Canada‘s Next Assault Rifle..

[jrhume]

As for the M-1, it‘s not really correct to say Korea was the last use. The M-14 was an update to the basic M-1 design and is still in service with the US Army and probably the Marines. Many units carried them in Iraq because of the need to engage targets beyond the effective range of 5.56 rifles. Garand‘s design isn‘t gone yet.

Also, GM is an American company only in terms of its history and origin. It is an international conglomerate now and has been for many years. As for who produces what -- I can‘t keep up. I thought General Dynamics was a GM subsidiary.



Jim

 

[northamericanrebel]

the ceo is american....is he not You honestly think the m-14 is still in use...**** thats news to me.... i heard the seals used it back in 1994 but i figure they would use something different by now...but than again they have anything they want at their disposal and if it aint broke dont fix it :warstory:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Wasn‘t some M14s brought in for use by the designated marksman in each squad?

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

The A-Team is part of the US Army and they use M-14‘s. So they have to be a pretty **** good weapon if they are they standard rifle for the best Spec Force unit in the US.

 

[jonsey]

Originally posted by L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan:
[qb] The A-Team is part of the US Army and they use M-14‘s. So they have to be a pretty **** good weapon if they are they standard rifle for the best Spec Force unit in the US. [/qb]

Mr. T pitties the fool who don‘t use the M14

 

[Enzo]

I‘m wondering if they are using M-14‘s or M-21‘s. The M-21 a M-14 modified for use as a sniper rifle. Usually has a 10rd magazine (although standard 20rd M-14 magazines are acceptable also), scope and bipod, etc... This has been a tactical military sniper rifle since approx. 1971.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-m21.shtml

The M1A Scout Squad Rifle is an interesting option also, but more of a law enforcement/civilian rifle.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-scout.shtml

A few years ago, Springfield Armoury came out with a Bullpup modification kit for the M-14. It was an interesting design. Apparently called the G2, it was intended for use by the SEALS, but wasn‘t adopted. It is now for civilian sale. (A search of the net brought up a photo on this site, I think it‘s some sort of game site? But the photo‘s and the firearm are real)

http://www.wapahani.com/dcsmall94.html

 

[jrhume]

I posted an Iraq, lessons learned link in Military History. There are one or more reports there indicating usage of the M-14. Some units (regular infantry/airborne) issued them in varying numbers before the invasion. Others merely had them on hand -- somewhere.

Check out the link. It‘s interesting.

Jim

 

[Redeye]

I pity the fool who thinks that the A-Team uses M14‘s... They don‘t, they use Ruger Mini-14s with chromed working parts and folding stocks that are apparently permanently folded. The Mini-14 is sort of similar in desing to the M14, but fires a 5.56x45mm NATO round as opposed to the 7.62mm.

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

My mistake, I‘m ready for the hatless dance now.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I‘ve never seen any unit in the military use Rugar Mini-14s. Only government branch i‘ve seen use them is corrections services and some police forces. Mini-14s dont have a heavy barrel which prevents rapid rates of fire and a gun smith told me that the rugar mini-14 has a somewhat weak seer or trigger mechanisim and when they are modified to fire automatically it breaks often.

The reason why folding stocks on rugar mini-14s are welded like that is because of canadian gun laws, nothing to do with "a-teams".

 

[The Hide]

Wy not something like HK-XM8 ?

 

[pteharrity]

i was serving 6 weeks in England, training with the Royal Marines Commandos and other British Forces, and i was forced to use their SA-80 and LSW. These are carbines, very short and in acurate. The only have desent thing about them is the SUSAT sight, but we all have that anyways. The SA-80 is as heavy as 2 Fully loaded C-7A‘s. As far as i can see, the C-7A1 is great, rugged and get‘s the job done. Along with the C-8. I think if anyone needs to think about updating there equipment its the british forces, there weapons don‘t work in the following conditions:hot,dry,wet,cold, dusty...ect... The US should also completely phase out the M-16, they still use it way too much. What is the point of a rifle that can only fire on repetition or 3 round burst. Even if you are trying not to be triger happy, its nice to know u have the automatic if you need it.....

 

[L/MCpl_Argyll_ Kurrgan]

The SA-80 is a bullpup, not a carbine. If you noticed, when you were firing them or using them, that when you put the mag in, you inserted it behind the trigger mechanism. A carbine is basically a regular sized rifle with a couple of inches of barrel chopped off. The SA-80 is, according to the ex brit para guy in my regt, an outstanding marksmanship rifle because of its accuracy, but a piece of poop in the field. And why should the US phase out the M-16? We use the C7, which is a variant of the M-16 and like you said its an outstanding weapon. The 3 rnd burst thing is no big deal. The only reason is that americans tend to like being machine gunners and empty mags in 30 round bursts. So the 3 rnd Burst feature keeps them from using up ammo and relying more on the accurate and controlled fire of repetition mode. Anyways, the M16A3 has full auto capability.

:fifty: :gunner:

 

[Enzo]

Harrity - I posted a link about Bullpups awhile back, you might want to check it out. As Kurrgan states above, the SA-80 is supposed to be sweet on the range, but a pig in the field. In addition, the 80‘s are heavy and complex due to their inner workings. Bullpups are traditionally more complex than standard rifle‘s and as was mentioned earlier, the C-8 isn‘t much bigger and get‘s the job done nicely. No real advantages yet.

As for our C7‘s, upgrading‘s just fine.

 

[hoganshero]

If the US 6.8mm project works out(apparently a stop gap for the x-8?)and the US adopts Barretts(?) 6.8mm upper reciever for the M-16 and NATO follows suit, perhaps the next generation Canadian rifle may simply be adding a 6.8mm Diemaco upper reciever to the the C7.

 

[jonsey]

****, this looks cool.

From Here

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm

Looks almost like a Phaser Rifle from Star Trek.

 

[RCD]

Yes it‘s nice to have a new weapon, but can we afford the bullets?

 

[chrisf]

As the old saying goes, if it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it... I‘d like to point out, the .50Cal M2 was designed shortly after WWI, and is still serving today.

Just because somthing has been around for a while doesn‘t automatically mean it needs to be replaced.

 

[Redeye]

Kurrgan, I‘ll forward the charge papers over to your RSM post-haste, fool!

 

[chrisf]

Of course, the M2 isn‘t being replaced because it isn‘t functional, it‘s being replaced because they‘ve got the money to do so...

If it ain‘t broke, don‘t fix it.

Gortex kit? Great! Camo uniforms? Great, though why we need EVERYTHING in CadPat, I‘ll never know. I‘m curious how long before we see the cadpat toothbrush.

As far as the C7 goes, it‘s a perfectly functional weapon. Rather then buying a new weapon, why not just purchase enough C7s and C8s?