Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Jan 29 10 9:45 AM

Wonderful collection Dave! It all looks pristine, is it out often or more kept away? (Don't answer if you don't wish - I understand that could be a private question)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Jan 29 10 10:50 AM

Thanks Dave,

That makes me very happy, the Airsoft M14 with scope i've found looks just like that, i wasn't sure about the mounts at first but that is top notch.

I like your display, the bronze star and the Air medal eh? You must be pretty proud to have those?

Cheers again - as always you've helped me out

Glen

Quote    Reply   

#25 [url]

Jan 29 10 12:27 PM

Glen not that its a big thing but the original M14 mount I had in VN was steel the modern one is aluminum, the original puts the scope to the side slightly left of the bore, the modern one puts the scope directly over the bore other than that the mounting arangement is the same.
Was the 16 scope what you had in mind? There are other (better) mounts available now that allow you to use normal modern scopes, but that is the type of M16 scope I saw in VN.

Thanks guys for the comments on the display - don't get the chance to take out and show them often.

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Jan 29 10 2:15 PM

Although im not a expert on sniper's the two most renown sniper's although there was many more were Carlos Hathcock and Chuck Mawhinnie i believe both favoured the springfield 30-30 and
the Remington my self and LT joe have seen Chuck's rifle in the Marine Corp's museum at Qauntico
they both used redfield scope's,i believe a m16 would not have been a lot of good for distance sniping
as the round is to light to cause much damage over those type of distance's (Dave correct me if im wrong) most vet's i have spoken to have told me they would set the site's on a m16 for approx
200 yard's with no windage as most firefight's they took part in were under that distance.
yes i have told Glen he can be a sniper as he want's to specialise as one the same as if someone want's to become a grenadier for instance, is all we ask in these case's is firstly they are a ground pounder first and if thay want to specialise they must do the bookwork and get it right.
Glen dont buy stuff from SOF they are normally double dear i just put a full set of webbing together for my grandson for £60-00 be patient it will come.

-cairnswillipete

Both men above were Marine Snipers, Carlos Hathcock used the Winchester Model 70 bolt action rifle and Chuck Mawhinney the M40 bolt action which is basically the M700 Remington with the Redfield 3–9 power Accurange variable scope. The Army would eventually adopt the M700 into their M24 Sniper System but in Vietnam they stuck with the M14. An official Army sniper would be issued with the National Match variant of the M14 with 3-9 Art scope. Sgt Aldelbert Waldron was one of the best Army sniper's during the Vietnam war he was in the 9th Infantry Division.

Hollywood

Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

Jan 29 10 3:44 PM

cheers dg for those pics
interesting point is that my m16 folding bipod {orig} in its pouch {orig}not only fits the m16 but also my m14, were the bipods extensively used or were they another bit of kit that was accidently on purpose ditched! lol also the pouch has a zipped pocket on the front that appears to be too small for a scope what was in that?
mind you the scope on your m16 dg seems a small one which might have fitted in it.....mmmmm not sure
regards
nick


Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

Jan 29 10 11:08 PM

Glen and Bob I was quite interested to see the M14 sniper photos Bob posted. The scope mounts shown appear the same as the current ones positioning the scope directly above the bore. The one I had was strictly a side mount. I wonder when the over bore mounts were introduced. Perhaps after my time? Or perhaps they were issued at the same time as the side mounts?

I didn’t know that there was an over bore mount at that time the one I carried and others I saw carried by regular infantry troops were all side mount, I always assumed that this was done on purpose so that:

1) The mount would not interfere with ejecting spent cases

In practice I have seen no problem with ejection under the mount although cases eject rather violently and have certainly dinged up the under side of the mount’s finish.

2) So that the rifle could still be “top loaded” with stripper clips

As to the stripper clips, they were quite popular on many WWII guns and I kind of figured they were a design hold over from the M1 Garand. In practice I don’t think I ever saw any one actually loading the rifle that way. When we got rounds loaded in 5 round stripper clips, an adapter was always furnished that you could fit over the magazine the adapter performed the same function as the guide in the rifle’s receiver allowing you to load the magazine with the stripper clips 5 rounds at a time. We did sometimes pre load magazines using the stripper clips and adapter. Also an almost identical (although smaller) adapter and stripper clip system was at times used for loading M16 magazines, but the M16 it self had no provision for using the clips while the magazine was in the weapon. In actual practice (except on ranges) we generally loaded the magazines by hand one cartridge at a time.

3) So that the scope in no way interfered with the weapons iron sight.

This would be valid the over bore mount is high enough that you can see the rear iron sight under it, only if it is adjusted to its lowest position, if the iron sights have actually been sighted in you can’t use them with out removing the mount. Obviously there was no such problem with the side mount.

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

Jan 29 10 11:11 PM

Glen from what I can see of your air soft M14 it appears to very accurately represent the actual rifle. I can’t quite see enough detail in the photo, but I presume there is a small slotted screw head on the right side of the rifle just ahead of the forearm and between the barrel and gas mechanism. Forgive me if you already knew this. This is not a screw, it’s a gas valve. When the slot is in the vertical position the weapons gas system functions in either semi auto or full auto mode. If you turn the slot 90 degrees so that it is horizontal (parallel with the bore) the gas mechanism is turned off, making the weapon function like a bolt action. This was done to allow the weapon to fire rifle grenades with special cartridges. Rifle grenades had been abandoned by the Army by the time I was in.

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

Jan 29 10 11:13 PM

Bob I have seldom fired that S&W model 10 in recent years, it is pretty nearly worn out, but I wouldn’t part with it for anything. I bought it new in 1964 and smuggled it to Vietnam with me, and carried it through out my tour. When I was wounded I gave it to a good friend of mine who was wearing it when he was killed. When I returned to the unit, the 1st Sgt had kept it locked up in the company safe for me and returned it to me. Before I left VN I was able to declare it as a “war trophy” and was issued a permit to bring it back to the states legally.


Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Jan 29 10 11:16 PM

Steve a young police officer on the department where I worked after the Army scrimshawed those grips for me. I still have the original badly worn wooden ones. The same guy made a set for one of my other guns when I retired from the police department. The grips are made from an ivory like material made for kitchen counter tops – he not only scrimshawed the grips he hand carved them, a very talented fella.

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

Jan 29 10 11:41 PM

Nick those folding spring-loaded bipods for the 16 were widely issued and widely used. When you were set up in a position it was a handy way to keep the weapon handy and out of the water and mud. They weren’t carried on the weapon when moving because they would snag on every bush you passed. I didn’t remember the pouch you mentioned. I’m wondering if that was for carrying the sections of a cleaning rod. The 16’s of that day did not have a compartment in the stock for cleaning supplies like they do now. Just a guess.

I have a set of those bipods (not original but they function the same way) and I have frequently used it on various sporting rifles while hunting for the same reasons as in the Army to keep the rifle handy and clean when you set it down.

The M14 had a much better bipod made for it. Made of heavy steel it fit around the gas tube and was held on by the end plug. The legs folded back against the forend when not in use, and had a length adjustment to allow a considerable height range. They make replicas of that bipod today but they are not nearly as heavy duty as the original. The originals are hard to find and very expensive.

The M16 bipod would not work very well as an actual shooting rest on the M14. It was not strong enough to take the recoil.

Quote    Reply   

#40 [url]

Jan 30 10 3:27 AM

wow interesting about the bipod dg many thanx i thought the bipods were a rare issue item interesting about the bipod not meaty enough for the m14 as well. another fact to go in my brain to spout forth to the public! lol

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help