Posts
The US military might seem to have struggled in getting a sniper rifle to the field when you look at the whole history of the M21 program.
The XM21 did well in Vietnam and the "production" M21 was also fine.
What developed is aging rifles weren't field serviceable because of the special bedding the action got.
By the late 80's this was getting to be a serious problem with the rifle.
But the US Army had never really considered a moderately wide issue of sniper guns.
Why?
Because artillery.
Why drop $1.50 worth of .30 caliber on someone when $300 of 155 HE-quick will do? Especially since anyone with a radio and a map can do the latter!
The traditional US response to sniper fire is mortars and flattening the suspected area.
It's not an infantry problem, it's a specialist problem.
I am not saying that snipers have no use, but it's a specialist role.
The M21 is also a program that can be compared to the M60 machine gun.
Did you know that The Pig was the greatest automatic weapon ever fielded? Did you also know that it's the biggest piece of shit ever made?
Those two diametrically opposed views happen when the people talking are literally talking about the same gun. Not the same model of gun, the SAME gun.
When it was new, in Vietnam, it was a reliable workhorse. Twenty-five years later in Germany... not so much.
The XM21 and M21 in the inventory were very long in the tooth in 1989 when some general complained about them being unserviceable in the field.
Small arms have a finite useage. Sure, a well-kept firearm will last years being used occasionally, but a sniper rifle built in 1968 and basically in constant use, or a machine gun, will wear and break and f'in suck.
ReplyDeleteBut new-new sniper rifles and new-new machineguns aren't big enough ticket items to attract Congressional attention, thus they are the first to die when budget cuts come about.
As to the 'Pig,' later versions have continually improved the darned thing to the point it's as good as the current use machine gun. Or even better. But again, 'low ticket items' aren't 'sexy.'
May be one of the best things with all the GWT veterans in Congress as long as they don't turn into turncoat pieces of dogsqueeze.
worked on m60's and others for 20 years. toted one for a year too, not fun. the 60 was parts intensive. every time it came in the shop it was practically rebuilt. the ma deuce was labor intensive. when it came in, it just needed everything tightened back up on it b/c it literally shook itself apart. the newer fn based m240 almost never breaks, but its a beast to carry very far. there's still a warm place in my heart for the pig.
ReplyDeleteI remember that John Ross, in Unintended Consequences, had some hard things to say about the M-60. However, he was never in the military and the Pigs he was familiar with were probably surplus and badly-worn, at best.
ReplyDeleteHe was definitely describing a pattern of wear on a well used gun.
DeleteAnother problem was receiver stretching.
Willard and I theorize that the design sacrificed some longevity for lighter weight. This isn't a problem as long as you keep making the guns and replace old guns as they wear past a certain point.
That's something that wasn't happening in the Carter years and had not really been corrected by Reagan. By the time the money might have been made available for new M60's, the decision to go with the M240 outside of turrets had been made.
Thus the USA joined most of NATO with the MAG.