Thought I would share army rething reliance on m4....

[joeinkeys]

Read this article this morning. I especially like the last two lines:

The U.S. military's workhorse rifle — used in battle for the last 40 years — is proving less effective in Afghanistan against the Taliban's more primitive but longer range weapons.
As a result, the U.S. is reevaluating the performance of its standard M-4 rifle and considering a switch to weapons that fire a larger round largely discarded in the 1960s.
The M-4 is an updated version of the M-16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. It worked well in Iraq, where much of the fighting was in cities such as Baghdad, Ramadi and Fallujah.
But a U.S. Army study found that the 5.56 mm bullets fired from M-4s don't retain enough velocity at distances greater than 1,000 feet (300 meters) to kill an adversary. In hilly regions of Afghanistan, NATO and insurgent forces are often 2,000 to 2,500 feet (600-800 meters) apart.
Afghans have a tradition of long-range ambushes against foreign forces. During the 1832-1842 British-Afghan war, the British found that their Brown Bess muskets could not reach insurgent sharpshooters firing higher-caliber Jezzail flintlocks.
Soviet soldiers in the 1980s found that their AK-47 rifles could not match the World War II-era bolt-action Lee-Enfield and Mauser rifles used by mujahedeen rebels.
"These are important considerations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are frequently attacked by insurgents using ... sharpshooter's rifles, which are all chambered for a full-powered cartridge which dates back to the 1890s," said Paul Cornish, curator of firearms at the Imperial War Museum in London.
The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.
To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).
At the heart of the debate is whether a soldier is better off with the more-rapid firepower of the 5.56mm bullets or with the longer range of the 7.62 mm bullets.
"The reason we employ the M-4 is because it's a close-in weapon, since we anticipate house-to-house fighting in many situations," said Lt. Col. Denis J. Riel, a NATO spokesman.
He added that each squad also has light machine guns and automatic grenade launchers for the long-range engagements common in Afghanistan.
In the early years of the Vietnam War, the Army's standard rifle was the M-14, which fired a 7.62 mm bullet. The gun had too much recoil to be controllable during automatic firing and was considered too unwieldily for close-quarter jungle warfare. The M-16 replaced it in the mid-1960s.
Lighter bullets also meant soldiers could carry more ammunition on lengthy jungle patrols.
The M-16 started a general trend toward smaller cartridges. Other weapons such as the French FAMAS and the British L85A1 adopted them, and the round became standardized as the "5.56mm NATO."
The Soviet Union, whose AK-47 already used a shorter 7.62 mm bullet that was less powerful but more controllable, created a smaller 5.45mm round for its replacement AK-74s.
"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."
The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.
A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.
The challenge is compounded by the fact that in flat areas of Afghanistan, most firefights take place at shorter ranges of up to 1,000 feet (300 meters), where the M-4 performs well.
U.S. soldiers in militant-infested Zhari district in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province said they haven't experienced problems with the range of their M-4 rifles.
Lt. Scott Doyle, a platoon commander in Zhari, said his troops are usually facing Taliban AK-47s.
"When the Taliban get past 300 meters (1,000 feet) with an AK-47, they are just spraying and praying," he said.
Martin Fackler, a ballistics expert, also defended the 5.56 mm round, blaming the M-4s inadequate performance on its short barrel, which makes it easier for soldiers to scramble out of modern armored vehicles.
"Unfortunately weapon engineers shortened the M-16's barrel to irrational lengths," Fackler said. "It was meant for a 20-inch barrel. What they've done by cutting the barrel to 14.5 inches is that they've lost a lot of velocity."

[Belmont31R]

600-800M is unrealistic for the average combat arms guy even with a 7.62. At those ranges its time for your crew served, indirect, DM's, snipers, etc.




1st round hit at 300M under combat conditions would be GOOD shooting, and Id dare whoever the genius was that said its not lethal at that range to go stand down there, and let me take a couple shots at him.


7.62 is even more unrealistic in Afghanistan because of the ammo weight. I would not want to hump the same amount of ammo at twice the weight. Something like 6.8SPC actually makes sense because ammo capacity is pretty close to 5.56, and its quite a bit more effective.

Also remember the Army is stuck with the M855 which is a crappy round for terminal performance. There are a lot better rounds for extended ranges performance than that round. Shit at 800M out of a service grade barrel you would be doing good to be shooting 2FT groups under ideal circumstances.

[joeinkeys]

Great reply!

Especially like the...

"1st round hit at 300M under combat conditions would be GOOD shooting, and Id dare whoever the genius was that said its not lethal at that range to go stand down there, and let me take a couple shots at him." :D

[joeinkeys]

I'm going to have to look up the M-110 Sniper rifle. This sounds like an answer looking for a problem! How many snipers are there per company in the standard order of battle?

From Article:
To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. They are equipped with the new M-110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62 mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet (800 meters).

[William B.]

I'm going to have to look up the M-110 Sniper rifle.

I believe it's just the Army's designation for the SR-25. The Marine Corps designates it as the MK11.

[Belmont31R]

I believe it's just the Army's designation for the SR-25. The Marine Corps designates it as the MK11.

The M110 is different mechanically than the Mk11.

[William B.]

The M110 is different mechanically than the Mk11.

I was under the impression that they are the same rifle, but with different options. Different rail system, flash suppressor, and buttstock. What all else is different?

[m4fun]

Here we go again...argument for caliber change or more designated rifleman...

[C-grunt]

I actually just talked to my buddy a couple weeks ago when he was home on leave from Afghan. He is with a Stryker unit out of Washington state.

I brought up the "study" by that one officer candidate and asked if they were being outranged. His reply was definitely not. Any time they are out of range with the M4, the Taliban have a hard time hitting even the Strykers with their weapons.

Add to that my old squad leader is in Afghan right now with 5th group. He runs a 10 inch 5.56 rifle and says he has no problem putting down the bad guys at any range he has shot them at, which is up to 400 meters.

Yeah the 5.56 isnt a powerhouse at range but it still puts holes through your chest. If it happens to tumble as well then the hole is even bigger.

[sapper36]

Yeah the 5.56 isnt a powerhouse at range but it still puts holes through your chest.

This is a great truth, I may have to use it as my sig line!

[120mm]

There is a brilliant discussion on this at LF.

The US Army, like any army that doesn't suck, has a system for fighting.

Carbines and rifles work out to a certain range. After which, you have crew-served. After which you have mortars. After which, you have direct fire and indirect fire artillery. After which you have theater indirect, After which you have strat bombers and ICBMs.

Attempting to stretch your carbine range to crew-served/mortar range is stupid, especially at the expense of mobility and training.

Now, if the US Army would start properly maintaining the weapon systems it HAS; then, I might be able to get behind that.

[Failure2Stop]

That article is worthless and full of misinformation.

[controlledpairs2]

probably written by some journalist behind a desk in new york city. why is the "ooo the army isnt giving our soldiers the right tools for the task at hand" topic so popular?

[120mm]

I have a TIME magazine article from 1941 that describes the utter and complete unreliability and inadequacy of the newly adopted M1 Garand Rifle.

Nothing, whatsoever, is new.

[ParkisMaximus]

some infantry platoons in the 82nd have given their DMs M14s, they've had them for about 4 years now for sure. my battalion sniper section uses the M107, M24, and M110. the prefer the 107 and 24 over the semi auto 110. but for a DM, the M110 is an adequate weapon, since you can use it for DM services and then your regular grunt work. im trying to get M14s for my company DMs but im not an officer and so yea, yall know how that goes.




AR accessories for sale, dont have 30 posts yet, so pm me if interested.

[MarkG]

Of course a quote from Hack(ler), er uh I mean Fackler had to be in it... I can't wait for that guy to qualify for a postage stamp or something...

[Failure2Stop]

Of course a quote from Hack(ler), er uh I mean Fackler had to be in it... I can't wait for that guy to qualify for a postage stamp or something...

Uh, Dr. Fackler's statement was true when he wrote it and had proven to be consistent with actual use as far as M855 and M193 are concerned. The issues with the article are not related to that quote. If you have scientific data that counters Dr. Fackler's quote, please share, as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Littlelebowski]

That article is worthless and full of misinformation.

^^^This. It implies that the Afghans have the marksmanship ability to use their supposed ballistic advantage. I'll put US Marines armed with 5.56 up against Afghans with .303s, AKs, and 7.62x54 any day.

Stupid article.

[MarkG]

Uh, Dr. Fackler's statement was true when he wrote it and had proven to be consistent with actual use as far as M855 and M193 are concerned. The issues with the article are not related to that quote. If you have scientific data that counters Dr. Fackler's quote, please share, as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Wound cavities, yaw through flesh, terminal this, range that, blah blah blah. Here is some unscientific data... The 5.56mm projectile has killed more people than small pox. If 5.56mm is such a lousy round, maybe Hackler wouldn't mind acting as a target frame next time I go to the range with a 10.3 barreled AR-15.

Does it take an "industry expert" to let us know that velocity is slower out of a short barreled rifle?

I'm on your side brother...

[crazymoose]

Wound cavities, yaw through flesh, terminal this, range that, blah blah blah. Here is some unscientific data... The 5.56mm projectile has killed more people than small pox. If 5.56mm is such a lousy round, maybe Hackler wouldn't mind acting as a target frame next time I go to the range with a 10.3 barreled AR-15.

Does it take an "industry expert" to let us know that velocity is slower out of a short barreled rifle?

I'm on your side brother...


.22 LR also kills many people. Sure, the M193 and M855 are effective enough to do the job in many cases, perhaps even in the majority of cases, but "effective" isn't a yes or no proposition. We're talking about a continuum here where some calibers and loadings are more effective than others.

[Renegade]

1st round hit at 300M under combat conditions would be GOOD shooting, and Id dare whoever the genius was that said its not lethal at that range to go stand down there, and let me take a couple shots at him.

The problem is, while you are trying to take that shot, PKM and RPG fire and spray and pray AK fire is raining down on your location.

So while it may be lethal, it is hard to deliver.

[Renegade]

I was under the impression that they are the same rifle, but with different options. Different rail system, flash suppressor, and buttstock. What all else is different?

AR-10, SR-25, SASS, M-110 are all variations of the same basic Stoner design.

[Failure2Stop]

I have used 5.56 in more than a few gunfights, some at extended range. If you can stick the bullet where it needs to go, it will do it's job, but how well it does that job and through what it can penetrate consistently is definately an area for improvement.

[Cagemonkey]

I have used 5.56 in more than a few gunfights, some at extended range. If you can stick the bullet where it needs to go, it will do it's job, but how well it does that job and through what it can penetrate consistently is definately an area for improvement.Thanks for summing it up so eloquently. Now lets end the arguing and find a caliber to do the job more effectively.

[ForTehNguyen]

theres no magic bullet that will fit every situation, yet people keep trying to chase it.

[DragonDoc]

Yeah the 5.56 isnt a powerhouse at range but it still puts holes through your chest. If it happens to tumble as well then the hole is even bigger.

The issue isn't that you can hit a target at range. The issue is the ability of the M855 round to produce a wound that rapidly debilitates the target. Ideally, you want to shoot the guy and he goes down and can't return fire. Ranges that exceed 300 meters put the 5.56 at a disadvantage because the wounds don't rapidly debilitate the insurgents. They can take a hit and continue to fight as they bleed out. When you add the effects of stimulants and it becomes hard to kill the enemy at any range without good shot placement. Most guys in the CZ are saying they are kicking ass and taking names but you have to look at the bodies to tell how well your engagement went. I'm sure quite a few warriors would be surprised to find out that those center mass hits were hits to extremities or outright misses at long ranges.

[C-grunt]

The issue isn't that you can hit a target at range. The issue is the ability of the M855 round to produce a wound that rapidly debilitates the target. Ideally, you want to shoot the guy and he goes down and can't return fire. Ranges that exceed 300 meters put the 5.56 at a disadvantage because the wounds don't rapidly debilitate the insurgents. They can take a hit and continue to fight as they bleed out. When you add the effects of stimulants and it becomes hard to kill the enemy at any range without good shot placement. Most guys in the CZ are saying they are kicking ass and taking names but you have to look at the bodies to tell how well your engagement went. I'm sure quite a few warriors would be surprised to find out that those center mass hits were hits to extremities or outright misses at long ranges.

I agree with you, but where do we draw the line. As cartridge siza grows, follow up shot times and carry load start to decline. I have used the 5.56 at range and didnt really notice a problem, if there was good shot placement.

But the same can be said about pretty much any round. Being in a Mechanized unit, I saw a lot of use of the 7.62x51 as well. The same thing is true with that round, It needs good placement to be effective.

+100 on the people claiming misses were hits. I remember more than a few guys who could barely qualify at the range claim hits at running bad guys who were 200+ yards away.

[opmike]

If 5.56mm is such a lousy round, maybe Hackler wouldn't mind acting as a target frame next time I go to the range with a 10.3 barreled AR-15.


I hear comments like this frequently. Regardless of where one stands on these sorts of debates, I must say that I find it rather silly to use straw man arguments such as this as justification for one's position. I don't think anyone is saying that these rounds haven't incapacitated targets. I think it's more a matter of how effectively/reliably it is doing so.

[beckman]

I find it interesting that the article was posted without any reference to the source or author.

Here's a source for the article:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_AFGHANISTAN_BULLET_WARS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-05-21-04-41-59

Note that it is an AP article.

[sjopling]

There is a brilliant discussion on this at LF.

The US Army, like any army that doesn't suck, has a system for fighting.

Carbines and rifles work out to a certain range. After which, you have crew-served. After which you have mortars. After which, you have direct fire and indirect fire artillery. After which you have theater indirect, After which you have strat bombers and ICBMs.

Attempting to stretch your carbine range to crew-served/mortar range is stupid, especially at the expense of mobility and training.

Now, if the US Army would start properly maintaining the weapon systems it HAS; then, I might be able to get behind that.

This is all you need to know.

Not every weapon can do every task. Know your weapons and pick accordingly.

[the_fallguy]

I have a TIME magazine article from 1941 that describes the utter and complete unreliability and inadequacy of the newly adopted M1 Garand Rifle.

Nothing, whatsoever, is new.

If you ever get a chance to scan that, I would love to see it. That would get some knickers in a twist...

[120mm]

Just on a whim, I tried Time Magazine's very good search engine, and came up with this:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884292,00.html


Army: Report on the Garand
By TIME STAFF Monday, Mar. 24, 1941

Last week the U.S. Marine Corps released a report on the Garand rifle. Because the Marines know a lot about small arms, and had just adopted the Garand, the report was authoritative and timely. It was also:
• The only official, fully documented account of Garand performance ever published.
• A grave indictment of the Garand's dependability.
The Test
Until lately, the Marines' standard rifle was the 38-year-old war-tested Springfield, which was also the Army's rifle until 1936. (The Army last week had about as many Springfields as Garands in service but was substituting Garands as fast as production [about 700 a day] permitted.) Since the Army adopted the Garand, the Marine Corps has been under pressure to do the same.

[the_fallguy]

Thanks, 120mm. That was a very interesting read. I found it very entertaining that the argument from the neigh-sayers for the M1 was similar to one of the initial arguments concerning the M16 rifles; basically that the new gun is capable of a higher volume of out-put, but it is not as dependable as the gun it is replacing and it might not perform in the real world.

[Failure2Stop]

Done.