National Guard going to Iraq don't have enough rifles

[Poiuyt]

The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday.

snip-

“We’re behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around,” Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, “We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units.”

snip -

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state’s 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.

more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Richard Steele]

1. The fodder of our country. nm

[htuttle]

2. "Just point the broomstick at them, and say, 'bangity, bangity, bang!'"

Apologies -- it seems as though a really bad old joke just came true...

[acmavm]

3. Hells bells, just paint a red target on their chests.

[babylonsister]

4. So not only are they going early, but w/o being properly equipped?

It saddens me that I'm not surprised. What's a few more dead bodies to these criminals?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3127202&mesg_id=3127202

[rodeodance]

6. send this to Dana Priest--maybe she will do some good investigative

journalism on this issue.

[w8liftinglady]

35. good idea-FWIW-I am writing my next LTTE about this and bldg 18

[rodeodance]

5. I hear there are plenty for sale on the Black Market over there!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

7. So What?

Why don't they just write a photo-memoir book, get laid in South America, or join a hedge fund? We can't all have rifles when we're fightin' terr' can we?

Dumbasses.

(Oh, ok: :sarcasm:)

[wakeme2008]

8. You go to War with the Rifles you have not the Rifles you wished you had

:grr:

[happyslug]

32. The M-4 vs the M16A2

The only difference between the M16A2 and the M4 is the M4 has a 16 inch barrel and a Collapsible stock, making such a weapon easier to use within the cramp confines of a Humvee or other Vehicle. THis is achieved at lesser effective range and damage by the 5.56mm Round BOTH weapons fire. They have been reports from Afghanistan that the lost of those 4 inches of barrel (and the corresponding power of the bullet) has substantially reduced the ability of the M4 from stopping attacking Talibans. These are REPORTS, that may be inaccurate, but are supported if you understand ballistics. To get the M4 Carbine, the US Army cut back the barrel of the M16 by almost 25%. With such a shorter barrel you will see a substantial drop in performance from any round fired by that Weapon. The 5.56x45 round was designed for a 20 inch barrel unlike the Russian 7.62x39 which was designed for a 16 inch barrel (Through in the RPK and SKS used in weapons with 20 inch barrels).

As a whole I would prefer the M16A2, its longer length and more power more than offset by the fact it is harder to move around in a Humvee.

[Poiuyt]

41. The M4 is prefered in Iraq because it is easier to maneuver when going

door to door in the cities. That's the way it was explained to me by my nephew, who is now on his third tour over there. I suppose if you were fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan then the M16 might be preferable.

[happyslug]

47. Troops always like light and short weapons, until firepower is needed

Than firepower trumps lightweight and ease of handling.

The problem in Iraq is that when the Troops are MOVING, it is either by Truck or Helicopter, once in or near they target area they move in quick and hopefully don't get into a firefight (i.e. overwhelming force is used to overcome any resistance). The problem is when such maneuvers FAILS for any reason (i.e. troops get into a firefight). That is when the M4 is failing, NOT when searching homes, but when fire power is NEEDED.

Again this is from I have read on the net and other sources about the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq. When the enemy stands and fights, the M16 is preferred over the much smaller M4 Carbine do to the superior stopping and killing power of the M16 over the M4. On the other hand when the enemy does NOT stand and Fights (Which is most of the time given the US complete Air and Artillery Superiority) the superior power coming out of an M16 is really NOT needed, you just have to fire at the enemy till the Air Force shows up to bomb the enemy (and the Air Force can show up anywhere in Iraq or Afghanistan within 20 minutes, generally sooner).

Thus my Point, the M16 is in many ways superior to the M4, except the M4 is 4-6 inches shorter making it easier to man handle. That ease of handling is the M4's ONLY superior attribute to the M16A2.

[wakeme2008]

49. I would have loved to have a M16 in Nam.

Because of the unit I was with was not high on the pecking order we had M14s. :grr: in 69. You can carry a lot more ammo for the M16 than the M14

[happyslug]

56. M14s were re-issued to certain units during the race to Baghdad

The M14 was MUCH heavier then the M16. Since the M14 fired a more powerful bullet the hitting power of the M14 was greater. On the other hand the M16 was MUCH lighter, its Ammo was lighter, the affect of its ammo on the enemy at normal combat ranges were about the same. The M14 had longer range and more power behind the bullet and thus could out-range and out penetrate the M16's bullet. The problem was such targets were rare in the Jungles of Vietnam. especially with the Viet Cong doctrine of "grabbing the enemy by the Belt" so the US could NOT use its superior air and Artillery power on them.

In many ways the Soviet doctrine of leaving one full power rifle in the Platoon (Which in Soviet doctrine was half way between the size of the US Squad and US Platoon) always made sense to me. The SVD gave the unit an ability to reach out if needed. This apparently is how certain units used the M14 in the early days of this war, to reach out and hit the enemy, but limited the number to about 1 per Squad. Thus the M14 was used much like the Soviet SVD, more a sharpshooter's weapon then a true sniper rifle.

My comments on the M4 was it uses the SAME BULLET AS THE M16, but with a cut down barrel. This is NOT like the switchover from the M14 to the M16. Both the M14 and M16 were designed for the bullet they were firing. The 22 inch barrel of the M14 was the shortest you could use effectively with the 7.62mm NATO round (The M1 Garand and M1903 Springfield both had had 24 inch barrels for use with the slightly more powerful 30'06 round). The 5.56mm round used in the M16 had been designed during the 1950s to be most effective in a 20 inch barrel like the M16's barrel. When the US switched from the M1 to the M14 (Two different rounds but of about the same power) the barrel dropped 2 inches from 24 inches to 22 inches, a mere 8.3% drop in barrel length (Which was reflective in the slight drop in performance between the 30'06 and the 7.62 NATO Round). Thus you had LESS then a 9% drop in performance, when the Government went to the M14 from the M1.

Now the M16 barrel was 20 inch long, but its round was designed for that length. Thus you can NOT compare the M14 round with the M16 round. On the other hand you can look at the switch from the M1 to the M14 and compare that switch to the M16 to the M4. The Switch to the M14 was only a 8.33% drop in barrel Length while the Switch to the M4 is a 25% drop in barrel length. You lose power as the barrel length gets shorten (and increase power as the Barrel length gets longer, thus up till WWI a lot of armies had 28-20 inch barrels on their bolt action rifles for maximum performance with whatever round they were shooting). Furthermore the 30'06 M1 Round, the 7.62 NATO Round, the 7.62 Warsaw pact round are all less depended on the SPEED of the bullet than the much lighter 5.56mm Round (and Velocity is more affected by Barrel length, thus this cut back in barrel length has more effect on the M16 round than a similar cut back in any of the 7.62mm Rounds). In fact I have read reports that the Russians have become disenchanted with their response to the 5.56 (The Russian 5.45x39 Round) that they are returning to the 7.62 Warsaw pact round (as have other countries like Valenzuela who have adopted the 7.62x39 Warsaw Pact Round as their newest weapon).

My concern, is that the M4 may NOT be the effective weapon the M16 has been do to the lost of velocity do to the shorter barrel. In Iraq this MAY not be important, but sooner or later the US may have to fight a real enemy and the US Army should be prepared to fight such an enemy (and I do NOT mean some armor attack, I mean if the Iraqis increase the tempo of their attacks so that our troops get in long term firefights like the one our troops fought in Vietnam).

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

69. M16's aren't so light

M14 was a few pounds heavier than the M16 or M16A1. The current M16A2 is pretty close in weight to an M14. M16A2 is about 9 lb, loaded with 30 rounds, M14 is about 10 lb, loaded with 20 rounds.

Whether 30 rounds of 5.56 is better than 20 rounds of 7.62, well, that's a discussion that needs a pitcher of beer to help sort out.

Anyway, it sounds like the NG is not going to Iraq naked. They don't have enough M4's. But, NG I've seen recently were armed with M16A1's. I don't know if they were set up for full-auto, or 3-rd-burst. But they are not bad guns (IF maintained).

[MGD]

73. I would still prefer the M14. The 7.62 mm round has a way of shooting through the kinds of things

that people like to hide behind. The M16a1 was an inferior weapon to the M14 IMHO. The A2is better but i would still prefer an M14 in most situations. For room clearing, however, the M4 is definitely the ticket. The short barrel is a distinct advantage when barging into a room.

[spag68]

9. I can't imagine

any of the current rethug hawks, no matter haw bad they are, sighing on to this move. They will lose more voters with this move then any one imagines now. This is surely a disaster for them. and a chance for the Dems. to make an honest and pragmatic response. We all know what to do, talk to Jack Murtha.

[Joe Chi Minh]

10. Not enough of a mark-up on rifles? Now Star Wars...

Heck, come to that, how about just disappearing ten billion or so...?

[spag68]

12. That would not be hard to do

All they need is 30 tractor trailers {40ft.} to haul the money.

[Holly_Hobby]

11. They'd rather have them come back dead

It's too costly to take care of wounded. MY GODS, how I hate these people.

[gratuitous]

13. "We can't piddle around"

Well, there's been plenty of piddling already, hasn't there Mr. Wyatt? A state that sends the likes of James Inhofe and Sam Brownback to the Senate and overwhelmingly votes for whatever candidate with an "R" behind his name, no matter how incompetent, sooner or later will reap the harvest of the seeds it has sown.

Ready to let the Democrats have a turn yet?

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. I can't believe he even used that word. LOL

[King Coal]

17. Can't piddle, but we can fuck around and eat ginger snaps. nm

[underpants]

14. I'm reminded of "Enemy at the Gates"

:scared:

[bikebloke]

24. I was thinking the same.

A soldier without a rifle follows one with a rifle. When the rifled soldier is killed, he picks up the rifle.

[happyslug]

31. The Imperial Russian Army adopted that Rule in WWI, especially in 1916

And hopefully you remember what happened in 1917?

[tanyev]

53. And just for good measure, put a few guys with guns at the back.

To make sure all the guys at the front do what they're supposed to do.


:cry:

[lpbk2713]

16. *Support the Troops*

When it really matters BushCo comes up with empty hands and feeble alibis.

[ShortnFiery]

21. No way will they reveal the true horrors of their endless greed ...

Our, IMO, treasonous M$M, especially on the Idiot Box (TV) is hyper-obsessing about where in the world Anna Nicole is going to be buried.

Is it only me who is thoroughly disgusted with the "Bread and Circuses" that passes for NEWS on our broadcast and cable media? :grr:

My Gawd! Who really gives a shit about this trash?

To add insult to injury, Our USA Corporate Media fluffs over our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq to hyper-focus on the Democratic Candidates running for the 2008 Presidential Nomination.

Our media is AS TREASONOUS as the Neo-Cons of The Unitary Executive who are presently shredding our Constitution and stacking our courts with right wing wackos.

With a few very notable exceptions, I despise these horrible people parading on the TV screens as LEGITIMATE journalists almost as much as I despise the war profiteering executive CEOs who order them around. :thumbsdown:

No, we won't hear about the short changing of the troops as long as Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, etc. get THEIR BLOATED PAYCHECKS from our hard earned tax dollars.

That is, all but the Investor Classes are DAMNED to increased debt as long as The Master's of War continue to rake in their Godless Profits off of the blood, sweat and tears of our troops.

But no worries, us "little people" are satisfied to glean all the story lines and specifics behind both the Anna Nicole's and Britney Spear's stories. All is well for the political elite as long as they can keep us wage slave Americans asleep or distracted by bullshit. :(

This is NOT "The War on Terror" but the sheer and unabashed GREED of our Military Industrial Complex squandering our tax dollars to profit bank accounts via their KILLING MACHINES. :grr: :cry: :grr:

The foregoing, my fellow DUers is the bottom line to all the whining that we are not FUNDING THE TROOPS. For as long as they can keep the war going, the MEGA-CORPORATIONS will rake in HUGE profits. All the while, the basic necessities of our troops goes underfunded. That's both the evil and beauty of their plan. Murtha isn't buying it and neither do I. STOP THE FUNDING NOW and BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

WE, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ARE THE TERRORIST NATION THAT MOST EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD BOTH LOATHES AND FEARS.

How does it feel fellow citizen?

Personally, I'm heartsick. All I know for sure is that a recession (or maybe worse) is IMMINENT. :cry:

[shain from kane]

18. What are we supposed to use now? Harsh language.

Hicks: I like to keep this handy for close encounters.

[maxsolomon]

19. america has extra guns

they could loan them to the national guard.

[krispos42]

39. Hell, lots of companies make M-16 style weapons

Most of them are civvie-legal, which means no automatic fire, but that's not a big change to make for a manufacturing company. Rock River Arms, Wilson Combat, Smith & Wesson, and Bushmaster all make M-16-pattern rifles in a variety of configurations, calibers, and barrel length, and they make police (automatic) and civilian (semi-auto) versions.

And they're all base in the US, not the Caymen Islands like Halliburton is! Somebody give them a call!

[RamboLiberal]

74. Hey ask the NRA members to sacrifice some rifles

There's a helluva lot of them that have AR15 semiauto styles, most with real nice electronic sights and all the goodies.

I don't know if any of you have heard of USPSA 3 gun competition. It's run and gun competition with handgun, shotgun, and semiauto military style rifle. Lately I've been thinking some of these shooters should be volunteering their butts to the military. Be interesting if the targets shot back!

BTW, the Army fields a competition team for 3 gun and for handgun and I bet you none of this team is going to Iraq.

[SayWhatYo]

20. Wait? No rifles, or just not M4s?

It wasn't 100% clear... So, is this saying that they are not getting the M4s and being shipped over with something M16s? Or, is it saying they do not have any?

[Lasher]

44. Good question, SayWhatYo

My take is that M-16s are probably available but the preference is to have M-4s. But the issue is larger than that since other equipment such as night vision optics is not available in needed quantities.

[happyslug]

57. The problem is a lack of M4s, the new "Better" Weapon for the Army.

I question the benefit of the M4 over the M16 (See my posts above for details). The US has plenty of M16s, but troopers always want a short easily to carry weapon except when it is needed (Then weight and size is secondary to firepower). The US Army is now a truck or helicopter moving army and the 16 inch barrel of the M4 is a lot easier to get into and out of Vehicles than the older M16 (and the M4 is easier to use within homes with small hallways and rooms, which are common in Iraq and most older homes even in the US).

[montanto]

22. Well, I guess I should plan a car wash

to raise funds for . . . oh, wait, i already do that to pay for the underfunded nclb mandate.
Maybe I could just pay for the guns out of my own pocket ? ? ? oh, wait, i already pay out of my pocket for the underfunded nclb mandate. maybe i should just take a pay cut . . . oh wait . . .
damn, i can't afford to buy guns for our troops OR food and materials for our kids, how am i gonna afford to feed and care for the vets and the people who need medicare and medicaide and &tc.

maybe i'll just check and see if there's anything on about anna nicole or britney.

[Kber]

23. Careful. if you pay for their equipment

you could void their life insurance policies.

[Recursion]

25. Good luck with that!

We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units.

:spray:

He must be new here.

Back in '04 (a year into the war, mind you), I saw Guard units that still had woodland camouflague.

[Thevenin]

29. Whoa

I have seen Guard Units (engineer, logistics) with the non-cammie olive drab (pre-woodland) utilities.

[Q3JR4]

26. Why am I not surprised? n/t.

[IWantAChange]

27. $500 billion or so a year on Defence budget under GWB and no guns? WTF???

Oh, Im sorry - Halliburton, Bechtel , Lockheed Marin, etc. DONT MAKE RIFLES - my bad.

[Thevenin]

30. Fraud, waste, abuse

Fraud, waste, abuse, payola, kickbacks.

Just look at how Lockheed-Martin and Northrup-Grumman screwed up the Coast Guard project.

[mopinko]

28. tammy duckworth's husband is going.

19 years in the illinois guard, never been deployed.
so, of course this is news. they had them on the local npr station. yada yada yada. she says- "he gets to take my stuff with him. he gets my maps. my combat maps."
:wow: :wow: :wow: COMBAT MAPS!! YOU HAVE TO BRING YOUR OWN COMBAT MAPS!!!!:wow: :wow: :wow:

that's what she said.

[Little Wing]

33. When the man in front of you dies, pick up his weapon and continue to charge!

[Morgana LaFey]

34. NEXT year? NEXT YEAR???????

The people of the United States -- the ones who voted -- overwhelmingly said get our troops HOME, dammit.

What the hell is this NEXT year shit?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

36. doesn't look good for the American Army

whose fault? Yes it is the GOP. They hire some idiot like Rumsfeld and more who are incapable of running the show. SEND THE TROOPS HOME BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

[Deep13]

37. Perhaps the soldiers should try foul language.

In addition to everything else that is wrong, this enormous cluster-fuck of a war has spread the military so thin that we are almost defenseless at home.

[againes]

43. All of this for a war that shouldn't have been started in the first place

Bush is breeding new terriosts faster than he can "hunt
them down and kill them"  I used to think that all bush
was good at was hunting, but obviously, he can't do that
either.  At least he hasn't shot anyone in the face.....yet. 
All the while he continues to shoot the American people in the
foot.  Hey maybe the Guard can use the big gun that bush is
using to shoot us in the feet!!!

[malaise]

38. So why are they going then

When will Governors intervene and say EfuggingNOUGH!

[LaPera]

40. The weapons makers need more money from our taxes, stealing 400 billion

already wasn't enough...they want that new 100 billion dollars Bush is pushing for and will get for the corporations.

Ah, the wars for profits...the money just keeps rolling in (as long as they can keep the wars rolling on).

[Lasher]

42. M-4 rifles are being given to the Afghan army

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan army is struggling with old weaponry, low pay and desertions but performs better than the troubled Iraqi army and could defend Afghanistan without U.S. and NATO support in 10 years or less, military officials and analysts say.

<snip>

"Current force levels have insufficient capability and capacity, making them heavily reliant upon U.S. and coalition forces," Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Afghanistan and Iraq at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an analysis last month titled "Winning in Afghanistan: Afghan Force Development." He said far more aid was needed.

The new funding announced recently by the Bush administration should help answer that call, providing M-4 or M-16 rifles, body armor, Humvees, aircraft and communications for troops sometimes equipped with little more than uniforms and aging guns inherited from past guerrilla forces.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/02/20/20afghan.html

I must say that providing good equipment for the Afghan army is a good investment - one that should have been made a long, long time ago. Why wasn't it?

$366.5 billion to date just for Iraq. And all US soldiers don't have the latest rifles? The Decider is demanding another $99.6 billion in his latest off-budget supplemental, mostly for for Iraq and Afghanistan. What now, will Congress just hand Junior yet another blank check? Sooner or later don't you have to insist on an actual accounting of just exactly where all that money has been going and what funding priorities are?

[Mr. Ected]

45. Fight With The Rifles You Got, Dammit...To Paraphrase Rummie

If you die, that's your tough luck, soldier.

Quit yer belly-achin'.

[ContraBass Black]

46. You're shitting me.

The "richest country in the world" is sending soldiers into a war zone without guns?

[AnneD]

48. What next

no bullets

[Heathen57]

50. What a bunch of Morons in the WH and the Pentagon

Guess those soldiers that don't have guns could just throw rocks at the enemy. That seems to fall into the GOP line of thinking.

Heathen-

[flyarm]

51. THES MF'ERS IN THIS WHITE HOUSE SHOULD BE SENT TO HELL!!

they send them to a civil war..unprotected by even guns!! and then bring them back to the states dead or wounded and put them into squalor..don't anyone tell me republicans support the troops..that is utter bullshit!!


THOSE ARE OUR KIDS..ALL OF OUR KIDS... this is dispicable...

this is just utter disgrace...

it makes me sick..

fly

[krispos42]

52. What's next? Garands?

Is the Civilian Marksmanship Program going to stop selling Garands because the Guard units need them?

Now, the Garand was a good battle rifle... in World War II! I would not want one in close-quarters combat, though.

[happyslug]

60. I would take a M1 in Close Quarters Combat, it will cut through walls

One of the Limitations of the M16/M4 series of Weapons is the limitations of the 5.56mm Round. The 5.56mm Round lacks good penetration, it is powerful enough to hit a person and penetrate most armor such a soldier is carrying, but when it comes to concrete walls, you need something more powerful such as the 7.62mm NATO Round of the old 30'06 Round (Yes the 50 caliber does it even better, but most 50 cals are NOT what I would call "man-portable" even in the Barret sniper rifle"). As a Over-watch weapon the M1 would still be a good weapon, the M14 would be better, but the M1 could do the job. If you are talking about going INTO Homes that is a is different problem, a shorter weapon would be better (For example the Israeli Uzi Submachine gun). The Uzi is MUCH easier to maneuver than the M1, the M14 and even the M16 and the M4. The Uzi has no range, but if you are doing room to room in a house, it is the best weapon to have, short, heavy, but short range fire power, easy to reload. During WWII this is how the most armies operated, Machine Guns and Rifles providing long range fire power and any short range work being done by submachine guns. The assault Rifle concept was design to merge these two weapons into one. It was an effective merger. but I fear this latest drive to make the M16 Submachine length is going to lead to a disaster (i.e. the M4). The M16 was NOT designed to be a Submachine gun and to shorten its barrel to make the M16 a Submachine gun may lead to a disaster.

[Poiuyt]

62. I should think an M1 could cut through concrete walls

[happyslug]

64. The M1 Rifle cost about $80 to Make, about $800 today.

The M1 Tank costs $2 million a piece and at least 1/2 mill a year to operate. That is why there are more M4s and M16s then there are M1 Tanks (and more M1 and M14 Rifles even today, than there are M1 Tanks)

[krispos42]

67. Except that it is long and awkward and on the heavy side

Not particularly good for house-raiding. On the plus side, it reloads really fast.

I have not heard anything bad about the mechanical aspects of shortening the M-16. Carbine-length civvie versions are a favorite of the police, security guards, and civilian self-defense.

The problem with the M-4 is that you are cutting six inches off of the barrel length, from 20" down to 14". That's a fair bit of muzzle velocity difference, which will affect both longer-range trajectory and bullet performance.

One reason the 5.56mm round is effective at close range is because the cannulure of the bullet has the unintended effect of making it seperate when it hits flesh. The bullet, traveling at well over Mach 2, hits flesh and tumbles, fracturing along the cannulure and breaking into two parts that spins wildly on two seperate paths through the body. Taking six inches off the M-16's barrel lowers the muzzle velocity enough make this event very hit-or-miss.

What we should be using for the close-quarters combat are Nosler Partition bullets. We're not fighting uniformed regular soldiers, so I don't think the Hague restrictions against expanding bullets applies. Those would work quite well against people in either the M-4 or M-16.

Future assault rifles I think should be chambered for the .250 Savage. Looking at Winchester's web site, it shoots a 100-grain bullet at 2820 feet per second, for 1765 foot-pounds of energy. That's about 25% more energy than the 5.56mm. Light enough for auto-fire, heavy enough to do more damage.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

70. If we need submachine guns fast ...

I wonder where the stamping presses are that could make the M3 Grease Gun. That .45ACP isn't a bad sub-gun round.

On the other hand, we wouldn't need all these guns if we could just get out of Iraq.

[happyslug]

71. Most Armor units still had M3 Grease Guns till at least the mid 1990s.

My old National Guard unit shared an armory with a Armor repair unit that still was carrying M3 Submachine guns in the late 1980s. Some Units may still have them (Through the generally movement ot the 9mm seems to make that unlikely). Thus the M3 Grease guns are STILL IN STOCK.

Now the problem with the M3 (Which it inherited from the Sten and the German MP38 series of Submachine Guns), is its magazine. The Germans when it came to the MP38 designed a double magazine that was NOT staggered (Like the Thompson, M1 Rifle, the M1898 Mauser, the M16, M14 and almost any other rifle made in the last 100 years), but doubled for greater bullets in the magazine (and cheaper construction). When Britain adopted a Submachine gun (The STEN), Britain adopted the German MP38 magazine. When the US adopted the M3 it was designed to be converted to 9mm so it also used the same magazine (when converted to 9mm). This magazine was the weak part of ALL of these Submachine guns. The Magazine would jam do to this magazine (As the bolt tried ot load two rounds at the same time). After WWII the English modified the STEN to accepted Staggered magazine (This was the Sterling Submachine Gun) and the Swedes took the MP39 design and gave it a proper magazine. Both of these were vast improvements over the WWII version. The M3 Grease guns was NEVER modified to accept a proper magazine, thus NOT a good choice of a close in weapon given other (and better choices.

The better Choice would be the Uzi, it uses a proper magazine and is reliable. It is the best COMBAT Submachine gun you can use (I use the term Combat Submachine gun for the above types of submachine guns, for starting in the 1960s you started to get high price Submachine guns for police use, unlike the Uzis these police submachine guns fire from a close bolt for accuracy and tend to be well made, Uzis and most other Combat Submachine guns fire from an open bolt and were cheap to produce). Given the situation in Iraq what we may need would be Uzis, but most submachine guns have limited range. Thus if a combat Submachine are used it MUST be used with longer range rifles. Thus sooner or later you get back to the M16 or AK47 Assault rifles as the best compromise in a weapon for this type of fighting, and unless you having problem funding M16s and/or Ak47s why opt for the Uzi or any other Combat Submachine gun?

[Robeysays]

54. k and r

some one post this on dailykos

[MissWaverly]

55. And they claim "Murtha" is senile, he's the only one with a brain

I also heard they're low on equipment, so they plan to share, how can you share humvees
when you are under attack.

[Devil Dog Dem]

58. This should read "not enough carbines" not "not enough rifles"

I'm sure even the Guard has enough M-16 rifles. They just don't have enough M-4 carbines.
The Marines are pretty much taking a pass on the M-4 becuase of the bad ballistics on it. They have modified the M-16A2 into an M-16A4 (which has railes allowing for optics, lights, etc.). I agree with keeping the 20-inch bbl, but the need to go with the adjustable stock to allow shorter Marines to use it better.

[rodeodance]

59. This goes to all my Congresscritters!

[Breeze54]

61. I*M*P*E*A*C*H NOW!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Turbineguy]

63. That used to be a specialty of the Russians in WWI

"Those who stop bullets also serve"

[Joey Liberal]

65. The Okies voted for Bush and deserve what they are getting! n/t

[fooj]

66. This is f*cking insane! Send the NG into a war zone without a weapon?

WTF? :grr:

[Dracos]

68. This goes along with a question

I asked on this thread please comment on it.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=266299&mesg_id=266299

[TheGriz]

72. Article isn't clear

as to whether or not they have enough rifles to go around or are simply lacking the latest and greatest.

If they are just lacking M4s, meh. An M16a2 will serve them well. It's not as handy as an M4 but it is an accurate, controllable rifle. They are the exact same system anyway, uses the same ammunition and magazines.

It would be better if they had 14.5" or 16" flat-tops with red dot sights but they are still a reserve unit and they have an ergonomic assault rifle compatible with those of full time soldiers.

I think the story should really be that they are being sent in the first place. Keep them at home or send them to Afghanistan.