red flags...

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    201

    Default Re: The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) 2015/01/30 Shawn

    Well, I did 2 tours with SF in VN.
    3 tours and even more are not unheard of. Some back to back, others with time in between at Ft Bragg or elsewhere.
    I know personally guys with 5 years there total.
    Regular B Teams in general did not have combat missions. Each was an admin and logistical center for 4 A Teams, which were out in isolated camps.
    Mike Force was organized at a seperate B Team level and they probably saw more combat on a continuous level than anyone over there.
    There were also the Special Project guys but they were generally OPCON to MACV.
    I spent 16 months in a border A Camp with Cambodian and Montagnard CIDG.
    We kept an operation in the field at all times, but only 2 US guys per mission. The rest were the locals we advised.
    The whole team did not take to the woods at once.
    There were lots of variations over time and a lot of things are possible.
    Especially in SF. I woud advise you basement detractors to be cautious in your assessments.
    Some of the guys statements sound a bit odd, but things changed so much from time to time in VN, it's hard if not impossible to say. Especially if you were not there on that day.
    I never heard of loaded mags being issued, but can't say it never happened.
    I could envision certain situations where that might well have been true.
    I go to the SF conventions and reunions-5th Group is having a 55th year celebration this month.
    It's good being around that type of people again once in a while.
    I recall a funny thing a few years ago. We were discussing war stories and one old timer remarked that when you do tell one, they think you are lying.
    SF is a lot different from other units beause of a high level of individuality and responsibility.
    Not to detract anyones service, but I see this a lot among my many veteran friends and associates.
    It took a lot to get into SF and a lot more to be able to function, perform, and remain in SF.
    "If it was easy, everybody could do it."
    Seen more than one guy headed down the walk bags in hand after being terminated or kicked out for one reason or another.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •