Shortround6
Major General
We trained using the Lee Enfield in the 70s and were expected, as recruits, to deliver accurate aimed fire within a 9x9 target over 250 yds at a minimum of 15 rounds per minute. we also used the cousin of the garand, the M1 carbine in similar exercises. The Lee Enfield was ideal to the purpose of training a man to shoot accurately and watch his ammunition expenditure, the M1 was not. The old SMLE NEVER failed us. it was reliable, accurate, effortless and for the average grunts like us. By comparison the M1 was a mule, with constant stoppages, vastly less accuracy but most important of all this desire to make up for those weaknesses by firing off rounds as fast as was possible. the result, by calculation, the firepower generated by a squad of enfield armed men was vastly more effective because of accuracy and dependability over the M1. I have only fired the Garand occasionally, and I would concede that its greater weight and length might make it a better proposition, but im not convinced.
some time further up the food chain, i trained using the SLR and the M-16. The M-16 had a full auto function, the SLRs (that we used) were only semi auto. The m-16 as a meaningful weapon of war was in my opinion a total waste of time. Sure, you could go nuts and spray bullets in every direction as your fear prescribed, but your ability to deliver accurate, measured fire designed to keep a target's head down whilst your mates enveloped and then repositioned themselves was inconsequential and totally ineffective when compared to the SLR. this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior .
Semi auto superiority is a theoretical advantage, but in the real world is a total crock
Seems like you are talking out both sides of your mouth here.
"...........this is not just my bias talking. the RAR, considered to be far more effective in battles in Vietnam than any comparable US outfit except the very top elite forces refused to use the m-16 as a rule for those reasons and time and again proved the point that the measured, deliberate aimed fire of the SLR was far superior."
Now I believe that the SLR was a gas operated semi-auto rifle as you have stated. it had a 20 round magazine. and yet somehow it was so much better at at "measured, deliberate aimed fire" than the gas operated semi-auto M-1 Garand with it's 8 round magazine. Both rifles were about the same length (within a few inches) the same weight (1/2 to 1 pound) fired a cartridge of about the same power and used similar sights. The SLR may well have been more reliable in adverse conditions than the Garand. It should be, it was designed a number of years later. However an panicked, undisciplined soldier could probably fire more rounds in given period of time from the SLR than from the Garand due to it's large magazine and easier reload.
The US standard of marksmanship during the Vietnam war started at mediocre at best and often descended to abysmal. This had much more to do with training and doctrine that the actual rifles/weapons used. The M16 could be used for measured, deliberate aimed fire out to 400-500 meters. However it required that the troops be taught that method and trained in that method and that was something the US army was not doing at the time.
I knew some members of a national guard rifle team that switched from M-14s to the M-16 and after a short learning curve they were doing about as well with the M-16 in competitive matches. It wasn't as good at long range (this is back in the light bullet days) but at 200yds standing slowfire and the 200 and 300 yd rapid fire stages there wasn't much difference in scores.
However this was rather an elite unit. Not only did they routinely clobber all the other national guard teams they often beat regular army teams. They had several national record holders (in other disciplines) on the team and several of their members were on the "All Guard team" which was the national team as opposed to state teams.
The M-1 Carbine was pretty much a piece of rubbish as a "battle" rifle but then it's original intention was to replace the .45 automatic pistol. One old team mate of mine once described not being able to keep all his shots on a 4ft by 5ft target at 200yds with one. How old it was and in what condition I don't know. He had set an NCAA record in his collage years and was a member of the Army MTU in the 1960s for several years so his personal ability wasn't the problem.
Separating training and doctrine from the capabilities of the rifles in question isn't always easy. but blaming the rifle for lapses in training and doctrine doesn't answer the question.