The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
War Room
 
M14 vs. M16
1 2 Next Last
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

Could someone explain to me the logic in switching from the M14 (the greatest combat rifle known to man) to the piece of shit M16?

They weigh just about the same, one jams up nonstop, has a less powerful round, only 10 more rounds in a magazine, is highly unreliable, and is a bitch to clean sand out of.

The other happens to be a highly reliable weapon, easy to break down and clean grit out of, never jams, fires the beautiful 7.62x51, is equipped with 20 pound magazines, and will still fire even after the action has rusted shut from rain.


Anybody have thoughts on this? Everytime I think about it, I just get pissed. Lucky for me I never really had to fuck with the M16/M4, I was all M40 and it was beautiful.

And finally, I was thinking.... what if the mini 14 had been designed just 5 years prior to the M16... I could almost promise you that it would have become the primary battle rifle.


Rant ended....





World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

zarrs
Level

Join date: Apr 2008
Posts: 250

I think the driving factor behind the change was the extra kill distance that the m16 has. It's also fully automatic and the m14 wasn't unless it was moded and the m16 won out over it.

But i do agree with you


Also since your a yank is it true that you guys are having problems with the m4 barrels and that you are using different barrels on them

I prefer the Australian rifles to the m14/16 :)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

It's not the barrel I have a problem with. It's the whole fucking rifle.

The sonofabitch jams up like crazy under normal firing conditions. Well has anyone checked lately? Both Iraq and Afghanistan tend to have a lot of dirt and a lot of sand in their terrain. What do you think that does to the weapon?

We'd be better off had we stayed with the M14. Shit, I'd take a mini14 over this shit now.




World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

zarrs
Level

Join date: Apr 2008
Posts: 250

Every one kinda has that problem. Some of the rifles we had were utter shit and got sent to the spare parts heap. The problem is that most of the rifles world wide are made for jungle and these days urban combat. Not for sand bunkers

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Shammy
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 111

The M16 sucks, plain and simple. It's a great rifle for being at the range and plinking shit but it's reliability in combat has been tested and it has failed miserably.

As far as the weight issue the M16 is much lighter (not to mention the M4) it's lighter by at least 2 or 3 pounds. Not too mention the smaller round means you can carry more rounds for the same weight.

That being said thats essentially where the advantages of the M16 end, its accurate, but so is the M14. The M14's only "problem" is the wooden stock, which is easily replaced with a synthetic one.

However, the way it looks right now I don't know if the Army/USMC is going to be changing weapons any time soon. I would hope so.

Luckily the spec ops communities have a lot more leeway in this department. And can bring a myriad of weapons to bear on the enemy.

My personal favorite replacement system for the M16:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

hedo
Level 4

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4841

I like both to be honest with you. I still own the civilian version of each. In fact have I have several AR's.

No doubt the M-14 hits harder and is better at longer distances. Outside of 300yds. the 7.62mm shoots flatter and has much more energy. The action of the M-14 is heavier but it costs a lot of weight.

Follow up shots are slower with the M-14 and you really need to be an expert to shoot it in full auto mode w/o a Bipod. I never had to clear a room or building before but an M-14 would be a lot slower getting around then an M-4 and I don't think a lot of soldiers are using rifle fire at plus 300M. It happens but the majority of shots are 200M and in if I recall the Army study correctly.

The M-16/M-4 is adequate. It's lighter and faster to follow up with. It's also shorter in the M-4 version and that means a lot when carrying in a vehicle which the majority do these days. Gotta keep it clean that's for sure but if you use the light oil you shouldn't have a problem.

The civilian versions I own all have free floated barrels and rails. Highly accurate. I shoot my M-4 in three gun matches all the time. 62 and 69gr. match ammo is excellent. the 55gr stuff sucks.

Now the new Mini-14. That's a nice looking rifle. I have a ranch model version and hate it. That pencil thin barrel is worthless. By the third or fourth shot it's opening up to 4" groups at 100M. Worse at 200M. My AR shoots twice as tight. I hear the bull barrel makes a big difference but I don't want to spend the money on it.

On a related note does anybody like the Beretta M-9? That is an ugly POS.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

skaz05
Level 3

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3175

Wasn't it because the parts for the M-16 are interchangeable, i.e. you can swap parts from one rifle to another?

I have never fired an M-14, so I wouldn't know.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

I fucking hate the M9...

Why in the hell did we ever give up the M1911?

And honestly, I'd much rather have the M14 over the M4 any day of the week due to the fact that when you hit somebody, they're going down and staying down. That cannot be said of the M4.


World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

J0321
Level

Join date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12

I've carried both on deployment (and own my own) and they both have their place. I wouldn't say one is better than the other, there are just different places where I would rather employ one over the other.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

RyanBrown0311
Level 4

Join date: Feb 2008
Posts: 406

One word : NATO
In order to comply with NATO Regs we have/had to change out weapons and policy to remain with those little blue helmet bastards.
Thats why we use the ball round instead of the hollow points or any other similar more effective round, it's why we have changed calibers, it's why snipers can't use a .50 Cal to snipe people, Only make equipment non-serviceable.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

No-Gi
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Posts: 142

Shammy and Hedo are on the money. By the way skaz guns have had interchangeable parts since well before the m-16.

Oh and the .50 call sniping thing is a myth. Nowhere in the Geneva conventions does it say that crap.

I was a 240 gunner, now that was a gun....

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

boatguy
Level 3

Join date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1342

Some of our guys tested the SCAR recently, and didn't seem too impressed with it. It was a decent gun, and the barrel on the SCAR Light is a decent length, until you add the suppressor. Then you have to rezero.

As for the M9, I can shoot decent with it, but I hate it. We use the Sig instead of the Mk 23(which was just too big). When I was a firearms instructor at Navy boot camp, we were breaking Berettas within 7-8 months of putting them in service at the range(brand new-or rebuilt, not sure which).

M4 is a decent rifle, it just has some design flaws which should have been implemented long ago(gaspiston instead of open gas port). Also, the shorter the barrel you put on it(anything below the original standard M16A1/2/3 barrel it was designed with), the less powder burns before the bullet exits the barrel. Less powder burning equals less velocity, less velocity equals less kinetic energy(less stopping power).

The 7.62 round, on the other hand, still has good punch when fired from a shorter barrel(as in the newer 16" EBR - think M1A SOCOM 16 with rail system and a collapsible stock).

The 1911 still is the best pistol we've used yet, and the 240 is head and shoulders above the old M60, both in use and maintenance.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Blacksnake
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2435

Politics...Springfield Armory fought tooth & nail against the original AR15, which was used with no problems by Green beanies in Vietnam. Tests were being sabotaged (In one case, the front sights were taken off the rifle in a winter training scenario, and the team was ordered off the base by the commander who was against sub-30 Cal rifles).

When Air Force (Curtis LeMay) went for the rifle, the Army/USMC was told to follow suit. The ammo formula was tampered with, going from clean burning IMR ("Improved Military Rifle" powder) to cheaper, slow burning Ball powder, which cause jamming (many a trooper and marine were KIA because of this boondoggle, and also gave the rifle a bad rep).

This caused the advent of the "forward assist" mechanism being added to what was later the M16, the clean burning AR15 using IMR ammo had no need for this contraption as it did not jam in that configuration, and as stated was a fave of the Berets and the MIKE Force indigs who were issued it.

The virtues of the M14 are essentially the virtues of the M1 Garand that Patton recognized as the "greatest battle implement" ever fielded. The M14 is essentially a lightened, magazine fed M1 (The Italians had the original innovation in this area, modifying their inherited M1's into a magazine fed version known as the BM-59).

The M14 is, without training, uncontrollable in full-auto fire, and there was a SAW version of it with an integral front pistol grip made. My cousin personally had an M14 chopped and channeled by a backyard gunsmith when he was in Vietnam, and used this with great success and confidence (He was LRRP 75th Infantry and could get away with such stunts without being questioned, about unauthorized weapons) creating a gun similar to the SOCOM used today (I own one of these BTW).

The M14 was meant to be the US equiv of the G-3/CETME (Germans/Spanish), FN-FAL (Belgians/British) etc; of the NATO partners all chambered for the 7.62mm NATO ("long") cartridge.

Simply modding all M16 patterns from direct gas to AK style piston would solve 99% of the problems we are hearing about, and upgrading to a more powerful cartridge as seen in recent experiments with 6mm ammo would be desirable also, but hardheads still prevail and push for a completely new gun in a time of active combat where these relatively cheap mods would save lives, so things have not changed in that respect from the 1960's political screwups as mentioned above by Secretary MacNamara's punks and SA's prissy egotists.

I have always thought SA took the wrong direction and say they should have looked at upgrading the M1 Carbine by strengthing it and rechambering it to a more powerful cartridge (.44 Magnum?) which would have been the best of both worlds: M1/M14 reliability with M16 high magazine capacity and shorter overall length, but of course who would listen to an old G.I. like me in the hallowed halls of the princes who run such programs/;-).

Talk about missed opportunities!...As for the inferior Beretta M-9 vs. 1911A1, basically the same scenario, Politics & the 9mm being used by NATO made us go away from the best battle pistol ever invented, simply because the military stockpile of these .45's were worn out and had not been properly maintained was the excuse used.

Under the table deals & kickbacks were the order of the day here. I could go on, but I'll shut up for now. Hope I added something useful to this thread...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

blackSnake.... much appreciated my friend, much appreciated.


I'm glad that you mentioned the new 6mm ammo. In case you all have not heard, as of about 3 years ago, the military and Remington began testing the 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge). For those not familiar with this, it is simply a .270 winchester with a 43mm case length. So roughly 1/3 less than that of .270 win.

It has twice the energy at two hundred meters that the 5.56 has in the muzzle and is extremely flat shooting out to 350 yards. Trust, I know this shit seeing how I own a 6.8mm SPC mini 14.

Not only would this round be an excellent replacement for the 5.56, but is already available to the public in civilian AR15s. I believe DPMS arms is one of the manufacturers.

Sure, the damned rifle will still jam and be a POS even with the 6.8, but at least it will have greatly improved power, resulting in the job being finished quicker and therefore less chance of a jam...






World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jmarshburn
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 199

Okay, I am going to get into this fray knowing full well that arguments over better weapons are like arguing over whose girl gives better blow jobs...

M14 vs M4:
I won't even discuss the M16 since here in the US Army, Special Forces and the Infantry use the M4. The M4 is a decent weapon. Yeah there could be better options, but remember we have to equip for the full spectrum of combat. The M14 was a superior weapon, but aside from political bantering, it was cost prohibitive (.30 cal ammo is nearly $.60/round while .223 is about $.18/round) and it was not NATO standard.

Now as far as jamming... the M16 had a lot more malfunction issues than the M4 does. I have deployed several times both combat and non-combat and been in a few scuffles since 9/11 and have never had any issues with my M4 jamming or malfunctioning with M855 (Green Tip) ammo.

Knockdown power is more lacking in the M4 but remember we traded some knockdown power for the Green Tip which provides a bit more penetration in light steel. Fortunatley when in a firefight you have more than one person firing at a bad guy... more bullets=more knock down!

M1911 vs M9:
The M9 is simply a superior designed pistol. If you talk about jamming and malfunctions as criteria, you should eb happy to carry an M9. The ejection port on the 1911 is small and extremely unforgiving, as is the recoil spring... remember we are not talking Kimber match guns here, but military issued M1911's.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the 1911 and love to shoot that thing, but consider what we in the US Military carry pistols for: BACKUP ONLY. If we were carrying a pistol as a primary weapon then the caliber would be a lot more of an issue and worth fretting over. With the M9 you carry twice as much ammo as you can with the 1911, and remember if a gunfight comes all the way down to you and your pistol with no one else... you are going to want as many rounds as possible adn probably more concerned with a radio to call in close air support. Not to mention that the M9 can be carried a tad more safely in double action mode, while the 1911 must be carried hammer back in single action mode to be ready... this poses nnot only a safety issue but makes for potential snags when drawing if you haven't done it a bunch. Also, as stated by others, the M9 is chambered in a NATO standard round... it's nice to be able to get ammo from your British and Aussie buddies down range!

Before you hate just to hate, think about it... I am simply trying to give a perspective that many haven't looked at.

Flame on!

Jeff

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Dedicated
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3210

DIdn't the bad rep of the M-16 and jamming begin when they first introduced it to the Vietnam conflict. I recall reading due to the powder first used and the extreme humid conditions causing the problems and that it was addressed for the most part before that conflict ended.

As the other guys have said for closer combat a shorter light weapon, M4, able to spray a higher amount of lead would be desired. And, like the Tanker said if I was shooting at targets out to 300 yards and beyond, I would rather have the heavier bullet of the M-14 308 caliber, an accurate hard hitting round.

D

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Blacksnake
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2435

World1187 wrote:
blackSnake.... much appreciated my friend, much appreciated.
World


Glad to be of service, Home Slice/;-)...

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Blacksnake
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2435

This in NOT a flame...

jmarshburn wrote:
M14 vs M4:
I won't even discuss the M16 since here in the US Army, Special Forces and the Infantry use the M4. The M4 is a decent weapon. Yeah there could be better options, but remember we have to equip for the full spectrum of combat.


My fault, I should have specified the AR15 and the CAR15 having minimal problems, the "shorty" CAR15 being the true precursor to the M4...The CAR15 only began having jamming problems when the confuguration was changed to an M16 base vs. the original stoner AR15 base...The CAR15 was a fave of Berets & LRRPS for light weight, hi round capacity, and excellent flash hider...


The M14 was a superior weapon, but aside from political bantering, it was cost prohibitive (.30 cal ammo is nearly $.60/round while .223 is about $.18/round) and it was not NATO standard.
In a perfect world, cost should not be an issue, but...


Now as far as jamming... the M16 had a lot more malfunction issues than the M4 does. I have deployed several times both combat and non-combat and been in a few scuffles since 9/11 and have never had any issues with my M4 jamming or malfunctioning with M855 (Green Tip) ammo.

Knockdown power is more lacking in the M4 but remember we traded some knockdown power for the Green Tip which provides a bit more penetration in light steel. Fortunatley when in a firefight you have more than one person firing at a bad guy... more bullets=more knock down!
Green tip has it's merits, but we all know better bullet configurations are available that can do a better job for anti-personnel work, but that pesky Geneva Convention excuse keeps us hogtied...


M1911 vs M9:
The M9 is simply a superior designed pistol. If you talk about jamming and malfunctions as criteria, you should eb happy to carry an M9. The ejection port on the 1911 is small and extremely unforgiving, as is the recoil spring... remember we are not talking Kimber match guns here, but military issued M1911's.
Which is why I advocated upgraded new 1911A1's vs. going to a new pistol. Some may flame me on this, but the bottom line is a single action 1911A1 is basically a "Professional's Gun", in that it takes a lot of proper training to use it safely and effectively. I submit that the Mil was not willing to invest that time and sweat, but used the excuse of training females to use the Beretta being an easier task (at the time of the switch, they were referring to USAF SecPol types)


Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of the 1911 and love to shoot that thing, but consider what we in the US Military carry pistols for: BACKUP ONLY. If we were carrying a pistol as a primary weapon then the caliber would be a lot more of an issue and worth fretting over. With the M9 you carry twice as much ammo as you can with the 1911, and remember if a gunfight comes all the way down to you and your pistol with no one else... you are going to want as many rounds as possible adn probably more concerned with a radio to call in close air support.

Not to mention that the M9 can be carried a tad more safely in double action mode, while the 1911 must be carried hammer back in single action mode to be ready... this poses nnot only a safety issue but makes for potential snags when drawing if you haven't done it a bunch. Also, as stated by others, the M9 is chambered in a NATO standard round... it's nice to be able to get ammo from your British and Aussie buddies down range!


I know what it is like to be forced to carry a pistol in a "no-confidence" chambering, so my main issue is not so much ".45 vs. 9mm" as (again) are we using the most effective bullet configuration for the 9mm?...I think we can all agree this is not the case. An example of this was the NYPD Diallo shooting case. NYPD were using the same round on the street as they used in training, and this was a major mistake. When they were firing at the suspect, the rounds were spiking through his body, basically preventing him from falling down with each hit, therefore the Cops kept firing perceiving the suspect as still being a threat.

As you know, the media went nuts about all the rounds fired in the incident. That was an ammo failure, not a training failure. Of course, NYPD quietly changed duty ammo after the inquest. If the Mil is gonna' carry 9mm, they need to be using the best bullet, Geneva Convention be dammed IMVVHO ...I hope some of our guys are smuggling in some "unauthorized" 9mm for their pistols "Just in case" Custer's ghost starts breathin' down their necks...


Before you hate just to hate, think about it... I am simply trying to give a perspective that many haven't looked at.

Flame on!

Jeff


Not from me!/;-)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jmarshburn
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 199

Blacksnake... thanks for the reply, just some further thoughts:

You mentioned the bullet we are firing (M855 Green Tip):

There are better bullets out there. Unfortunatley there are logisticians out there who
(a) don't know how to order the right stuff and what that right stuff is (kinda the resopnsibility of the shooter to request the right stuff)
(b) aren't allowed to order specialty ammo due to shortshighted commanders
(c) are just to lazy to do the right thing

Although, having said that, Green Tip is still what we are going to get in bulk quantities. The more specialty ammo is usually reserved for the Squad Designated Marksman (SDM)or if a sniper is using a rifle chambered in 5.56mm. There really is no conflict with the geneva convention on this ammo. The most widley used specialty bullet is a Boat-Tailed Hollow Point.

Upgrading the 1911 and training issues:

I was in the Army when we made the switch from 1911 to M9 (not to mention when we switched from M16 to M4). And you are largely correct, however females carried the 1911 more often than not, that was not the larger issue in looking at the M9, it was (right or wrong, a subject of a much longer discussion) a desire to come in line with NATO. I agree that the 1911 is a "professionals gun" as you say, (although remember that LA SWAT canned the 1911 for the Kimber... doesn't get more professional than that). You are also correct that the military wasn't willing to waste the time to properly train soldiers on the pistol... hell they hardley train soldiers in the proper use of the M16/M4... Something that I am trying to change while I am here in purgatory at Fort Benning. I would submit that if we (military) wanted a new pistol, off the shelf and readily available, chambered in 9mm to conform to NATO we should have looked at the Browning Hi-Power... that is what the British SAS uses... basically a 1911 chambered in 9mm.

Probably not using the best all around bullet for our pistol. There are better out there and some have found their way to Iraq/Afghanistan. There has not been a trip that I have gone on yet that I haven't had the proper ammo that I needed to accomplish the mission... though I be the lone survivor.

Bottom line is that I am not defending the decisions that were made, only offering some background that its not that bad, and has been terribly worse! Can you imagine in the '80's deploying with an M16A2 and a .38 pistol! I have never gotten done with a live fire engagement and felt that I was lacking in killing power... did the green tip zip thorough a body... yep, but the guy still died and I didn't. One of my NCO's killed an Iraqi who was climbing on his vehicle with his M9... at the extreme level we can disagree about the granular weight and composition of the bullet, etc... but we can all agree that currently we are hands down more lethal than ever.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

jmarshburn wrote:
Blacksnake... thanks for the reply, just some further thoughts:

You mentioned the bullet we are firing (M855 Green Tip):

There are better bullets out there. Unfortunatley there are logisticians out there who
(a) don't know how to order the right stuff and what that right stuff is (kinda the resopnsibility of the shooter to request the right stuff)
(b) aren't allowed to order specialty ammo due to shortshighted commanders
(c) are just to lazy to do the right thing

Although, having said that, Green Tip is still what we are going to get in bulk quantities. The more specialty ammo is usually reserved for the Squad Designated Marksman (SDM)or if a sniper is using a rifle chambered in 5.56mm. There really is no conflict with the geneva convention on this ammo. The most widley used specialty bullet is a Boat-Tailed Hollow Point.

Upgrading the 1911 and training issues:

I was in the Army when we made the switch from 1911 to M9 (not to mention when we switched from M16 to M4). And you are largely correct, however females carried the 1911 more often than not, that was not the larger issue in looking at the M9, it was (right or wrong, a subject of a much longer discussion) a desire to come in line with NATO. I agree that the 1911 is a "professionals gun" as you say, (although remember that LA SWAT canned the 1911 for the Kimber... doesn't get more professional than that). You are also correct that the military wasn't willing to waste the time to properly train soldiers on the pistol... hell they hardley train soldiers in the proper use of the M16/M4... Something that I am trying to change while I am here in purgatory at Fort Benning. I would submit that if we (military) wanted a new pistol, off the shelf and readily available, chambered in 9mm to conform to NATO we should have looked at the Browning Hi-Power... that is what the British SAS uses... basically a 1911 chambered in 9mm.

Probably not using the best all around bullet for our pistol. There are better out there and some have found their way to Iraq/Afghanistan. There has not been a trip that I have gone on yet that I haven't had the proper ammo that I needed to accomplish the mission... though I be the lone survivor.

Bottom line is that I am not defending the decisions that were made, only offering some background that its not that bad, and has been terribly worse! Can you imagine in the '80's deploying with an M16A2 and a .38 pistol! I have never gotten done with a live fire engagement and felt that I was lacking in killing power... did the green tip zip thorough a body... yep, but the guy still died and I didn't. One of my NCO's killed an Iraqi who was climbing on his vehicle with his M9... at the extreme level we can disagree about the granular weight and composition of the bullet, etc... but we can all agree that currently we are hands down more lethal than ever.




It's funny how you constantly refer to the military as a whole regarding training. You apparently haven't seen much outside the Army, have you bud?


Come on over to Twentynine Palms sometime and we'll teach ya something....

haha






World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

jmarshburn
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2005
Posts: 199

World1187 wrote:
It's funny how you constantly refer to the military as a whole regarding training. You apparently haven't seen much outside the Army, have you bud?


Come on over to Twentynine Palms sometime and we'll teach ya something....

haha

World


I make no apologies for talking Army... 18 years on active duty... 14 of which in the Special Forces has done that! I have trained, been trained by and trained with Marines in that time, and I'll submit that training issues are pretty much the same across the board. The Marines attack the problem differently than the Army (generally choosing to take the hardest way to the easiest solution!! -I kid, I kid!). but at the end of the day, as I said Brother World... no one on the battlefield is more lethal than the US Military... even if you are talking about the part of the military that works for the Department of the Navy!

Again, don't take me seriously, I'm just messin' around.

Semper Fi; Rangers Lead The Way; De Opresso Liber

Jeff

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

jmarshburn wrote:
World1187 wrote:
It's funny how you constantly refer to the military as a whole regarding training. You apparently haven't seen much outside the Army, have you bud?


Come on over to Twentynine Palms sometime and we'll teach ya something....

haha

World

I make no apologies for talking Army... 18 years on active duty... 14 of which in the Special Forces has done that! I have trained, been trained by and trained with Marines in that time, and I'll submit that training issues are pretty much the same across the board. The Marines attack the problem differently than the Army (generally choosing to take the hardest way to the easiest solution!! -I kid, I kid!). but at the end of the day, as I said Brother World... no one on the battlefield is more lethal than the US Military... even if you are talking about the part of the military that works for the Department of the Navy!

Again, don't take me seriously, I'm just messin' around.

Semper Fi; Rangers Lead The Way; De Opresso Liber

Jeff






Haha..

You have to love inter-branch banter...


Yeah, some buddies of mine are in the Rangers and you guys are some hard motherfuckers. I'll give ya that, but as far as overall training goes (no matter your MOS) I believe the Corps does a much better job.


Ooh Rah!




World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Blacksnake
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2435

True story:

A very good buddy of mine, USMC Gunny Dan, told me of an incident (Okinawa) where some of his resting Leathernecks were were catcalling and grabbassin' about a nearby unit of Army troopers (both groups were in field gear with weapons standing down after training).

My Bro' immediately pounced on his Marines, had them on their feet locked heels and prepared for his lecture, which went like this: "Look closely at those Dogface G.I.'s over there, Gentlemen...Notice they have high & tight haircuts: like us...Notice they are squared away: like us...Those are not your standard Army pukes, Gentlemen, those are Army Rangers, and to simplify this whole exercise for you, when you see a Ranger, think of them as the Marine Corps of the Army, and like us, there are too Goddammed few of em'!...Knock that shit off!..That is all"....

Gotta' love that man...Let's keep the "intra" in perspective here, Brudda's/;-D

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

World1187
Level

Join date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1041

We all fight for the same flag.

We all kill the same enemy.

We all get buried in the same sacred AMERICAN soil.

We all fight for the guy to our left and the guy to our right.

In combat, nothing matters to any of us, except keeping the guy to your left and the guy to your right alive. That's all we have.




We're not too different, are we?







World

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Loose Tool
Level 5

Join date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2239

Blacksnake wrote:
True story:

A very good buddy of mine, USMC Gunny Dan, told me of an incident (Okinawa) where some of his resting Leathernecks were were catcalling and grabbassin' about a nearby unit of Army troopers (both groups were in field gear with weapons standing down after training).

My Bro' immediately pounced on his Marines, had them on their feet locked heels and prepared for his lecture, which went like this: "Look closely at those Dogface G.I.'s over there, Gentlemen...Notice they have high & tight haircuts: like us...Notice they are squared away: like us...Those are not your standard Army pukes, Gentlemen, those are Army Rangers, and to simplify this whole exercise for you, when you see a Ranger, think of them as the Marine Corps of the Army, and like us, there are too Goddammed few of em'!...Knock that shit off!..That is all"....

Gotta' love that man...Let's keep the "intra" in perspective here, Brudda's/;-D



Good story.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
1 2 Next Last
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.