Is it true the army had better weapons and were more equipt than the marines

[Brig]

and as for the mentioned 'blue on blue', that happens to every branch, every war. It's not surgery, and precision weapons don't do the bulk of the fighting. Just another hazard of occupation...my first tour, an Army tank decided it better to shoot first, attempt to establish contact with us later. Luckily they missed

[mpguy80/08]

Heck, some of my best navy and marine jokes were best appreciated by Squids and Marines! I echo the sentiment though... it takes every last one of us to do the job... Army, Navy Marines and Air Force. To the crunchies, politics don't matter... I got your back you got mine. Let the brass hash out the crap.

 

Wayne

[DSchlagan]

Heck, some of my best navy and marine jokes were best appreciated by Squids and Marines! I echo the sentiment though... it takes every last one of us to do the job... Army, Navy Marines and Air Force. To the crunchies, politics don't matter... I got your back you got mine. Let the brass hash out the crap.

 

Wayne

 

Of any/all posts on this Forum, that I have read, this one ranks as Number 1.

Any joking/jest aside, when the sh!t-hits-the-fan, WE ARE ALL ONE.

 

Best Regards,

Keep Tight.

Donnert Schlagan

[BigMoose]

Sometimes, I think it's more the fact the Marines don't want the "New fancy army gear"

 

Look at the field gear during Vietnam. The Army had the M1956 gear with the new clips, but the Marines modifed the WWII era gear to work with the new M14 in 1961 with Pouches that used the old M1 carbine snaps and a special belt. (Which means they probably weren't using the M14 until then ether), They kept using the old M1910 canteen carriers, the M1941 haversack system, and the M1941 suspenders. and old first aid carriers. Obstensibly this was so that when prone the Marine would be lower to the ground. I just think they were leary of the "new clips". And because in 1964 they were still using a lot of M14s, they went to the trouble of developing a new Nylon M14 pouch and some field packs that worked a little different then the Armys. By the time it was issued in 1967 most of the Marines were rotated out and the Marines were finaly seeing M16s.

 

Speaking of the M16. Someone told me the corps did not want to totaly change over. They wanted to keep the M14 around for long distance stuff to suplement the M16. Hmm I guess they ended up being proved right.

[uplandmod]

My dad used a M-14 his entire tour in Viet Nam, he left in march 67, never even used a M-16.

 

Leonardo

[Brig]

I've read in accounts that M-14's were often used by sniper teams for the extra wam, bam thank you ma'am capabilities when out in the bush

 

I know a lot of Marines now who wish we'd see the M-14 again, quite a few Gunners even.

 

We don't necessarily want the Army's gear, just the budget...

[hink441]

I guess the USMC likes tried, tested and true equipment. Look at the M1911A1 still being used by some USMC units.

 

[DSchlagan]

I guess the USMC likes tried, tested and true equipment. Look at the M1911A1 still being used by some USMC units.

 

 

Yesterday, when I received email notification of response to this post, I figured that your relation to a M1911-A1, was just towards the variety of the .45 CAL M1911 'clones', that are now in MTOE; such as the H&K MK 23 (USSOCOM).

 

How surprised I was, to view a photo of an actual M1911-A1, retro-fitted as such!!

I did not realize, that Ordnance had the [actual] foresight to retain some A1s, after the 'up-grade?' to the M9.

 

Thanks for posting this example. Most interesting!

 

****

 

And, yeah: the "rediscovery" of HOW GOOD OF A WEAPON that the M14 ACTUALLY IS, (and subsequent sniper-variants [M21/M25] TRULY ARE), makes one wonder!

[The M14 was the LAST of the TRUE-Issued U.S. Battle-Rifles...]

 

Seems to me, that this all goes back to that freakin'-bean-counter, SECDEF Robert Strange McNamara, and his involvement in that "fantastic", "direct-gas-impingement-system" of the original AR-15s/M16s ("Mouse-Guns").

That POS got a lot of Good Men, KIA. [And they had the gall to blame it on "poor-weapons-maintenance". BULL-SQUAT!]

When you have a "single-shot-semi/full auto weapon", and have to tape your cleaning-rod to the side of the rifle (to clear the "most-expected-failure-to-eject"); something is definitely FUBAR.

 

Would someone kindly explain, as to "why" (besides the small-matter of coin involved) that the uppers on ALL M16/M4 variants, have not been upgraded to the HK416, short-stroke gas-piston; that actually COULD make this a somewhat reliable weapon? ...And not just throwing all that powder fouling/residue back-into the OP mechanism??

Hell, the HK416s uppers (& complete weapons) have ONLY been available for at least seven years...

 

AIA, and KEEP TIGHT; but this issue has escaped any possible reasoning, for the last 50+ years of my existence.

 

Regards,

Don.

[Corpsmancollector]

Interesting discussion thus far, and no arguments.

I'm enjoying it very much.

 

Just to second JS, this is a very interesting discussion with a lot of relevant points added. Nothing to add, but a great discussion.

 

Will

[hink441]

Yesterday, when I received email notification of response to this post, I figured that your relation to a M1911-A1, was just towards the variety of the .45 CAL M1911 'clones', that are now in MTOE; such as the H&K MK 23 (USSOCOM).

 

How surprised I was, to view a photo of an actual M1911-A1, retro-fitted as such!!

I did not realize, that Ordnance had the [actual] foresight to retain some A1s, after the 'up-grade?' to the M9.

 

Thanks for posting this example. Most interesting!

 

 

Regards,

Don.

 

Don,

Not only have they (USMC) kept the M1911A1, they have awarded a contract to Colt to build the replacement .45; the new M-45. Here is an article about the pistol and contract.

 

 

http://militarytimes...5-cqbp-pistols/

 

Chris

[Brig]

aside from the MARSOC contract, competitive shooting teams have continued to use the 45 in certain competitions continuously

[Jack's Son]

I have three sisters.......imagine the HAND-ME-DOWNS I GET!!!!!!

[Screamingeagles101]

I must say I am very happy I have created this forum, I am learning a lot from everyone's posts.

Thank you for all the input.

[DSchlagan]

Don,

Not only have they (USMC) kept the M1911A1, they have awarded a contract to Colt to build the replacement .45; the new M-45. Here is an article about the pistol and contract.

 

 

http://militarytimes...5-cqbp-pistols/

 

Chris

 

Chris,

 

Thanks for that reminder of the good sense involved with the Colt M45 Contract.

I am glad for Colt, that they did not resubmit the Colt OHWS, which was the "competition" for the (accepted) H&K MK 23.

 

 

To me (forgetting about accessories), that the Colt OHWS, resembles something towards a pre-prototype M1911, and that it belongs in Browning's Ogden Museum.

Especially with that 'lovely-designed', single-stack 10 RND MAG/Grip.

 

This 'thing' looks about as handy as a 'fifth-tit-on-a-boar-hog'...

 

After the certain issues of coin-involved (in replacing the M9) are resolved, I reasonably expect/trust that the ENTIRE U.S. Service Force (relevant) will 'go-back' to the .45 ACP CAL, Side-Arm (in whatever-reasonable variant-of-design).

 

OK, (MAYBE) keep a few M9s, inventoried, for "P & Ps".

 

Regards,

Don.