1911Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just finished reading "Misfire: The History of how America's Small Arms have Failed our Military" by William H. Hallahan. There are a couple of issues that I thought might be worth discussing:

1. Hallahan writes that during the Korean War, our troops were often outgunned by the North Korean Army, which supposedly possessed greater firepower (in terms of infantry weapons). I found this very hard to believe. To my knowledge, the N. Koreans never used the AK-47, only WWII-era Soviet small arms. On the other hand, our troops were armed with the M1 Garand, M2 Carbine, and BAR, among others. Can anyone dispute this claim that our troops lacked firepower, or was he correct? If there are any Korean War vets that could give an opinion, that would be great.

2. Hallahan seems to have nothing but disdain for the M14. Now, I don't wish to start an "M14 vs. M16" debate, but if anyone was (is) in the military, I'd like to hear their opinion about this rifle (the M14).

3. In his conclusion, Hallahan obviously laments the fact that today's M16 is equipped with a 3-shot burst instead of a full-auto capability. I do not profess to be an expert on infantry tactics, but this seems like a rather trivial issue. A platoon of soldiers armed with M16A2s supplemented with SAWs or M60s could put up quite a wall of lead. What do you guys think: is the 3-shot burst really a handicap?

Also, I'd like to hear what you think of this book overall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Originally posted by LAK:
This brings to mind the threads on ammo choices for pistols - if a .30 carbine from an M1/M2 won't penetrate heavy clothing, people that are carrying 1911's in areas that have a winter season better think again. This is a reason though that I believe a 9mm is a better choice than a .45 in certain circumstances; especially when loaded with NATO-spec ball... Indeed, heavy clothing clothing will affect a bullet's penetrating abilities, and hence my reference to those who would rely on a 1911 (in .45) in a cold climate. That if a .30 carbine, fired from a carbine, will not make it through particular heavy clothing a .45 pistol is not going to cut it either. Reduced ammo efficiency in low-temps would only amplify the disparity between the .30 carbine and the .45 pistol.
By the same token then, 9mm might not be such a great choice either, right? I mean, if a .30 Carbine round has trouble penetrating in low temperature conditions, then 9mm would have even more difficulty.

(Hopefully this won't get this thread moved to "The Ammo Can" forum!
)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Did a search on Google for the OICW, came up with these photos:





Is this going to replace the M16 eventually? Sure is a mean lookin' weapon
.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Besides the fancy scope, what advantages, if any, does the OICW have over an M16 equipped with a grenade launcher? (I believe it's called the M203.)
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top