Have modern optics changed basic combat rifle doctrine?

[gjj]

I read a study where U.S. riflemen in WWII engaged targets less than 300 yards away. Actually, most rifle fire was at targets 100 yards and closer. The primary reason was that the target was difficult to see due to limitations in human vision and terrain.

This was used as a partial justification for the transition from a full powered battle rifle cartridge to the intermediate assault rifle cartridge.

Now, fast forward to 2009 and our military situation in Afghanistan. The Marines have a goal of every soldier having a TA31RCO on every rifle as a general purpose optic. With the long engagement distances of mountain combat, the TA31RCO allows the soldier to see and shoot things the WWII soldier couldn't.

Thinking about this change, two things come to mind.

1. The 5.56 is probably not the best round in a world where soldiers are expected to engage targets 500+ yards away.

2. The TA31RCO as a general purpose optic does give a soldier great capabilities at a distance. But, short distance performance is sacrificed compared to a RDS or even iron sights. In my mind, a system that could handle both CQB and long distance is necessary. War is chaotic and what initially seemed like it was going to be a long distance mission could quickly go to a situation where a soldier needed to engage moving targets at short distances. It may not seem important now. But, if we ever fought a first world military, I don't think the engagement distance could be so easily predicted.

While I think the 5.56 is here to stay, I think TA31RCO will not be the final answer to the problem.

[sinister]

"US Army Laboratory Command. Small Arms Technology Assessment: Individual Infantryman's Weapon, Volume I, March 1990. From the 1990 Small Arms Technology Assessment:

• In urban terrain, over 90 percent of engaged targets are ≤ 50 meters range—this is Close Quarter Battle (CQB) range
• Across all types of terrains, approximately 90 percent of engaged targets are ≤ 400 meters
• Across all types of terrains, approximately 98 percent of engaged targets are ≤ 600 meters
• Across all types of terrains, mean range of all engaged targets = approximately 200 meters."

"As range decreases from 200 meters, average exposure time decreases across all terrain types, such that, at 50 meters, 71 percent of exposures are for less than 3 seconds and 99 percent average less than 5 seconds. Further, historical analysis shows that “…the mean exposure time for an individual while rushing between concealed positions varied from 5.4 to 6.2 seconds depending on terrain…The attacking squad was only visible to a defender 8.9 to 10.4 percent of the total possible time.

"According to FM 3-22.9, Rifle Marksmanship, hitting a target at short ranges (less than 50 meters) without incapacitating the enemy may be no better than missing.

"Historically, 90 percent of all engagements have occurred at ranges less than 400 meters. A Warfighter with a 500-meter capability can engage threats before the Warfighter is within the threats’ effective range (that is, this capability provides the Warfighter with range overmatch). This is based on information in the NGIC threat assessment, the FCS STAR, and the Land Warrior STAR.

"Time of engagement ≤ 1 second per 100 meters of range to target, given target detection with weapon at the ready. As threat targets close, their exposure time decreases so personal offensive/defensive weapon fire must be quickly aimed and initiated. The SA Technology Assessment determined that it takes an average of 0.6 seconds to point and shoot a target with a rifle from the ready position. As range decreases from 200 meters, average exposure time decreases across all terrain types such that, at 50 meters, 71 percent of exposures are for less than 3 seconds and 99 percent average less than 5 seconds.

"The 15 to 500 meter counter-defilade standard will enable a Warfighter to effectively defeat a threat element 90 percent of the time his position is known or suspected, but he is not visible to line of sight fire. The 15 to 500 meter range also provides the Warfighter with a range overmatch capability.

"Squads must have an organic precision fire capability to engage select personnel targets (such as leaders, snipers, and marksmen) from 0 to 600 meters. This capability provides the squad’s riflemen (Squad Designated Marksman [SDM]) with the ability to engage threats at medium ranges. As such, SDM must be capable of executing individual and collective rifleman-type tasks and SDM tasks. The SDM must be able to engage the 4 to 5 percent of high value personnel targets beyond 400 meters, such as RPG teams and selected crew-served weapon positions. Engaging targets out to 600 meters is required for shaping the battlefield in the mid-range. This task fills the range gap between the average rifleman and precise, long-range sniper capabilities. The SDM also engages small profile targets within 300 meters to include loopholes in walls, fire bunker apertures, and partially obscured crew serve weapons. Two SDM are authorized for each Infantry squad. Currently, only SBCTs have established an ammunition allocation specifically earmarked for training and qualification of SDM tasks on known-distance ranges.

"In general, target detection occurs at greater ranges than target recognition, which occurs at greater ranges than target identification. Ideally target identification should occur at ranges near the maximum effective range of a Warfighter’s or a unit’s maximum effective range.

[gjj]

"Across all types of terrains, approximately 90 percent of engaged targets are ≤ 400 meters"

It would be interesting to see how the data breaks down on this statistic. I wonder what percentage is within point blank range. There is a big difference in the prefered optics for 0-400 meters.

If you consider something like a soldier storming the beaches after D day. At one point, he is fighting in the hedgerows. The next day, he is taking a city. Your terrain and style of fighting would change day to day.

I would not want a TA31 on my rifle for all of the above.

[Bat Guano]

Interesting. Over the years I have read up on marksmanship history, and the gist of it seems to be that the US military has consistently taught target shooting to the exclusion of practical shooting. Now the NM rifle course with the Garand is a great way to spend a day, and a real challenge in its own right, but it hasn't been relevant to anything since the 1930s. The NRA still hasn't discovered that.

We went through the same thing, perhaps more so, with pistol shooting. When I was a kid in the 1950s pistol shooting was mostly one-handed bullseye shooting.

My own drills incorporate the above parameters simply because while there is usually plenty of ammo available, time is in short supply and can't be recouped.

It does give "inertia" a whole new meaning. It's a wonder we don't still use the saber.

[Armati]

This war has been a boon in soldier equipment. Over the course of this war units have fielded all sorts of optics. Many units still use a mix of optics.

My observation has been that most folks that don't shoot a lot love the ACOG because it is easy to zero and easy to hit the 300m RETS target.

The ACOG is popular in Afghanistan but mostly for target identification and scanning. Guys who have a choice will only run an ACOG if they also run an RDS like a Dr. Optic or J-Point.

Mostly, few people will give up their EOTech or Aimpoint for fear of getting into actual gun fight at close range.

[gjj]

Armati, that is an interesting perspective. Where you there in Iraq and Afghanistan? Personally, though I have not been in combat, I couldn't imagine having only an ACOG because I consider close range threats far more dangerous than long range threats.

[Armati]

Iraq 1991. Afghanistan 2006. However, I have been fortunate to be able to work directly with a lot of serious shooters who made sure I was well trained and knew what I was doing.

[gruntinhusaybah]

The Marine Corps standard optic is the RCO, I carried one on an M16A4 and an M4 and no troubles engaging targets from contact range out to 600 yards at my farthest shot. You have to train to be able to engage at close ranges with it, but it is that way with anything. And the RCO is an amazing optic, great clarity and it is rugged beyond imagining.

Shoot it both eyes open, I know it may sound bizarre, try it if you have one. Focus on the target and your non aiming eye will become excluded

[Belmont31R]

The most important element is shot placement.


If you are hit in the vitals at 500M+ with a 5.56 you stand a good chance of dying without proper medical aid. Don't forget for a VERY long time the world record brown bear was taken with a 22LR by a native girl in Alaska.


I think we could move to a better round than the M855. Something around 70 grains, more accurate, and better performance on people.


There are a lot more variables than the round choice though....people hopped up on drugs can often take a lot of 'killing' shots before going down. Sometimes nothing short of a CNS hit is going to do the job with 1 rd no matter what you are using. I believe this was an issue in Somalia with the natives chewing 'khat' in the afternoon.

[Turnkey11]

Armati, that is an interesting perspective. Where you there in Iraq and Afghanistan? Personally, though I have not been in combat, I couldn't imagine having only an ACOG because I consider close range threats far more dangerous than long range threats.

Ive never warmed up to the ACOG scopes, Im faster out to 400m+ with a M68.