Bar Hybrid Tour
Bar Hybrid Tour
 |
 Guerin Rife Two Bar Hybrid Pink Tour Mallet Putter 33  US $99.99
|
 Guerin RIFE Hybrid Two 2 Bar Tour Blade Putter 34 US $39.99
|
 Guerin Rife Two Bar Hybrid Tour Mallet Plumbers NEXK BLACK 35 RH US $105.00
|
 Guerin Rife Two Bar Hybrid Tour Blade Putter Weights O Size Grip 124 55 US $85.00
|
 Guerin Rife Two Bar Hybrid Tour Mallet Putter Steel Right US $94.49
|
 Guerin Rife Two Bar Hybrid Tour Blade Putter Steel Right US $94.49
|
Asking Vietnam combat veterans. M14 or M16.....?
Of the people I've known who were Vietnam veterans, they were all in the 1968-71 range with the exception of one who served from late '65 to late '66 when discharged. And in fact was the only vet I knew who used the M-14 in combat. He never used an M-16 and couldn't compare them. He thought the M-14 was a "half M-1, half BAR" hybrid, said It was a heavy fifle to slug around the jungles and could not put out the rapid fire of an AK. But he summed it up as a rugged weapon, disassembled and reassembled pretty easy for maitainence or repair, almost never misfired, had good range, very accurate and packed a pretty good wallop. Most vetrans I've spoke to about the M-16 sum it up with one phrase "great, when it worked."
Is there any veteran on here that used both in their tour of duty?
I never used both. The Marine Corps only used M-14's when I served. The Army used M-16's, and the jamming problems were legend, even then. It was said half the combat fatalities were found with a jammed M-16 beside them. From what I've discovered since I served, the M-14 was superior. It was .30 caliber, not .22 like the M-16, so it had greater range and stopping power. True, it didn't carry as many rounds as the AK and the M-16, which had 30 round mags, but it carried 20, and they were hard hitting. Hell, you only needed one round to do the job! And yes, the M-14 was an M-1 descendant. It used a shorter round than the M-1 (the .308 instead of the 30-06), but it was just as powerful, and the shorter case meant lighter weight so a man could carry more ammo, always a plus in combat! It also had a 20 round mag instead of the 8 rounds the M-1 carried. Like I said, the Corps wouldn't use M-16's when I served because of the jamming problems. But eventually, Uncle Sam got the bugs out, and the Marines changed over too. Trouble was, they still didn't have the stopping power of a .30 caliber round, but the .22's were lighter, so a man could carry more ammo, and the Corps figured that made the .22's more of an asset than a liability, after the jamming problem was overcome. I still have a civilian version (semi-auto) of the M-14, not because I think it's superior to an M-16 (although in some ways, like stopping power, it is) but because I was trained on that rifle. I'm used to it, and I can hit anything I can see. The M-16 is totally different. The civilian version, the AR-15, was uncomfortable to me. It looked, and felt, like Flash Gordon's ray gun. I never could get used to it. Can't teach an old devil dog new tricks, I guess.