Anything a shotgun could do in the jungle, a machine gun with higher velocity ammo can do better. Shotguns are good inside of buildings and and for hunting birds and that's it. Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s. I would never want to be issued an M60.
I think the idea behind it was that shotguns have a wider area per shot, which is handy when you can't see where you're being shot at from through the bush and want to just pepper the area with lead until you hit whatever's shooting at you.
Not sure how well that'd work in practice however, would probably depend on the shell load.
Even then, a machine gun would probably work just as well, or an M16 on auto if you have the whole squad spraying for the target.
>Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s.
I heard the issue is that later into the war the M60 started having reliability issues with the feeding mechanism due to poor maintenance, but early war they were fairly reliable.
That said, IIRC you could slam the cover down and have everything close up in a way that it'd be more or less jammed until you popped it, drew the bolt back, and closed it again. >That's not ever close to the right terminology
Yeah, I've never owned/fired a machine gun because my country hates freedom.
>Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s. I would never want to be issued an M60.
It was worse then that, the M60 was the platoon's support machine gun, the squad automatic was 2 of picrel, a bog standard M16 with a shitty clip on bipod and before that it was an M14 with a bipod. America had this idea for a while post BAR that they could just use their standard rifle as a SAW but unlike the Soviet's and their RPK, they didn't think they needed to make any changes to the weapon to accommodate it's new role. Neither the M14 or M16 got a heavy barrel, it was especially thin on the old M16. Neither had a magazine option above 20rds. The M14 was so uncontrollable that just before they switched to the M16 they designed an issued a short lived stock with pistol grips and a higher stock just to try and get it under control.
and GI's used the m16 as a submachinegun innawoods. shotguns are nasty as frick in bush and CLINTSMITHSHOTGUNSRIPSHITOFF.MP4
Id rather have a shotgun in dense as frick crap like vietnam. ive hunted bastard boar hogs in the same sort of conditions where a knife or a shotgun is going to get you a guaranteed kill.
>fuddlore
You mean "tried and true method criticized by zoomers to justify their x10 more expensive modern solution"? If so, yes shotguns are very effective in the jungle.
I remember reading once that heavy shot suffered less deflection from dense foliage than lighter, higher velocity rifle rounds, but I'm no physicist so that might've been fuddlore too. That was one of the issues with flechettes, though, so it kinda checks out.
It's pretty much fuddlore. When the US was in vietnam they issued shotguns to the South Vietnamese and other allies, that was mainly because they were cheap, and because they didn't want to go handing out M-16s to everyone, so they got the crappier shotgun instead.
That doesn't make any sense. A single pellet of 00 buck weighs 54 grains, they are not heavier than a 556 bullet.
But there's more of them, and in a pattern. A missed shot doesn't mean much. Then there are the factors of having inventory, and familiarity. Maybe good 'ol boy knows how to bring a shotgun up and get a bead relatively quickly from hunting over a new fangled plastic rifle.
You do realize jungle warfare is <50m right? And usually it was section commanders whose job it was to keep bayoneting asiatics off the radioman. Or the pointman whose job is to get killed at knife range during an ambush.
>But there's more of them, and in a pattern.
That's an entirely different goalpost, anon. The original claim was that buckshot deflected less because it was supposedly heavier than a rifle bullet. It's not heavier than a rifle bullet.
Musket ballistics (which are more in-tune with shotguns) are closer than .223
>But there's more of them, and in a pattern.
That's an entirely different goalpost, anon. The original claim was that buckshot deflected less because it was supposedly heavier than a rifle bullet. It's not heavier than a rifle bullet.
No.
Spitzer points are slightly easier to deflect than very heavy, slow flat nose/Keith style bullets that are jacketed or hardcast.
Soft lead pellets with low SD do the worst, because as soon as they hit something they deform horribly.
This is mentioned in several Vietnam memoirs, mostly in the form of saying that the Pig and the AK were not subject to as much deflection from foliage as the M16. If that's true or just the soldiers perception, idk, but it would make sense.
I find it odd how long it took to issue a GPMG for US ground forces instead of hiding them in weapons platoons. Like three major wars where the enemy did it and we acknowledged it was effective but still resisted.
Although based ST2 was running ops with OOPS ALL M60S which must have been hilarious
wasn't the vietnam load no.1 or no.4 buckshot? but anyways, the logic i remember reading or hearing was increased hit probably PER SHOT, in short range low visibility environments.
I'm sure that was the idea behind it, but shotgun use in Vietnam by US soldiers was almost 0.
In the jungle it was shit, mostly given to rear echelon non combat troops.
Basically, Rhodesians also occasionally used shotguns in combat and the basic idea was that in closer quarters it increased your chances to hit since you were sending 9 projectiles down range with a single trigger pull.
That was the idea at least, how well this actually worked and wasn't just a placebo is anyone's guess.
Its less >spray buckshot into the jungle, hitting all the hidden VC
and more >oh god a man with a knife/bayonet just jumped out of that shrub I need to kill him with 1 shot ASAP
>Is there any truth to the idea that shotguns are great for dense jungle warfare
Yes, but bear in mind this dates back to when the people who said so were fighting in the jungle with Lee Enfields, Garands, M14s and FN FALs. When the alternative is single action or semiautomatic sending a single rifle bullet downrange at best, yes, a pump gun spreading pellets does have better knock down power and hit probability
>but what about automatics
WHEN available, they were also preferred. The Bren, Sten, Sterling, BAR, Thompson and M3 were also widely used - in fact the Sterling made its name in jungle warfare.
Once automatic select fire rifles became the standard sidearm for all militaries, shotguns were relegated to door busting.
Anything a shotgun could do in the jungle, a machine gun with higher velocity ammo can do better. Shotguns are good inside of buildings and and for hunting birds and that's it. Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s. I would never want to be issued an M60.
I think the idea behind it was that shotguns have a wider area per shot, which is handy when you can't see where you're being shot at from through the bush and want to just pepper the area with lead until you hit whatever's shooting at you.
Not sure how well that'd work in practice however, would probably depend on the shell load.
Even then, a machine gun would probably work just as well, or an M16 on auto if you have the whole squad spraying for the target.
>Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s.
I heard the issue is that later into the war the M60 started having reliability issues with the feeding mechanism due to poor maintenance, but early war they were fairly reliable.
That said, IIRC you could slam the cover down and have everything close up in a way that it'd be more or less jammed until you popped it, drew the bolt back, and closed it again.
>That's not ever close to the right terminology
Yeah, I've never owned/fired a machine gun because my country hates freedom.
>Americans just had very shitty squad automatic weapons in the 60s and 70s. I would never want to be issued an M60.
It was worse then that, the M60 was the platoon's support machine gun, the squad automatic was 2 of picrel, a bog standard M16 with a shitty clip on bipod and before that it was an M14 with a bipod. America had this idea for a while post BAR that they could just use their standard rifle as a SAW but unlike the Soviet's and their RPK, they didn't think they needed to make any changes to the weapon to accommodate it's new role. Neither the M14 or M16 got a heavy barrel, it was especially thin on the old M16. Neither had a magazine option above 20rds. The M14 was so uncontrollable that just before they switched to the M16 they designed an issued a short lived stock with pistol grips and a higher stock just to try and get it under control.
and GI's used the m16 as a submachinegun innawoods. shotguns are nasty as frick in bush and CLINTSMITHSHOTGUNSRIPSHITOFF.MP4
Id rather have a shotgun in dense as frick crap like vietnam. ive hunted bastard boar hogs in the same sort of conditions where a knife or a shotgun is going to get you a guaranteed kill.
>fuddlore
You mean "tried and true method criticized by zoomers to justify their x10 more expensive modern solution"? If so, yes shotguns are very effective in the jungle.
(You)
>nooooooo it's not tactical enough!!
>12ga go brrrrrrrr
>12ga go brrrrrrrr
No it doesn't, it goes BANG CLACK CLACK.
>what is USAS-12
>what is AA12*
>what is HK CAWS*
>*not issued unfortunately
You forgot PANCOR and DAD12
Don't forget the Remington 7188 which was actually issued in Vietnam
I never understood that vest, why have that few rounds?
ID on the shoes?
>ENTER: the gen12
thumbman did a vid. looks like a frickin monster in full auto
Come back to me when a reliable semi-auto 12 gauge with a magazine capacity bigger than "frick all" hits the market.
Black Aces tactical PRO is a semi auto 12 gauge with box or drum mag capability
is it reliable?
Ok
Frickin based (please ignore the white rifle it isn't finished)
I remember reading once that heavy shot suffered less deflection from dense foliage than lighter, higher velocity rifle rounds, but I'm no physicist so that might've been fuddlore too. That was one of the issues with flechettes, though, so it kinda checks out.
It's pretty much fuddlore. When the US was in vietnam they issued shotguns to the South Vietnamese and other allies, that was mainly because they were cheap, and because they didn't want to go handing out M-16s to everyone, so they got the crappier shotgun instead.
That doesn't make any sense. A single pellet of 00 buck weighs 54 grains, they are not heavier than a 556 bullet.
But there's more of them, and in a pattern. A missed shot doesn't mean much. Then there are the factors of having inventory, and familiarity. Maybe good 'ol boy knows how to bring a shotgun up and get a bead relatively quickly from hunting over a new fangled plastic rifle.
>light weight, low velocity, low sectional density soft lead is superior
Kek, the absolute state of /k/.
You do realize jungle warfare is <50m right? And usually it was section commanders whose job it was to keep bayoneting asiatics off the radioman. Or the pointman whose job is to get killed at knife range during an ambush.
Musket ballistics (which are more in-tune with shotguns) are closer than .223
>But there's more of them, and in a pattern.
That's an entirely different goalpost, anon. The original claim was that buckshot deflected less because it was supposedly heavier than a rifle bullet. It's not heavier than a rifle bullet.
And even then, a random pattern of ineffective buckshot is shit anyways
Spitzer shaped bullets also are easier to deflect than round shot, they destabilize easier
No.
Spitzer points are slightly easier to deflect than very heavy, slow flat nose/Keith style bullets that are jacketed or hardcast.
Soft lead pellets with low SD do the worst, because as soon as they hit something they deform horribly.
Fair enough, adding that to the thought cabinet
This is mentioned in several Vietnam memoirs, mostly in the form of saying that the Pig and the AK were not subject to as much deflection from foliage as the M16. If that's true or just the soldiers perception, idk, but it would make sense.
I find it odd how long it took to issue a GPMG for US ground forces instead of hiding them in weapons platoons. Like three major wars where the enemy did it and we acknowledged it was effective but still resisted.
Although based ST2 was running ops with OOPS ALL M60S which must have been hilarious
If you're shooting at little dudes popping out from tunnels then it may be better for a quick reaction shot.
It was fuddlore, shotguns performed horribly in dense jungles.
Proof?
wasn't the vietnam load no.1 or no.4 buckshot? but anyways, the logic i remember reading or hearing was increased hit probably PER SHOT, in short range low visibility environments.
I'm sure that was the idea behind it, but shotgun use in Vietnam by US soldiers was almost 0.
In the jungle it was shit, mostly given to rear echelon non combat troops.
Basically, Rhodesians also occasionally used shotguns in combat and the basic idea was that in closer quarters it increased your chances to hit since you were sending 9 projectiles down range with a single trigger pull.
That was the idea at least, how well this actually worked and wasn't just a placebo is anyone's guess.
They were mainly used by the bsap, not in frontline combat.
It's actually really funny that a ton of shotguns that were used in Vietnam were not issued.
There was a medal of honor that was given out to a soldier that used a shotgun in NAM I believe it was a stevens 77e
ONE glove?
Gimme da deets, so I can read up on the story.
Its in this article
https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/stevens-model-77e-shotgun/
Its less
>spray buckshot into the jungle, hitting all the hidden VC
and more
>oh god a man with a knife/bayonet just jumped out of that shrub I need to kill him with 1 shot ASAP
I knew a Marine nam vet who did 2 tours. He said his preferred weapon was shotgun.
>Is there any truth to the idea that shotguns are great for dense jungle warfare
Yes, but bear in mind this dates back to when the people who said so were fighting in the jungle with Lee Enfields, Garands, M14s and FN FALs. When the alternative is single action or semiautomatic sending a single rifle bullet downrange at best, yes, a pump gun spreading pellets does have better knock down power and hit probability
>but what about automatics
WHEN available, they were also preferred. The Bren, Sten, Sterling, BAR, Thompson and M3 were also widely used - in fact the Sterling made its name in jungle warfare.
Once automatic select fire rifles became the standard sidearm for all militaries, shotguns were relegated to door busting.