"M-14" ??? I qualified with an off the rack "14" in 1969...If you really want to reach out and touch someone this is the weapon! Great distance , great stopping power , great accuracy..It will ring their bell every time!!!What a shooter!

Posted by: Curt Scheibel at June 16, 2006 10:16 PM

Not sure what qualifications this "Axe" guy possesses in order to make any well informed judgements on the combat effectiveness of our current equipment but it is obvious that he's never spent a single day in real combat. And no, being in Afghanistan or Iraq doesn't count unless you've slugged it out with the bad guys. (getting blown up by IEDs and running doesn't count either, sorry CAB wearers).

Both the Apache and Super Cobra are excellent gunships and have performed admirably over the sands of Iraq. For those that may be nay-sayers - I have had the opportunity to have seen both in combat - and I am still filled with awe and respect for the whirly bird. The poor "C" grade comes from a "never-will-be" couch commando.

Now being Infantry I don't have the best inclinations towards those metal monsters known as "Abe" (M1 Abrams). However it'll put a smile on even the most anti-cav grunt's face when ol' Abe lets loose with his smooth bore big gun. Yes, there is an achilles heel to this goliath but that's why the urban tank tactics of WWI and WWII included Infantry for protection. We need to remember our lessons learned.

As for the M14, great rifle. That said there is nothing critically wrong with the M4/M16 rifle. 5.56... 7.62x39... 7.62x51... whatever. If you ever find yourself on a two way firing range and you've got a 5.56 "BB gun" just remember one thing - shot placement.

OIFgrunt out.

Posted by: OIFgrunt at June 15, 2006 6:12 AM

Hey folks,

Take it easy, all right? I didn't want to grade these Iraq techs. It was a requirement passed down from the editors at Popular Science.

The problem with a letter grade is that it offers no nuance and ignores context. An M-1A2 tank is the best possible solution to a "breach" problem (bad guys behind concrete) like you find in truly intensive urban fighting in Iraq where RPGs are flying. But in almost all other situations, the Abrams is a gas-guzzling burden. How do you assign a letter grade that acknowledges this?

At best, the PS scorecard serves to provoke conversation. Otherwise, it's pretty meaningless.

Posted by: David Axe at May 23, 2006 3:04 PM

David Axe, it seems that not many posts here agree with your views.

Posted by: pedestrian at May 23, 2006 8:33 AM

C for Stryker?? It has "too thin armor"?

Geez, another one for the crowd of people who think the Stryker was designed to be a tank with enough armor to stop an A-bomb.

Just as stupid as saying the Humvee is defficient because it cant hold up against IEDs.

If it wasnt designed to do it, find something that is, or shut up.

Posted by: skrip00 at May 22, 2006 11:38 AM