m1 rifles to be banned?

[Jackie S]

Dilbert, the 113, which was the main Army Personel Carrier, (and later versions still are), is also made out of aluminum, actually, it is a laminate, with a thin steel plate between aluminum sheets. The things will actually float.

Talk about underpowered. The originol 113's had a 318 Chrysler Engine, that old "polysherical" chambered thing of the late '50's and '60's. Later versions, (M113-A1) were Diesel.

When you look at pictures of Personel Carriers in 'Nam, you will notice that most of the time the guys were not in them, they all road on top.

As for the name, just about any old Army guy will always say "Track" when referring to a APC, as in "the damned Track is broke down again". Tanks, I guess, are always tanks.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Dilbert, the 113, which was the main Army Personel Carrier, (and later versions still are), is also made out of aluminum, actually, it is a laminate, with a thin steel plate between aluminum sheets. The things will actually float.

Talk about underpowered. The originol 113's had a 318 Chrysler Engine, that old "polysherical" chambered thing of the late '50's and '60's. Later versions, (M113-A1) were Diesel.

When you look at pictures of Personel Carriers in 'Nam, you will notice that most of the time the guys were not in them, they all road on top.

As for the name, just about any old Army guy will always say "Track" when referring to a APC, as in "the damned Track is broke down again". Tanks, I guess, are always tanks.

I'm curious as to why the 113 was more successful than the 114, they were both similar, only difference was the size and engine used.

[Jackie S]

The 113 is more of a true "personel carrier", much more room than a 114. As I said before, the 114's were usually called a "re-con track", the idea was having a small group out looking about. The originol 114's were quite a bit more maneaverable than the originol 113's, you could actually lock a track, making it easier to navigate rough terrain. Later 113's had the feature.

I never knew much of the history of either, all I know is every squad had a 113 except the commo squad and the CO,, we had the 114. Besides, this has all been a long time ago for me, close to 45 years.

[cptjohnstone]

I carried one after the Kent State riot, on the right of picture, the hippies were singing "give peace a chance" On the other side were the goat ropers, singing, "Okie from Muskogee" Behind the picture was the bball arena where the jocks were hanging out of the windows saying National Guard 3 Kent State 0

I am towards the back

[seanes]

Most probably don't remember, but you used to be able to buy a WWII used M-1 at five and dime stores, for around a $100. I qualified on one, but always hated it, too heavy and a real thumb buster. Plus the ping was very telling.

[durango95]

The "ping" you mentioned was very telling. Soldiers in WWII would carry an empty clip and sometimes drop it on the ground, the germans thought the GI had just emptied their clip and would come out shooting. You can just imagine the surprise look on a German's face when they would face a GI with a full clip blasting away. The old M1's were heavy, lacked real knock down power too. But in good hands the M1 was more than enough to take on about any enemy. But give me an M14 anyday. Again a heavy weapon, but with a 20 round magazine and the ability to switch to fully automatic on the later versions it was a great weapon. If I was in WWII I would have prefered the .45 tommy gun or a BAR(browning automatic rifle). The tommy gun was not real accurate but they were capable of a high rate of fire and those .45 slugs were deadly.

[Jackie S]

Durango, the only problem with the M-14 on full auto was it was darned near uncontrolable, and the cyclic rate would be much better at about 450, rather than the 750. But on all other counts, the M-14 is a far superior weapon to the Garand. You give up a little in muzzle energy, but in reality, that is a non issue when comparing cartridges of this size.

[Guest030824]

Just don't depend on an M-14 in the artic the bolt just drops out and you are up shit creek. They played so hard getting the M-14 over the Armalite M-16 they made the bolt smaller to pass the mud test. We carried two bolts in Alaska as we lost so many of them.