MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU (Michael Edelman) (01/14/91)
From: Michael Edelman <MEDELMA@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
While a M60 GPMG is controllable on full auto, the M-14 is a bit
lighter, and correspondingly less controllable. Additionally, the
M60 uses a more straight-line stock design that minimizes recoil
induced muzzle climb.
Mention was made of S.L.A. Marshall's WWII studies regarding the
likelyhood of an individual infantryman's firing his weapon. The
weapon that was fired the most often was the M-60 equivalent of the
day, the BAR. The BAR filled a similar role, that of fire support for
a platoon. Men closer to the BAR in an advancing line were (Marshall
claimed) more likely to fire their weapon.
Given that sort of fire mission, the 7.62/5.56 debate is rather moot;
accuracy takes a back seat to sustained volume of fire. Modern tactics
seem to dictate a mix of weapons for the infantry mission: M-16s for
individual protection and close range (up to, say, 200 meters); a variety
of individual GPMGs for fire supression and the like (i.e., keeping
the enemy's head down); and sniper weapons firing the 7.62mm or .300
Win. Mag. for engaging personnel at1000+ yards.
The M-16 can't touch the modern sniper rifle for accuracy at that range,
but then again, you can't engage a half dozen targets in a 180 degree
sector in a few seconds with a scoped, bolt-action rifle :)
The M-14 was supposed to combine the best features of the Garand with
the firepower of the BAR. While it's an excellent high-power, high volume,
accurate rifle, it's too light for sustained automatic fire, and not
accurate enough for the sniper role unless carefully accurized and
maintained- something not easy to do for every soldier's weapon.
--mike edelman