Better than M4, but you can’t have it

[tequila]

Military Times article (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219forafmcnt/)on the HK416, which according to the article (which appears to be heavily sourced from HK itself) is superior to the M4 in wide use among U.S. forces in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Comments?

[jcustis]

Well, it's not in as wide use as the Times would have us believe. Employment is relegated to only certain tier 1 units and personnel.

As one of those operators has commented on another board, the Times also proclaimed that the Army was making a wholesale cutover to the XM-8

[CPT Holzbach]

From what Ive seen and read the thing certainly is superior to the M-4. They had it on that show "FutureWeapons" on the discovery channel a couple nights ago. Very cool. Id give anything to get one. Hopefully they'll produce a civilian version eventually.

[sullygoarmy]

Reading the incident with CPT Self reminds me of similar stories from the Vietnam war of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their hands as they tried to clear jammed M16s. It sounds like the HK 416 is close in price and far superior to the M16/M4 family. Anyone know if disadvantages to the HK 416 other than the fact we would need to start replacing the M4 family of weapons?

Seems like an interesting rifle.

[jcustis]

There are a number of gas piston rifles out there, Sig 556, Magpul Masada, the defunct XM-8.

I don't think any of the qualities of a gas piston rifle would prevent the problems that Capt Self or Sgt Miller had, nor the slew of problem that were supposedly marched out by the soldiers in Afghanistan.

The gas piston rifles do one thing particularly well, and that is they release gas and carbon fouling outside the weapon somewhere near the front sight. Just before the gas and carbon is ported out, the gas impinges on, and activates, the piston, driving it into the modern version of the bolt carrier's gas key. All this does is reduce the amount of crap getting into the receiver. It has nothing to do with keeping foreign matter out of the weapon, so if a weapon is dirty with sand/dust, the gas piston rifles are only going to have a longer time before carbon fouling becomes a problem at the chamber (compared to an M4).

If the weapon isn't lubricated, the gas piston isn't a silver bullet. If a cartridge case ruptures in the chamber, a gas piston rifle still isn't the silver bullet. If you find yourself in a running gun battle and putting a lot of rounds downrange, and don't have time to perform a fieldstrip cleaning, then a gas piston rifle definitely has its advantages.

As for the cleaning rod secured to the rifle forearm, I do not know of any unit that has an SOP like that, Ranger or otherwise. It seems totally impractical.

[Steve Blair]

This whole thing is screamingly similar to the problems the M-16 experienced in Vietnam, although at that time it was due to DoD's insistence on a type of propellant that was not within the original design specifications as well as misinformation to the troops that the M-16 didn't need to be cleaned. If memory serves it took them almost three years to correct that problem, and I don't see the wheels moving any faster in this case.

The interesting thing about the Vietnam case is that it was two-tiered problem: improper propellant AND improper training. One of the difficulties with anecdotal evidence such as the article presents is that it's very compelling reading, but it often doesn't address what happened prior to the engagement (was Self's weapon damaged during the initial action? did Miller do routine cleaning and maintenance on his weapon? and so on). I'm not saying "competitions" are the way to go (since they are often stacked in favor of a particular weapon), but that you need a broad spectrum of input, including some that could be considered unbiased and fully tested. Anecdotes are often neither, and the same can be said for "trials."

[Stan]

When Delta units visited us in Zaire in 93, their sidearms were modified (Wilson combat) 1911s and two versions of the H&K MP5 in either 5.56 or 9X19. Another version was a 7.62, but never saw one.

Personally, my Colt Commander's model in .45ACP is still my favorite and I don't have to carry a cleaning rod around with me, nor perform double taps. One will do just fine :D

I wanted the MP5, but can't buy one :mad:

[jcustis]

MP5s have become, how shall we say?...passe. I was pleasantly surprised to see direct action forces transition to the M4, but wasn't surprised that a lot of PMCs were still slinging the MP5 in Iraq when things started cooking. Those guys learned eventually, the hard way, but I still catch a photo of a tm leader carrying one every now and then.

[Jimbo]

Hwne I did the MiTT thing I had an MP-5 for a brief period of time. It would have issues in the sand like the M-4 at times. The H&K systems appear to have some advantages, but the magic quetion is do the advantages outweigh the acquisition costs, and does the opportunity cost to purchase the H&K weapons offest the opportunity cost of other things (better vehicles, coms, NVG, etc.).

[Stan]

JC,
My days in M88s and XM1s (they weren't M1s yet) were coupled with M3 grease guns and later M4s.
Those who desire can keep the M4 with the M16s and mess with jams. The M3 worked better, just a bitch to reload, but never jammed. I have now dated myself.

The lowest bidder to a USG contract (ahem)

[jcustis]

Although it was basic pressings, I would think a M3 would be the schizznit. Same for the British Sten, at least from a suppressive, make a lotta noise perspective.:D

[Stan]

JC,
You'd be correct there ! Stamped steel. The AK (I have never had the pleasure of using a real Russian AK, just the Chinese versions) was also built on a tight budget. Those weapons worked because there was no "lowest bid" then, just needed a realiable weapon and fast.

Funny you mentioning the Sten, which was made of stamped and welded metal with a paint-like coating (known today as anodized), scored higher than the Thompson when such things as simplicity, accuracy, weight and reliability were measured.

Thanks, American Rifleman, for that info ! Yepper, Life Member I be :cool:

On with your history lesson:
The M3/M3A1s were far easier to manufacture than the Thompson, and had a number of excellent design features. The low cyclical rate of fire makes the M3/M3A1 easier to control than most submachine guns. The weapon's straight line of recoil thrust also adds substantially in controlling the gun in automatic fire. Her loose tolerances allow for reliable operation even if very dirty and, with its bolt and guide rod design make it more reliable than the AK under adverse conditions.

I know my weapons :eek:

[120mm]

Frankly, I like the FN SCAR. There are limited number of civilian HK 416s out there in semiauto, and the reviews are not very high on them. They seem a little cheap in construction and regress in the areas of sighting options (unique rail system) The FN SCAR promises to be modular, like the XM8, but without the long-term polymer heat degradation which the Bundeswehr is dealing with in their rifles, which are functionally identical. The FN SCAR is also modular in calibers. The base carbine/rifle combo can be chambered in a variety of 45mm length casings, while the heavy carbine/rifle can be chambered in 7.62 x 51mm. (We dodged THAT bullet, when we cancelled the M8) Plus, FN is producing M16s, M4s, M249s and M240s for us right now, and doing a bang-up job of it. (FN is also fully supported on the civilian side in the US. Try getting customer support from H&K.)

Reading about weapons in the MSM is like nails on a chalkboard, to me. They just are NOT capable of getting details, or even overviews of the subject correct.

The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it. Just too much mass, firing from the open bolt for my tastes.

[jcustis]

I was pumped about the SCAR system too, until I saw how it disassembles. It's no a simple matter of pulling a pin and levering the upper receiver up. It got a thumbs down after I saw that, which may be my own M16 parochialism.

[Stan]

120,
The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it.

That's a matter of practice (me thinks). She was never designed around ranges beyond 100 meters. But then, the M4 is considered to be effective to 150 due mostly to its short barrel. The tanker must exit the vehicle and commence firing. You can do that with an M2HB (my preference) nor M60.

JC, Yes, the M4 is easy to use and maintain. But if you started out like I did when the M16A1 was a total failure, it was hard to beleive the M4 would far better. Granted, it was rarely slung over one's shoulder for any length of time, so barrel warp would be insignificant.

The H&K is a nice and expensive toy and I doubt we will get these anytime soon.

[jcustis]

Across 4 months of carrying an MP5 is Somalia, I ran into the same finicky issues with dust/sand. It needs almost meticulous care and cleaning, and a drive down the "by-pass road" didn't lend itself to any sterile environment.:o

[Stan]

JC,
Well said and I agree !

So, we've canned the idea of an H&K in today's USA and USMC :wry:
I liked the discussion and await a new one !

Good Evening.....

[jcustis]

Well, have any of you older hands ever shot an Ingram M10?

[selil]

Well, have any of you older hands ever shot an Ingram M10?

The M10 and the M11 if you mean this little beastie.

http://world.guns.ru/smg/mac_m10_45.jpg

I shot the M11 fully suppressed.

Never while in harms way, but while doing Hogan's alley a few times.

[jcustis]

Impressions? Or is it safe to say that the hands are still sore?

[selil]

Impressions? Or is it safe to say that the hands are still sore?

What can you say. Fully supressed it sounded like a hundred rat traps slamming closed. It got HOT fast.. If I remember right the Mac 11 is only like .380 or 9mm. Not much whack but fun as heck to shoot. I never had any issues with it jamming but I wasn't in what you would call an operational environment. We were supposedly looking at them for entry weapons. That went away as the were considered to "aggressive".

[Uboat509]

I haven't had too many problems with my M4 over the years and a significant number of those were caused by the magazine. That said I have a friend who has carried the HK version in harms way and he absolutely raves about it. The reason we can't have it though is because of contracting issues. For good or ill Colt has the inside track on contracts. The military seems to never have done well with weapons contracts or at least the Army hasn't but they usually fix or get rid of the ones that do not work eventually (The M9 pistol is a notable exception. For the life of me I don't know why we still have that *&%$*%# thing). The M16 was a piece of crap. The M16A1 was a hell of a lot better and the M16A2 was/is a pretty good gun, not perfect but pretty good and I really like the M4 (except for the fact that it is 5.56 but that is a different discussion). It should be noted that a number of tier 1 units in other countries use the M4. The maintenance on it is not that difficult and the accuracy is pretty good for a mass produced rifle.

As for the MP5s, they have a place but if you are in full kit or you are carrying openly then that is not the place for a 9MM primary. If I had a choice I wouldn't even carry 9MM for a secondary.

SFC W

[jcustis]

Interesting points about the M9 Uboat. In my case, I've fired thousands of rounds throuhg various issued pieces, and outside of a cracked locking block one time, have found it not that troublesome.

I guess like most weapons, the primary cause of problems stem from the magazines, and without proper maintenance and cleaning, and weapon with close tolerances for accuracy will be susceptible.

[goesh]

I don't know what the CPU for the 6.5 Grendel would be but I bet it would be well under the 1400$ H&K ceiling of their piece. It looks like their basic unit goes for about a grand. It's on an AR platform, a real flat shooter with more reach and alot more punch than the 5.56. I doubt its originator, Alexander arms, is tooled for any serious production numbers though and besides, Colt is so deeply entrenched with DOD they could hawk slingshots if they wanted to.

[Stan]

Hey Goesh !

Great post, we read about these rounds all the time here...Could put a bear down ! But you're right, a lot of competition from Colt.

http://www.65grendel.com/

Alexander Arms offers SBR users an upgrade in lethality and accuracy and penetration by chambering a mil-spec M4-style 10.5" carbine, first introduced at SHOT Show 2007, in its highly effective 6.5 Grendel cartridge. Alexander Arms has four factory 6.5 Grendel loadings of its own, but of special interest to military and security contractors is the new Black Hills Ammunition 6.5 Grendel loading for Les Baer Custom using a 6.5mm 123-grain Sierra MatchKing. This gives operators a “Big Brother” loading to the 5.56mm 77-grain SMK in the popular Mk262.

This part me likes !

When your 5.56 10.5" SBR needs the added punch of a “Big Brother,” get yourself a 6.5 Grendel 10.5" SBR upper and give the enemy some nasty surprises.

[SGTMILLS]

I have actually laid hands & eyes on the H&K M4. An operative who rolled with us on a trailblazer mission had one. Very clean weapon, less jamming, all around better made weapon. H&K's use of the gas piston def. keeps things cleaner. my M4 (after cleaning) was much dirtier than his, with fewer rounds through it. I would LOVE it if the military ACTUALLY switched to these. No one would care that it's 1 lb heavier (hello, landwarrior @ 13 lbs, IBA @ 32 lbs, mitch @ 8lbs...i could go on)
Speaking of weight, does anyone know exactly WHY the military didn't pass dragonskins body armor?
SGTMILLS

[SGTMILLS]

I haven't had too many problems with my M4 over the years and a significant number of those were caused by the magazine. That said I have a friend who has carried the HK version in harms way and he absolutely raves about it. The reason we can't have it though is because of contracting issues. For good or ill Colt has the inside track on contracts. The military seems to never have done well with weapons contracts or at least the Army hasn't but they usually fix or get rid of the ones that do not work eventually (The M9 pistol is a notable exception. For the life of me I don't know why we still have that *&%$*%# thing). The M16 was a piece of crap. The M16A1 was a hell of a lot better and the M16A2 was/is a pretty good gun, not perfect but pretty good and I really like the M4 (except for the fact that it is 5.56 but that is a different discussion). It should be noted that a number of tier 1 units in other countries use the M4. The maintenance on it is not that difficult and the accuracy is pretty good for a mass produced rifle.

As for the MP5s, they have a place but if you are in full kit or you are carrying openly then that is not the place for a 9MM primary. If I had a choice I wouldn't even carry 9MM for a secondary.

SFC W

GOOD POINTS!!! ALL OF THEM.. I absolutely do not understand why we don't switch to 7.62 X 39 on all of our primary's. I do disagree, however, on one point. I LOVE my beretta. It has never given me a problem (knock on wood.) I would like to have the side arms that a certain COL. (made famous by movies, but is actually a pretty good guy) gave his PSD. They ALL carried glock .40's. Very good side, just not much support from standard army supply.
SGTMILLS

[120mm]

I have actually laid hands & eyes on the H&K M4. An operative who rolled with us on a trailblazer mission had one. Very clean weapon, less jamming, all around better made weapon. H&K's use of the gas piston def. keeps things cleaner. my M4 (after cleaning) was much dirtier than his, with fewer rounds through it. I would LOVE it if the military ACTUALLY switched to these. No one would care that it's 1 lb heavier (hello, landwarrior @ 13 lbs, IBA @ 32 lbs, mitch @ 8lbs...i could go on)
Speaking of weight, does anyone know exactly WHY the military didn't pass dragonskins body armor?
SGTMILLS

Reasons why Army didn't pass DragonSkin:

1. The spec was written for X weight and Y coverage. DragonSkin is Z weight and Q coverage. But the testers at least admitted it to the test, misfit or not. Technically, DragonSkin "might" be lighter per inch covered, but it's heavier, overall (with an advertised 20% more coverage.)

2. DragonSkin failed the initial test because, while it works marvelously under "their" testing conditions, once you put it through the "torture test" of high temps and soldier abuse, the discs it's made of come loose, and if one disc is out of place, the entire thing loses its structural integrity. (The owner of the company claims it was a glue problem, since fixed)

3. The DragonSkin people have become uncooperative and have started accusing the testing people of dishonesty. This initially led to a rare public overreaction by one of the testing people, but since then, the Army has offered to reopen the testing, but the DragonSkin people will only test if "they" control the testing conditions.

4. DragonSkin, for some reason, keeps hawking Level III when the Army is interested in Level IV. I get confused at this point, and do not follow either side of the argument.

5. DragonSkin is 1000% the cost of their competition.

At this point, I will inject my own opinion. When I was in college, on a whim, I studied under a museum armorer by the name of Matthew Rutz. In the course of my studies, I learned that while some armor is made of rigid plates, and some armor is made of flexible plates, the end result was counterintuitive. Armor made of flexible plates, tended to be MORE restrictive then well-fitting armor made of rigid plates. Historically, Armor made of flexible plates was for the lower-class warriors for economy reasons. The folks I know who've owned and worn DragonSkin say that they felt well-protected, but they felt like The Michelin Man.

The new SAPI with the increased protection is probably the best armor for US troops. Once they can figure out how to get it out there.

[120mm]

GOOD POINTS!!! ALL OF THEM.. I absolutely do not understand why we don't switch to 7.62 X 39 on all of our primary's. I do disagree, however, on one point. I LOVE my beretta. It has never given me a problem (knock on wood.) I would like to have the side arms that a certain COL. (made famous by movies, but is actually a pretty good guy) gave his PSD. They ALL carried glock .40's. Very good side, just not much support from standard army supply.
SGTMILLS

I'm still a big M1911 fan. And being completely recoil insensitive, (used to box) I wouldn't mind a patrol carbine in 7.62 x 51.

[Stan]

I still carry my Wilson Combat 1911. Yes, a bit expensive, but no competition and less recoil that any 9mm.

http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_tactical_supergrade.asp

[slapout9]

Talking about handguns and calibers if somebody can find "The Hatcher Study" which was done by General Hatcher you will find that the reason for the .45 comes from US Army experience with the Moro tribe in the Phillipines Counter Insurgency. I read the study years ago and I might have a hard copy somewhere but maybe it is online now. Hatcher believed that any handgun caliber is to weak to stop somebody with any reliability but the .45 was the best choice (and still is in my opinion) and still maintain control of the weapon. It is a very good read if you can find it. Those old guys new about fighting up close and what it really takes.

[Uboat509]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the main reason that we switched to 9MM was because of commonality of ammunition with NATO. If that is the case then I think we can safely dispense with the 9MM, thank you.

SFC W

[slapout9]

Here is a link about the .45 and the Philippines, it also has a remark the .45 being the round designed to stop Muslims .
http://www.gunweek.com/2006/feature1010.html

[bismark17]

Why the 7.62x39 and not the 7.62x51? I could see as a soldier wanting the x39 round due to its proliferation throughout the world but here in CONUS I would think the x51 would be more plentiful due to the amount of M1As being used for marksmanship. I'm still debating about getting a whole new AR in 7.62 or just keeping my M4 L.E. and buying one of those SOCOM scout rifles....

[bismark17]

My understanding is that we went to the .45 for the heavier bullet and bigger magazine capacity. The wheel guns being used at the time were not doing the job. I have read that the "G"s would get hopped up on some type of drugs prior to doing "kamakazi" style attacks on us. Much like these idiots we have to deal strung out on PCP. Calibre Press discussed an incident at one of their street survival seminars of a suspect having the strength to rip out a shotgun out of a patrol car still in it's bracket. He was able to chamber a round and kill the officer. They changed the design of the brackets from that point forward so that it couldn't be repeated. I would much prefer a .45 over my .40 that I carry.

[120mm]

My understanding is that we went to the .45 for the heavier bullet and bigger magazine capacity. The wheel guns being used at the time were not doing the job. I have read that the "G"s would get hopped up on some type of drugs prior to doing "kamakazi" style attacks on us. Much like these idiots we have to deal strung out on PCP. Calibre Press discussed an incident at one of their street survival seminars of a suspect having the strength to rip out a shotgun out of a patrol car still in it's bracket. He was able to chamber a round and kill the officer. They changed the design of the brackets from that point forward so that it couldn't be repeated. I would much prefer a .45 over my .40 that I carry.

Actually, we were using the Colt .38 ACP automatic to begin with in the Phillipines, which proved ineffective, so several commands went back to the Colt 1873 single actions in .45 Colt. The requirement for a .45 auto was then put forward to replace the venerable Peacemaker.

In reality, mag capacity isn't that important; (7+1 versus 5) but a mag reloads a lot quicker.

I have and treasure "Hatcher's Notebook".

[jcustis]

And would said notebook happen to be in, say, .pdf format?:D

[120mm]

If it's free online, I'd be mightily pissed. I've purchased two of them because someone didn't return a copy I lent them. They are not cheap.

Edited to read: Here, buy your own copy, you cheapskate! ;^)

http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Notebook-J-S-Hatcher/dp/0811707954

[jcustis]

I had no idea it was an actual book with a darn ISBN...It's at the base library, fortunately.

[slapout9]

JC, it's not just a book (you should get it anyway) he wrote several studies on wound ballistics. the one I am thinking about was probably done when he was a major during the process of adopting the .45 automatic. Chuck Taylor and Jeff Cooper used to talk about this study alot. Cooper is dead and I don't know what Chuck is doing now a days, but I am still looking. You might try Chuck Melson he knows alot about that stuff and time period, he found out that the famous Fairbarn Commando knife may have come from the Marines during the Boxer rebellion in China. Three as matter of fact all named Sam and they became known as the 3 Sams of combat knife deisgn or something like that. If I can find it I will post it pass on what I find out.

[slapout9]

Here is a link to article the makes reference to the Hatcher relative stopping power index read how the .45 http://www.frfrogspad.com/colt1889.htm#Ballistics

[Stan]

While this is not an exact comparison it does help to put things in perspective.

Thanks Slapout !

Why the need to 'double tap' when one will do, center of mass :D

Here's what Jim Higginbotham, 30 years as a LEO had to say:

http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/45acp.htm


While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s, .357’s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber rounds. It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to stop the attacker - and I have not encountered any with the .45, even with Ball. I have encountered several with 5, 6 or even more hits to the center of the chest with .38, .357, 9mm and .223 rifle rounds failing to stop. Almost every one could be traced to lack of penetration with a couple of exceptions that hit the heart but just did not cause enough damage to be effective quickly. Note I am not talking about "torso" hits. There is a lot of area in the torso in which a hit will seldom produce rapid incapacitation even if hit by a 12 ga. slug or a 30-06 - we simply cannot count such data if we are going to learn anything.

My purpose here is not to argue Fackler versus Marshall and Sanow because that's a book in itself. What is important in all of this is that regardless of which philosophy you choose to accept as true, the .45 ACP comes out well--at or near the top of the effectiveness ratings for both schools of thought.

[SGTMILLS]

Reasons why Army didn't pass DragonSkin:...

The new SAPI with the increased protection is probably the best armor for US troops. Once they can figure out how to get it out there.

I actually had the E-SAPI plate. It was about 3 lbs heavier, and claimed to stop AP rounds. It sounded good, but I am still skeptical. Thanks for the explanation.
SGTMILLS

[slapout9]

Stan, good article and where you hit is most important. I was shot in the left leg, just above the knee cap, was knocked to the ground and slid about 6 feet not knowing I had been shot till a couple of hours later (being scared shitless had a lot to do with it) even after a para-medic looked at my leg. It was only a flesh wound and when it hit the heat cauterized the wound so I had almost no blood loss, big hole in my pants and when it did start to hurt man did it ever. I also found 3 of my .40 caliber hollow points later and they all failed to expand. They did just the opposite - collapsed in on to all most a sharp point??

I was also at a calibre press street survival and met a Palm Beach County Florida deputy sheriff who shot a guy dead center mass with a .45. Of course he died but he was able to get back into his vehicle and put it into drive before he bled out and went unconscious. The deputy was so shocked he never thought to shoot him again. People act funny with handgun wounds, often because of drugs, booze or just crazy or in a rage adrenalin is something else.

[slapout9]

Well guys I found the hatcher piece I was thinking of. It is not a study or a book - it is a textbook and long out of print. You can find it at rare book stores but it is not cheap. The link shows the complete title and the chapter on ammunition and ballistics. I think the guy that got 120mm's copy of the his notebook must have gotten mine as well because I cannot find it anywhere. Oh well, if you ever get the chance it is a good read and the man was a genius. He was a major when he wrote this book.


http://www.19thcenturyweapons.com/207/books/pix/pistrevtexttp.jpg

[120mm]

Julian S. Hatcher is an example of what was right about the military personnel system, pre-central "Soviet-Style" Drunken Monkey control.

The guy was a ballistics/military firearms expert who stayed in basically the same job, from MAJ to MG. The idiots at HRC would've rotated him out of the job after 2 years as a MAJ, we would've had a long succession of politically-motivated hacks occupy the job in order to "check the box" (None of which would give a crap about ballistics or firearms) and we would be deprived of most of the knowledge/weapons systems that were actually worthwhile.

I knew there was a reason to bring "Hatcher's Notebook" up.

[Stan]

Welcome to Africa Folks !

This supports the observations of those who wrote during WW2, that after a heavy battle, a number of bullets were found slight- ly embedded in tar rooftops, all pointed towards the sky.

[120mm]

Just an update on the M4 issue. One of the criticisms of the direct gas impingement system in the M4 is that the smaller dwell time and excessive heat of the shortened gas tube causes premature wear and an increase in stoppages.

The civilian AR guys have "broken the code" on this, and it doesn't involve a piston system. Extending the gas tube into a "mid-length" configuration appears to successfully address this issue. I cannot see why current M4s couldn't be retrofitted with a mid-length gas system. The conversion could be done with a total parts count of 2, and a cost per unit of around $30. You'd need a longer gas-block/front sight and/or a longer gas tube and something to protect it. The barrels need to be drilled; otherwise the conversion could be done at the unit level.

I'm having a friend build me one, just to see for myself.

[Wrongleg]

I saw a show with that new rifle , it looks like the G3/hk and from what i could tell it was completely uncontrollable in bursts and the Picatinny rail was flopping around really bad ! I seriously was discouraged by the way it looked when shooting . I don't care for the AR that much , but that new hk looks like junk! just relaying my opinion of it,based on the footage i saw. if thew AR or the HK was in the price range of the AK ,I'd like to get a few of each! too bad. G:confused:

[FL-CRACKER]

Gents, I ran across this diagram that pertains to part of this conversation. Just thought I'd share it as it's kind of cool:

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p3/WATERMAN0027/9mmvs40vs45.gif

[Culpeper]

Reading the incident with CPT Self reminds me of similar stories from the Vietnam war of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their hands as they tried to clear jammed M16s. It sounds like the HK 416 is close in price and far superior to the M16/M4 family. Anyone know if disadvantages to the HK 416 other than the fact we would need to start replacing the M4 family of weapons?

Seems like an interesting rifle.

Very tragic and horrifying. But didn't they narrow that down to the powder used in the ammo? Not to take away from the underlying weakness to begin with. I don't know the difference between an M4 and the GAU-5 I was issued in the Air Force. But I did like it better than the M-16 rifle for obvious reasons. It was smaller and better suited for airborne jumps. Ironically, I scored better with the GAU-5 than the standard M16 rifle. The HK416 is an improvement of design and if it is good enough for Delta than it is good enough for my ladies. I find it a little strange that Delta is even being advertised as promoting this weapon. We normally don't have a need to know about such things.

[Culpeper]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the main reason that we switched to 9MM was because of commonality of ammunition with NATO. If that is the case then I think we can safely dispense with the 9MM, thank you.

SFC W

SEALs have learned to use the caliber with great effect. Instead of one round they quickly use three.

[Culpeper]

JC, it's not just a book (you should get it anyway) he wrote several studies on wound ballistics. the one I am thinking about was probably done when he was a major during the process of adopting the .45 automatic. Chuck Taylor and Jeff Cooper used to talk about this study alot. Cooper is dead and I don't know what Chuck is doing now a days, but I am still looking. You might try Chuck Melson he knows alot about that stuff and time period, he found out that the famous Fairbarn Commando knife may have come from the Marines during the Boxer rebellion in China. Three as matter of fact all named Sam and they became known as the 3 Sams of combat knife deisgn or something like that. If I can find it I will post it pass on what I find out.

I recently received a nice Springfield Armory .40 XD40. I've never fired it and seems to be suited for police work. Anyone have any experience with this weapon. It is imported from Croatia.

[Ken White]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the main reason that we switched to 9MM was because of commonality of ammunition with NATO. If that is the case then I think we can safely dispense with the 9MM, thank you.

SFC W

Boring and worthless Background:

Unit I was in ran the troop test on the then AR-15 for the Army. We shot a lot of Dogs for the then Dog Lab and a lot of Pigs for the Oscar Meyer Packing plant in Fayetteville. Recm to DA was buy a few for Special Purposes and stick with the M14 for worldwide service. I do not know but was told that was the DA recm to DoD. In the event, shortly, the existing M14 contract with TRW was canceled and Colt got a contract for the now M16. I'm sure that the fact that TRW contibuted to Nixon's campaign and Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on that decision.

Issue at hand:

In 1979 and 80, Congress in the Defense Appropriation bill forbade any purchase of .45 Ammo or M1911A1 parts in an effort to force the Joint Services Small Arms Program off the dime and the services to buy a 9mm. JSSAP accordingly tested several and recommended the now M9 (over the Sig 229 which I find nothing short of amazing...). I have no indication that Congressional malfeasance was involved. I had, before I retired retired in '95, many indications that a number of Congressional Armed Services staffers carry pet rocks in their pockets and I do know the Beretta USA plant went in a surprising location...

Real problem:

The Beretta cannot take +P loads and the lawyers will not allow the purchase of several non-hollow point and thus non proscribed bullets to produce better knock down power. Having carried a .45 in north Asia and a High Power in SEA and used both, I have no question that my two .45s in the house are the right choice. A lot of valid requests from the field for a better pistol are falling on deaf ears at DA. I wonder why. I understand inventories, switching weapons and all that but I also know the window is open if it were pushed; I have no idea why it is not. The Coasties (being non-DoD) are buying .40 Sigs.

Culpepper is correct in that the SEALS an others achieve acceptable results with a 9mm (a Sig in the case of the former). Everyone could if they practiced with live Ammo 20 hours a week more weeks than not as some organizations do. Unfortunately, the rest of the Armed Forces can't affod that much Ammo or time. Still, the Beretta is a sort of okay weapon. Is sort of okay good enough?

Same thing with the M16/M4, it's an okay weapon and, if maintained, it does an acceptable job. Problem is that the maintenance requirement typically means that Joe over-maintains and it wears out from his tender ministrations before it gets fired to death. Aside from the excessive maintenance burden, the gas tube system is too sensitive to Ammo and barrel length. Big wars can produce shoddy ammo...

We can do better.

[Uboat509]

There are two schools of thought about the 9MM in my community. One says that 9MM is better because you can carry a lot more of it (15 + 1 or 21 +1 depending on your magazine) and nobody wants to go dry one their secondary in the middle of a firefight no matter how fast your mag change is. The other school says that you will rarely have your secondary out for more than a few shots anyway and it is better to have that one round stopping power. I am a believer in the latter but it is not up to me and I am still carrying the M9 which I personally think is a peice of crap. I agree with Ken. If we absolutely have to go with 9MM then we can definitely do better.

SFC W

[mde]

The 9mm ball is so unsatisfactory that the CJSOTF (Spec Ops Task Force) for Iraq decided to go with old M1911s rescued from the melting plant. As far as 5.56 ball ammo? Nope -- most of SOF highly desires either the 6.8mm mod for the M4 or -- much easier -- the 7.62 mod. The only trouble I see is that the M4 was not overall deisgned for the physics behind the larger, heavier rounds. For a permanent solution (until we get laser blasters), I think most of us are looking forward to the 7.62mm SCAR and the various mods from FN.

[Ken White]

The 9mm ball is so unsatisfactory that the CJSOTF (Spec Ops Task Force) for Iraq decided to go with old M1911s rescued from the melting plant. As far as 5.56 ball ammo? Nope -- most of SOF highly desires either the 6.8mm mod for the M4 or -- much easier -- the 7.62 mod. The only trouble I see is that the M4 was not overall deisgned for the physics behind the larger, heavier rounds. For a permanent solution (until we get laser blasters), I think most of us are looking forward to the 7.62mm SCAR and the various mods from FN.

also want something better. The Marines got smarter than the Army and went for the heavier bullet in the Mk262 which helps but is not the answer. the swiss also went for a heavier 5.56 with good range characteristics -- but you're still confronted with the fact that you're shooting a varmint round. People ain't woodchucks. Robert Strange McNamara and Pierre Sprey have a lot to answer for (Moral of that story is people should stick to what they know and not intrude in other domains...)

The 7.62x39 has a range problem.

I hope FN gets the SCAR going, folks I've talked to who banged the prototype are happy with it. Ideally the entire defense establishment would hop on it and support it totally but I don't think we're that smart...

[120mm]

I recently received a nice Springfield Armory .40 XD40. I've never fired it and seems to be suited for police work. Anyone have any experience with this weapon. It is imported from Croatia.

I have been trying to wear mine out since 2003. Of course, I had to leave it back in the US when I moved to Germany, but I like it. Not a bad gun at all, though I'm still partial to the M1911, as I have thick palms and short fingers.

The folks who really, really like the XD pistols tend to have conventionally configured hands, and the XD series is advertised as being engineered to fit the human hand. I just know that I cannot get a grip on mine that automatically gives me a sight picture, which means that about the time I get back to the US, it gets to go 'bye' for yet another straight mainspring M1911ish pistol.

[120mm]

Very tragic and horrifying. But didn't they narrow that down to the powder used in the ammo? Not to take away from the underlying weakness to begin with. I don't know the difference between an M4 and the GAU-5 I was issued in the Air Force. But I did like it better than the M-16 rifle for obvious reasons. It was smaller and better suited for airborne jumps. Ironically, I scored better with the GAU-5 than the standard M16 rifle. The HK416 is an improvement of design and if it is good enough for Delta than it is good enough for my ladies. I find it a little strange that Delta is even being advertised as promoting this weapon. We normally don't have a need to know about such things.

The army changed powder without informing/asking the manufacturer. Add to this mix no training, lack of chrome bores and chambers and no forward assist, and you have a recipe for disaster.

HK has a history of failing to meet Army approval for their products, and then trying to force the Army to buy them anyway by running media circuses (is that circii?). HK also has a history of poor product support.

The XM8 was just a repackage of the HK36, which exhibited poor plastic strength over 120 degrees F and whose primary sight had the quality of something found in a gumball machine. The USP continues to be a horrendously overpriced, problemmatic, finicky piece of junk, and the HK416 looks "crude" and offers nothing over the other piston uppers being offered as an improvement to Mr. Stoner's desing. Colt has offered more than one piston-operated version of the M16. But the Army continues to say "no thanks", and frankly, I agree with the Army. Each and every criticism of the direct-impingement, 5.56 system has really good counter-points.

[Dominique R. Poirier]

Gentlemen,
I tried a lot of guns when I was gunsmith and for some times I used to try each and every gun that fell in my hands on a car’s wreckage. The car was a strongly built old German Opel of the 60’s. It was an interesting experiment, indeed. Since you are preoccupied with calibers I deliver to you my observations from recollection.

.45 ACP ranks well behind the 9mm Parabellum in performance when it comes to penetrating power.
Shoot with a 45 ACP pistol in the trunk of a good car from a distance of 20 yards only and its occupants will just have to hide behind their rear seat to be sure they will get unarmed.

A solution consisting in raising the velocity of a .45 ACP bullet would produce stronger recoil which, in turn, would be detrimental to the capability accurately aim and shoot again. A 9mm can do better in the same circumstances.

My experiments demonstrated that nearly all 9mm bullets shot from the same distance got through everything in the car until being struck in some part’s component behind the dashboard. These tests I did with 1911 and 1911 A1 ordnance pistols were performed with .45 standard military ammunitions of U.S. origin and modern ammunitions of civilian origin (Norma and Federal). Overall the perforating power of a .45 is similar to this of a .32 ACP pistol and superior to this of a 25 ACP which ranks the poorest among all modern pistol calibers.
The cause stems from a bullet-diameter/velocity ratio. Increase significantly the speed and the perforating power will know some improvements; or, reducing the diameter of the bullet is another way to obtain similar improvements.

Strikingly enough, shots done at the same distance with a .22LR carbine and Remington Hi-Velocity cartridges performed the same as with 9mm pistol. That is, nearly all 9mm bullets shot from the same distance got through everything in the car until being struck in some part’s behind the dashboard. It doesn’t mean that 9mm has poor performances. It means that .22 Long Rifle has a very high perforating power because it travels at fast speed and its bullet’s diameter is small.

As a matter of complementary information, .30 NATO, 30-06 and 8mm Mauser shot from the same distance continued their course after they got their way out of the radiator or a headlight when they didn’t get stuck by a steel component in the engine. Their performances are similar.

High velocity .30 calibers rifle cartridges (i.e. up to 2200 fps) do not easily “atomize” or separate into multiple tiny pieces of lead and copper when they hit metal objects; whereas smaller diameters do in most instances.
For example, shoot a 223 bullet through two thin metal sheets 1 or 2 feet apart and you’ll have a clean small hole on the first and a quarter-coin diameter on the second. The cause is that the bullet fragments into tiny metal particles while going through the first sheet. Such phenomenon hardly, if ever, happens with pistol and revolver bullets, of course. 308 (7.62mm) and up to rifle calibers are not much concerned with this problem (when it is considered as a problem).

About stopping power and the competition .45 ACP vs 9mm I recommend this interesting reading available at the following link:
http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=69

There is a possibility to significantly improve the stopping power of a 9mm in using hollow point or semi-jacketed bullets--I’m not sure it’s legal, according to international laws on war, however. The same trick applies to .45 ACP, of course. Technically, stopping power relies on several different parameters.

The bigger the diameter is the greater the stopping power. That’s the basics.

But a small bullet such as a .223 traveling at fast speed and shot from short distance (a hundred of yards or so) may cause a huge cavity in a human body and vital organs during a handful of milliseconds, thus creating a nervous shock whose effects are similar to this of a great stopping power. Also, it matter whether a given bullet get out of a human body or get stuck in it. For, the remaining kinetic energy will be absorbed by the body in the latter case as a punch would do.

If a given bullet is semi-jacketed it will be prone to mushroom and so its diameter will get larger. Therefore, its stopping power will know a significant increase.
But, the mushroom effect depends on the bullet velocity. A slow velocity such as this of a .45 (about 675 to 840 fps) is not sufficient enough for a mushroom effect to occur in gelatin (of flesh, if you prefer and since we have to call a spade a spade at some point). It is more likely to occur with a 9mm, in revenge, because the velocity of this caliber is much higher (1,020 to 1,140 fps).
Improving significantly the mushroom effect of a .45, and so its stopping power, would consist in using semi-jacketed hollow point bullets.

The most “devastating” and incapacitating effects on a human body are likely to be obtained with a special kind of ammunition conceived for target competition: I name the full lead “wadcutter” bullet.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadcutter

But the problem is that this kind of bullet is fit for revolvers, though .45 sport guns are adapted to it. When fired with an automatic pistol it is a cause of frequent jamming. Also, lead bullets dirt quickly barrel and other components.

Further questions on ballistics will be welcome.

[120mm]

I have shot a lot of .45 ACP, .40 S&W and 9mm, and have to say that I don't have a problem with any of the three, though I will admit that 9mm has it all over the other two for longer range shooting. Between 50m and 100m I would feel comfortable in engaging a man sized target with 9mm. I've tried it with .45 ACP and .40 S&W and just didn't have much luck.

If you get up to .45 Super or .44 Magnum velocities, you should be able to take care of business, but at the expense of recoil and excessive wear on the machinery.

[Cavguy]

I hear and understand a lot of the grief given the M16/M4, and I'll just add this -

My issued M4, which I maintained reasonably (as opposed to spotlessly)downrange, never failed me in over 300 rounds of service use. Never had a jam on a range either.

I can't really say I saw any major issues with any of my soldier's M16's/M4's downrange, as long as they cleaned them regularly (wipe down daily, detailed 1x/week)

Stopping power is another discussion, but fortunately there aren't a lot of big burly Iraqis.

[Uboat509]

I do not and never have looked for penetration from a pistol. At home my pistol is a defensive weapon. In that situation penetration becomes overpenetration and that puts my family and my neighbors in danger. At work my pistol is a secondary. If I have it out then it is because either I am in a confined space or my primary has gone down for whatever reason. In those cases I don't need penetration I need something that will quickly drop targets so that I can get to cover and get my primary up. Hollowpoints would most certainly improve the performance of 9MM but we are not allowed to use it according to the Geneva Convention (for reasons that are still unclear to me). .45's supperior stopping power is undeniable. Study after study shows that .45 consistantly outperforms 9MM for pure stopping power.

SFC W

[bluefalcondelta3]

Just adding my 2 cents. I am a SGT in the US Army, currently in Iraq. I was in 4th ID, 1-68 AR, IEF (part 2) and was issued an M4A2 and an M9. The M4 performed flawlessly despite high round counts; we went red and near black several times. I understand the engineered advantages the new HK has over the M4, but I would like to cast my vote for "no sale". I suppose it is an improvement, but it remains untested by time-on-ground, and seems to be the answer to a question few people ask. If it works for the Black Ninja types who have impact cards with which to buy personal equipment and weapons, more power to them. For the average Joe, the M4 certainly does not leave one at a disadvantage. I believe I saw a report that we had recently contracted Colt to supply something like 74,000 new M4s. I just don't see a reason to cancel it. Thanks for everyone's ear-time. Charlie-mike...

[SGTMILLS]

OIF IV, TF Trailblazer in Tikrit. 05-06
One guy showed up asking for a ride to another FOB one morning brandishing this weapon. The idea behind the HK 416 was the gas-tube free action. This guy said it was many times easier/ faster to clean than the standard gas recoil m-4. when he returned to our FOB, he let me shoot it. i saw no more accuracy or any other variants that would make it superior, OTHER than the decreased clean time/ maintenance. I really would like to see the army go to this weapon, but to no avail. SOF-D, ST-6 or other tier 1 groups have it, but the normal foot soldier will never hold it.

[kaur]

Yielding to congressional pressure, the Army will conduct a test in August to see if the M4 carbine soldiers take to war is the most reliable weapon available in sand-storm conditions.

The test will compare how the M4 performs against a select group of newer, more compact rifles when exposed to a “dust chamber” at the Army Test and Evaluation Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.

The upcoming comparative dust test at Aberdeen will pit the M4 against the Heckler & Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, also known as SCAR.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/07/army_rifle_070715/

Here is good presentation about incapacitation by Swedish officer.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smallarms/wednesday/arvidsson.pdf

[jtb-in-texas]

in any situation is the person handling it.

For example, arm me with the super rifle and 100 rounds and arm 2 US Rangers with silk handkerchiefs and lace doilies. Separate us by 3 rooms in a building typical of Iraq. I make a pretty corpse, what with the silk and lace...

The M4 is doing its job. I'm glad to see we're looking for improvements; but let's not get all bent around the axle on side issues.

And thanks to all of you for defending my 1st Amendment rights... Back when the war was cold and Carter was at 1600 Pennsylvania, I was doing a minor-league version of the same, sitting on SAC Alerts...

[MattC86]

First, I don't remember in "Not a Good Day To Die," which is probably the most extensive account of Anaconda and CPT Self's fight, any mention of his problems with the M4 or carrying a cleaning rod strapped to the rifle, but I obviously don't have any real experience with the rifle and can't attest to alleged reliability issues.

I also remember an commentary in Proceedings from 2002 or 2003 arguing, basically, that Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan have all shown that the problem is not the M16/M4 rifle but the 5.56 round itself. Said that new rifles for the old M14 style 7.62 round were needed because of the bigger round's greater stopping power and long-range accuracy. Again, I have no firsthand experience with them, but I'd be interested to know if any of the legitimate "trigger-pullers" believe there should be any real consideration (aside from the procurement nightmare it would entail) to restandardizing on the 7.62 round.

Matt

[Ken White]

...
I also remember an commentary in Proceedings from 2002 or 2003 arguing, basically, that Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan have all shown that the problem is not the M16/M4 rifle but the 5.56 round itself...

Partly true. Without going into a rant on the ballistics, a bigger slower bullet generally does more damage on humans (and pigs...). The capability to have a better 5.56 round than we have exists; SOCOM and the Marines are using the Mk 262 round which has better ballistics but even that can be improved upon. We're going to have the 5.56 for a long time for a variety of reasons and that's okay -- but there's no reason the round can't be improved. The Swiss have a good one...

A piston operated rifle won't get as dirty but the carbon buildup isn't that big a problem, the real problem is just generic dirt and dust. The rifle is built to close tolerances and things can get in between parts an literally gum up the works. The Army and Marine tend to make troops over-maintain their weapons and this clears away finish and metal, thus more tolerance and more reliable functioning in older versus new weapons.

...Said that new rifles for the old M14 style 7.62 round were needed because of the bigger round's greater stopping power and long-range accuracy. Again, I have no firsthand experience with them, but I'd be interested to know if any of the legitimate "trigger-pullers" believe there should be any real consideration (aside from the procurement nightmare it would entail) to restandardizing on the 7.62 round.

There's no real need to do that. The 7.62 is available and is used when the range (or stopping power) it can provide is required. Most folks do not need that range or power most of the time. The 5.56 offers a lot more ammo for the weight than the 7.62 which has all sorts of ramifications.

Matt

[Rifleman]

Two thoughts: 1) In the 7.62 v. 5.56 debate a round in the 6.5 - 6.8 range would have been a good common sense compromise; 2) It still probably isn't worth changing, and that includes the rifle as well as the round. Just keep what we have unless something revolutionary can be fielded.

What would be revolutionary? I don't know, but a couple of things come to mind: caseless ammo as well as railguns and coilguns. I have no idea if any of these can be made reliable and infantry proof in a shoulder fired weapon. The experiments that are going on now with railguns and coilguns seem to be with larger weapons such as naval guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun

Least we think the idea of shoulder fired railguns/coilguns is pure science fiction, let's remember that when gunpowder first appeared it was used for rudimentary cannons and rockets first, and it was quite some time before it was adapted to shoulder fired weapons.

I don't know why caseless ammo (how about a 6.5 or 6.8 caseless?) hasn't been pursued.

[tequila]

Caseless ammunition is one of the tracks being followed (http://www.aaicorp.com/New/Advancedprograms/LSAT_ps05-11-06c.pdf) in the Army's Lightweight Small Arms Technology program.

[Dominique R. Poirier]

“Two thoughts: 1) In the 7.62 v. 5.56 debate a round in the 6.5 - 6.8 range would have been a good common sense compromise; 2) It still probably isn't worth changing, and that includes the rifle as well as the round. Just keep what we have unless something revolutionary can be fielded.”

The main reasons justifying the evolution toward the 223 ammo were that combat ranges had significantly shortened from WWII on and that a man could carry about 180 rounds of .223 instead of an average of 60 to 90 maxi with bigger ammunitions such as 8mm and .308. The Germans understood that first and invented the first assault rifle (the Sturmgewehr MP 43, and MP 44) firing a shortened version of the 8mm Mauser with a case's length reduced to 33mm instead of the 57mm of the classic 8mm Mauser. This gun and its ammunition seems to have inspired Mikhail Kalashnikov.

Long range shootings are now traditionally left to snipers who are trained to shoot at distances superior to 200-300 yards with .308 ammo and bigger. The classic .223 begins to loose significantly in accuracy beyond 200-250 yards whereas the reasonable limit with .308 is in the surroundings of 600 yards.

“What would be revolutionary? I don't know, but a couple of things come to mind: caseless ammo (….)”

Caseless ammos have been the object of serious experiments in Germany with HK experimental assault rifles during the late 70’s; but some problems, such as spontaneous auto-ignition, were never totally solved. Thus, HK gave up this project.

“(….) as well as railguns and coilguns. I have no idea if any of these can be made reliable and infantry proof in a shoulder fired weapon. The experiments that are going on now with railguns and coilguns seem to be with larger weapons such as naval guns.”

From recollection an electromagnetic pistol has been made in United States during the late 60’s or 70’s I believe but the performances and technical constraints of this experimental gun proved to be unsatisfactorily.

“I don't know why caseless ammo (how about a 6.5 or 6.8 caseless?) hasn't been pursued.”

6.5 and 6.8 rounds get us back to the problem of the number of ammunition a soldier can carry. During WWII Italians and Japanese soldiers used 6.5 ammunition whose cases’ length were superior to 50mm and whose case diameter at the bottom were similar to this of a .308, 8mm Mauser or 30-06 U.S. See the ballistic performances of modern civilian .243 to .270 Winchester for comparison.
Hard to make this diameter’s case smaller as the Soviets experienced it with the 7.62 X 39 Kalashnikov. The finally opted for a 5.56 X 39 circa 1974 (Kalashnikov AKS 74).
Remember also that the WWII .30 M1 ammo (7.62 X 33mm for U.S. M1 and M2 carbines) whose diameter at the case’s bottom is smaller and close to this of a 32 ACP proved to be unsatisfactorily owing to its poor ballistic performances and power.

[J.C.]

The problem is not that 308 is a better round than 223, but that the army uses a small grain steel core bullet. A 223 moving at arond 3000ft per sec with a steel core is designed to pentrate a flak vest and still provide leathality to the target. Further, steel cores where inserted to stop the use of lead. Any good deer hunter or soldier can sit down and tell you why a fast moving bullet with a solid core is bad for bussiness. Personall I hunt with a 257 weatherby mag. IT is 25 caliber bullet on a 7 mag casing. It moves with a 100 Seirra Boat tail at about 3700 FPS. With that kind of speed and a FMJ bullet, little bambi dosen't know its been shot, and even through the vitals can run a hell of along way. However, if you change that to a 117grain Round Nose bullet designed for maximum expansion moving about 3200 FPS, it turns bambis insides to jello. So as a joe carrying my M4, I'm not concerned that I have a 223. I just don't like the grain or type of bullet that we use. If you look at the hydrolics of the AK round agianst the Hydrolics of our standard 5.56mm, you can see the difference of why a small bullet is not problematic.
Its the hydrolic effect that the bullet achevies that is important. Furthmore, when use say that a 308 has better ballistics, thats not what your talking about. What I'm gathering from your conversation is ft pnds of energy delievered of target. Thats only a portion of ballistics. The 308 dose not really have that great of ballistics, their are much better rounds when it comes to that.

[Dominique R. Poirier]

The reason for using lead to manufacture bullets owes to two or three main reasons which constitute an advantage over nearly all other metals:

is at the same time heavy and soft;
it is inexpensive.

I explain why. Lead is a metal soft enough to be easily shaped in a rifled barrel without generating significant and dangerous increase of pressure during the combustion of the powder. A classic rifle’s barrel firing fast and powerful ammunition can undergo pressures as high as 3,500 to 3,800 metric kilo per square centimeter (or bar). For the purpose of comparison, the maximum pressure allowed in a 12 gauge shotgun barrel is about 1,200 bar.

Other metals such as steel or tungsten carbide, for example, are unsuitable for rifled barrels because they are too hard metals to take the shape of a rifled barrel. They would just make the barrel blow up if ever someone attempted to use such a bullet in a rifle. That’s why there is a need to jacket or to circle these metals into or with softer metals such as copper.
In the case of big calibers relevant to the field of artillery (say, above .50) the recourse to copper-circled shell entails a relatively fast wear of the barrel because the shell is in steel and not copper-jacketed (there are many interesting things to say about this point and I’ll be pleased to elaborate on this other fascinating subject if ever someone is interested in artillery from 30mm caliber on).

Actually, the best metal for a rifle bullet should be platinum because it is heavy, harder than lead, and it can bear much higher temperatures than lead. But platinum is too rare and too expensive to be shot.

We are constantly looking for heavy metals to manufacture bullets because there is a need to keep the maximum kinetic energy possible as long as possible. Air density tends to slow a bullet speed; therefore the best remedy to that problem is to make a bullet as heavy as possible for a given diameter. Also, more kinetic energy means better perforating power, of course (let me brush aside the question of stopping power for a while, which would make me wandering from the matter at hand).

Impoverished (or depleted) uranium is still a better metal that lead, owing to its weight; but there are many problems with that metal. Impoverished uranium is uranium remaining after removal of the isotope uranium-235. It is primarily composed of the isotope uranium-238. Since depleted uranium contains less than one third as much uranium-235 as natural uranium, it is weakly radioactive and an external radiation dose from depleted uranium is about 60% of that from the same mass of uranium with a natural isotopic ratio. At standard temperature and pressure it is a very dense metal. Due to its high density the main uses of depleted uranium include counterweights in aircraft, radiation shields in medical radiation therapy machines and containers for the transport of radioactive materials. The military uses depleted uranium for defensive armor plate and its pyrophoricity has made it a valued component in other military applications, particularly in the form of armor-piercing projectiles (anti-tank 30mm shells for General Electric machine guns on Fairchild A-10 airplanes, as best example).
Try to saw a bar of impoverished uranium with a mere metal handsaw and you’ll see an amazing shower of sparks as if you were doing the same with a powerful metal electric saw against ordinary steel… Metal temperature rises considerably during this simple experiment owing to friction and to the atomic weight of this metal.
Depleted uranium behaves in the body as natural uranium does and that’s why it would be unethical to currently use it against humans in small arms.

Now, the problem we have with lead is its very low melting point which is 621.43 °F only. Using full lead bullets in firearms is possible as long as the speed is not in excess of about 1,300 to 1,500 feet per second. These melting point and hardness can be slightly modified by the adding of antimony in it. Beyond 1,500 feet per second a lead bullet melts, buckles, and no longer takes the shape of a rifled barrel. As a result it totally loses in accuracy; even at short distances. That’s why we jacket it with copper, another relatively soft metal whose melting point is much higher.

About “boat tail” shaped bullets.

This shape has been invented first circa 1900 by the French Army, though I am not sure if they were the first to discover it (other and discrepant clues are welcome). Anyways long range rifle shooting competitions commonly existed in France during those earlier times. Shooting distances were of 1,000 meters. Targets were horsemen silhouettes and the rifles and ammunition shooters used was the Lebel rifle model 1886 M-93 in 8mm Lebel. Full metal jacket boat shaped 8mm bullets just did it the best.
Actually, the boat-tail shape has been the best aerodynamic shape offering the best accuracy to a bullet or a shell until then, and that why it is largely used nowadays in small military arms and in artillery as well.

“Personall I hunt with a 257 weatherby mag. IT is 25 caliber bullet on a 7 mag casing. It moves with a 100 Seirra Boat tail at about 3700 FPS.”

Yes, your choice of Sierra bullets is a good pick and the best I know and experimented with that caliber is the Sierra Match 100 which is a FMJ boat-tail shaped bullet (the same as yours, it seems). You may improve the kinetic energy and the stopping power in using round nose shaped bullets, but this will be done at the expense of accuracy at long distances when compared with the former.

Weatherby ammunitions are characterized by their higher speed and power and are very good ammunitions for hunting. Weatherby hunting rifles are heavier and more expensive than other standard rifles because the particular ammunitions they use develop unusually high pressures. This explains why the case of any Weatherby cartridge is reinforced at the bottom. If not, the cases would often break up under pressure.

Now, bear in mind that speed is not synonym of accuracy; quite on the contrary. I will explain why with more details in another comment, if ever you want it, since it would make this one much longer.

“The 308 dose not really have that great of ballistics, their are much better rounds when it comes to that.”

Sorry to disagree a bit, but the .308 is the best compromise one can find nowadays when considering modern military ammunitions for small arms. A similar equivalent in the civilian realm is the .300 Savage which offer a very good accuracy.

[FL-CRACKER]

The problem is not that 308 is a better round than 223, but that the army uses a small grain steel core bullet. A 223 moving at arond 3000ft per sec with a steel core is designed to pentrate a flak vest and still provide leathality to the target. Further, steel cores where inserted to stop the use of lead. Any good deer hunter or soldier can sit down and tell you why a fast moving bullet with a solid core is bad for bussiness. Personall I hunt with a 257 weatherby mag. IT is 25 caliber bullet on a 7 mag casing. It moves with a 100 Seirra Boat tail at about 3700 FPS. With that kind of speed and a FMJ bullet, little bambi dosen't know its been shot, and even through the vitals can run a hell of along way. However, if you change that to a 117grain Round Nose bullet designed for maximum expansion moving about 3200 FPS, it turns bambis insides to jello. So as a joe carrying my M4, I'm not concerned that I have a 223. I just don't like the grain or type of bullet that we use. If you look at the hydrolics of the AK round agianst the Hydrolics of our standard 5.56mm, you can see the difference of why a small bullet is not problematic.
Its the hydrolic effect that the bullet achevies that is important. Furthmore, when use say that a 308 has better ballistics, thats not what your talking about. What I'm gathering from your conversation is ft pnds of energy delievered of target. Thats only a portion of ballistics. The 308 dose not really have that great of ballistics, their are much better rounds when it comes to that.

Great points J.C. I agree completely with you as far as the type of rounds we're using being insufficient. Same goes for the 9x19 (9mm), if we could have better ammo other than FMJ, it would make all the difference in the world, especially when the enemy is all jacked up on meth and what not...

I've always viewed both the 5.56 and 9x19 as surgical tools anyway, that are designed for surgically taking out vital organs in a proficient manner. Knock down power is irrelevant for those tasks in my opinion if you are using the rifle properly and placing your shots properly. The M4 is a solid weapon for our purposes and has vastly improved over the years. Add an M203 grenade launcher to that and you just increased your chances of having superior fire power ten fold.

An example of knock down power being irrelevant that I can think of is a good friend of mine who was a 19D/Cav Scout during the Invasion of Iraq in '03 and deployed again later in '05. Many of those guys had 1911's of some form that they picked up over there, and had magazines shipped to them whether we choose to believe it or not it happened. I've heard of incidents where these guys emptied all 7 rounds into insurgents at less than 5 meters to contact and them still not going down, yet one bullet to the central nervous system using an M9 is sufficient to drop them in their tracks everytime. Shot placement is always one of the most important things in combat.

Most importantly though; it ain't the Arrow, it's the Indian.

[jcustis]

An example of knock down power being irrelevant that I can think of is a good friend of mine who was a 19D/Cav Scout during the Invasion of Iraq in '03 and deployed again later in '05. Many of those guys had 1911's of some form that they picked up over there, and had magazines shipped to them whether we choose to believe it or not it happened. I've heard of incidents where these guys emptied all 7 rounds into insurgents at less than 5 meters to contact and them still not going down, yet one bullet to the central nervous system using an M9 is sufficient to drop them in their tracks everytime. Shot placement is always one of the most important things in combat.

Any idea why those soldiers were engaging insurgents at conversational distance with a 1911 and not their M4?

[Cavguy]

Any idea why those soldiers were engaging insurgents at conversational distance with a 1911 and not their M4?

I know that in OIF 1, most armored crewmembers and staff ONLY had M9's. I carried an M9 through OIF 1 as a BN S4, including HIC fighting against Mehidi Army in Najaf, 2004.

My advice, never carry a pistol to a gunfight. :eek: Hence we kicked, screamed, and bullied to get a rifle (M4 or M16) for every soldier the second time around.

Strange, but true.

Occasionally early on guys would pack an AK-47 on the tank as a backup, I rarely heard of anyone packing a non-issue pistol, although I'm sure it happened.

Despite anecdotal claims, 99% of soldiers in OIF 1 carried and used their issued weapons. By OIF 05-07, I never saw any soldier carry a non-issue weapon.

[jcustis]

I was tracking on pretty much the same thing Cavguy.

[selil]

Larry was a drugged out whack job crack head with a habit of getting into trouble.

One night Larry being the swift dude he was climbed through the window of a local member of the FOP. Plastered on not one but three windows were signs saying "Warning a gun lives here".

Larry broke the window out of it's frame and in that unhurried yet much rushed visage of the crack fiend he scampered through the window to find the well armed owner of the home pointing a S&W 44 Magnum at the bridge of Larry's nose. Being the humble servant of the community the citizen gave Larry the not so necessary warning of "Get the F**** out of my house!" loud enough to wake the neighbors. Larry scampered back towards the window and made what would normally would have been a fatal mistake.

Larry turned around and came back at the owner. Who then emptied six shots into Larry starting at the upper left arm and walking down to his hips.

Now in my few years of looking over the Coroners shoulder I would say end of story...

Not so.

Larry is a special kind of guy. He said something unintelliligble to the home owner and jumped out the window. Did I mention this was a story and half bedroom window? Well anyways Larry ran a good five blocks down the street slamming into the side of a Patrol Unit engaged in surveilance of local donut shop. Smearing "stuff" all over the door of the unit our intrepid blue suiters watch as Larry runs down the road dragging pieces of himself.

After another five blocks (10 in total if your counting) Larry trips on dragging pieces of himself and falls at the feet of the following (in car) police officers.

6 rounds of 44 magnum, 10 block chase, 1 month in the hospital, 24 months for breaking and entering an occupied domicile, and a heck of a story.

You can never have to much gun.

[FL-CRACKER]

Any idea why those soldiers were engaging insurgents at conversational distance with a 1911 and not their M4?

It was his last measure of defense. His platoon was ambushed after the lead vehicle was IED'ed. He was hit by two AK rounds in the chest (was wearing his Interceptor), and knocked down to the ground. I believe he said his M4 got hit when he got hit in the chest. Regardless though, when he was "supine" on the deck with the insurgent charging for him, he couldn't service him with his M4 so he transitioned to his secondary. I just thought it was a good example, as I think a lot of people confuse knockdown power (and the .45 ACP for that matter), with being an end all silver bullet.

Apparently a few of the 1911's they had over there, even said, "U.S. Government Issue" on them and since he was the Platoon Sergeant,he was rarely ever questioned on it.

I don't know if it was as widespread as he said but it sure sounded like it when I went to the welcome home party at Fort Carson. A lot of them were sick to their stomachs because they had to throw their contraband 1911's among others in the river.

[Stan]

Larry was a drugged out whack job crack head with a habit of getting into trouble.

You can never have to much gun.

Sam, Nice Story !
I often get into the American Rifleman's "The Armed Citizen". I have a very interesting LE powerpoint that I recently sent to a few folks herein. Basically, in just a few minutes, over 100 rounds of .223 and .40ACP were fired. The assailant slightly high and armed with a single 1911 in .45ACP. Can't remember how many rounds he received, but the autopsy was amazing. The 55 grain .223 just ran through him and the .40 showed little sign of penetration. I'll send it to you when I'm back at work, or Tom may still have it somewhere handy.

I still carry my .45 Colt Commander modified by Wilson Combat.

The hell with that minuscule 9mm !

BTW, bring back the M3 greasegun :D

Regards, Stan

[carl]

Well, since we are engaged in the great "which pistol calibre is best debate", I'll pitch in too.

In the NMSP we carried the Glock 31 in .357 Sig. I wasn't a fan of Glocks before we were issued the weapon but afterward I thought they were great. Easy to shoot, easy to maintain.

.357 Sig is an ideal compromise. The calibre allows lots of rounds to be carried in the pistol but the round moves fast and flat for a pistol round. Shooting from prone it was easy to make hits on a silhuoette target at 200 yds. With a good hollow point bullet, what more could you ask for?

[slapout9]

This is my all time favorite website on this subject. There is a wealth of information here. Dr. Martin Fackler has a lot of research here that will dispel alot of myths. Before he retired he was head of the US Army wound Ballistics Laboratory. Take a look at some of the reports they are worth the time.


http://www.firearmstactical.com/wbr.htm

[FL-CRACKER]

.357 Sig is an ideal compromise. The calibre allows lots of rounds to be carried in the pistol but the round moves fast and flat for a pistol round. Shooting from prone it was easy to make hits on a silhuoette target at 200 yds. With a good hollow point bullet, what more could you ask for?


I had the same Glock and loved it. My only problem the price of the ammo for the .357 SIG. I traded it for a Glock 23 just because I couldn't afford to feed it now that 5.56 is so darn expensive.

[Hellbilly Soldier]

Sounds like I'm in a rare crowd having actually fired the HK416. :cool: It's just a tad heavier than our current M-4s (which we've found to be a good thing in the LFSH and on the Rifle Deck), cleaning is a breeze, and it operates with a lot less trouble. We've shot both FMJ and frangible ammo through it without any problems--as opposed to shooting frange through the M-4 with cycling probs.

If anyone gets the chance, put a few rounds through one. You just might be impressed. For me, the next question is whether to go with the 416 (5.56) or the 417 (7.62). Mission dependent, I suppose.

[Uboat509]

It's all well and good to talk about shot placement. Shot placement is important and that is why we are taught to aim center mass. Anything you hit in the upper torso has the potential to kill and most things you hit in the lower torso will also kill if not treated properly. When you narrow that shot placement to the nervous system, now you are talking about a low percentage shot. The spine is about two inches wide and surrounded by bone. When the target is directly square with you then the spine should be straight down the center although that is not neccessarily the case. Once the target twists, turns moves, etc then the spine becomes even harder to find, mush less hit. The head is a bit bigger of course but still a tough target to hit in the midst of a firefight. There is a reason they don't teach head shots to most soldiers.

This is why "knock down power" is important in a round. We are taught to aim center mass because it is the largest part of the body and contains most of the vital organs. The closer to the actual center of the body the more lethal. The problem is that, except for low percentage shot to the head or spine, they do not cause intstant incapacitation. I have heard, over and over of cases of a bad guy getting two, three even up to seven shots to the boweling pin and still being able to fire back. He was often dead after the first shot but didn't know it. Green tip is horrible for this. It's good to have some green tip on hand in case you need the penetration (through car doors etc) but for the most part you don't. 7.62 doesn't suffer from this so much.

Yes, if you don't hit the target or don't hit the target in a vital area then 7.62 will be less effective than a 5.56 that does but when all things are equal (shot placement, target type and density etc), 7.62 will have a greater effect every time.

With regards to the soldier who engaged a target with seven rounds without dropping him, I would be willing to bet money that he had never practiced firing from the supine. That is a drill that we do because it turns out that it is actually harder than it would seem. Having just taken two to the plate would make it harder. You stated that he engaged with all seven rounds at a distance of less than five meters, where did he hit him? And while we are on the subject what was the bad guy doing? Was he standing and shooting at the soldier or was he moving? If he was moving forward then seven rounds is a lot to get off accurately in the time that it takes an average man to move forward five meters.

SFC W

[FL-CRACKER]

Good points Uboat509.

I agree with you that his shots probably were not that accurate from supine, eespecially after being taken down and thinking you're hit, although he said he was making center mass hits. We've taken some combat shooting classes together and during the supine part of the training, he used this as an example to teach some of us the importance of the drill. Out of respect for my friend, I didn't pry into the situation or pretend like I understood what happened as he lost a couple of his friends that day to an IED and I could tell he didn't want to remember it other than taking some objective lessons from the fight.

I think his point to me and the point I was trying to articulate in my previous post was that it wouldn't have mattered if he had had the .45 ACP or 9mm when it was happening, both suck equally well compared to 5.56 or 7.62.

[120mm]

The main question I must ask, is that do we allow a foreign weapons manufacturer to corrupt our political process (convincing a legislator to hold up the approval of the Secretary of the Army), "cheat" the procurement process (by having "special" sandstorm trials instead of an open competition) and attempt to blackmail the politicians by faking H&K manufacturing jobs in the US (Wilcox mfg.)

Part of this propaganda effort by H&K has resulted in the continuation and further propagation of M16 "myths" and resultant diminuation of confidence by US Soldiers in their primary weapons system during a time of war.

Is it possible for a corporation like H&K to conduct a "small war" against the US in order to get payoff in the form of contract dollars?

As an aside, this is not the first "concept" that H&K tried to foist off on the US military, then called "foul" when their crappy weapon was exposed for what it was.

G10 - ammunition stunk
XM8 - plastic receivers melted, degraded at temps as low as 120 F
Mk. 23 - sitting unused in armories due to being too finicky for combat use

[120mm]

I don't know why caseless ammo (how about a 6.5 or 6.8 caseless?) hasn't been pursued.

It HAS been pursued. Repeatedly. And up until this time, no-one has been able to make it waterproof, durable and dimensionally stable.

In fact, H&K tried to sell the turd known as the G10 to the US military before, which used the unproven and ultimately failed caseless ammunition.

[120mm]

Upon further reflection, H&K is not committing a Small War upon the US. They are committing aggressive "Marketing".

But what, exactly, is the difference between "Marketing" and a "Small War?" Perhaps they are more alike than different....

[Uboat509]

As an aside, this is not the first "concept" that H&K tried to foist off on the US military, then called "foul" when their crappy weapon was exposed for what it was.

G10 - ammunition stunk
XM8 - plastic receivers melted, degraded at temps as low as 120 F
Mk. 23 - sitting unused in armories due to being too finicky for combat use


The 417 isn't crappy though. It is battle tested and I have yet to hear anyone who has used it complain about it.

The caseless ammo for the G10 did suck but so did a lot of the competition. Colt had some kind of double bullet that would have launched one slug at the point of aim (theoretically) and one several inches below that one (depending on range) It was still 5.56 so neither bullit would have been very big. Someone else what working on a fletchete round, flat trajectory but no stopping power.

I really don't know much about the XM8.

The MARK 23 was the gun that the SEALs wanted. H&K built it for them and now no one uses it. Not H&K's fault.


SFC W

[120mm]

It's not as important to know about the individual weapons, as it is to know what Heckler and Koch's automatic response to US military rejection of their product.

A. Hire/convince/whatever Matthew Cox to write a scathing, inaccurate, and only partially true article in The Army Times. Or even, a series of such articles. (Yeah, politics might have killed the M8 rifle, but the fact that it couldn't take temps over 120 F might have had something to do with it, too!)

B. Ensure that the article is repackaged in other sources, combined with innuendo and even outright mistruths about current systems.

C. Bribe senators/representatives to "confront" the US military on your behalf.

It doesn't help that the Army has been negligent in teaching/promoting basic weapons handling/maintenance. For instance, Light Lube in a desert environment has been wrongly allowed to propagate to the point where it would take relatively heroic measures to kill it. Which the Army is not taking. With heavier lubrication, there is no advantage to the HK416 system. And the additional cost of the HK416 IS significant.

I recently had this "discussion" with some relatively senior folks. Who ALL believed that "no lube at all" was the answer to desert ops..:eek:

In the issue of small arms, the US Army reminds me of Pop Warner League players trying to learn Pro Sets. I think a relook at training basic principles might be the answer, not a new, complicated and expensive weapon that does the exact same thing as the one we already have.

In H&K's defense, they aren't the only ones who use this tactic. The Pinnacle Dragonskin armor debacle is in the same vein. Theoretically wonderful product, that doesn't actually work. Ironically, the fact that the producer chose to go the political assassination route rather than work on fixing his product may prevent someone from getting it right, in the future.

[UrsaMaior]

I dont have any experience regarding assault rifles (carbines), but theoritically a more than 40 yrs old concept could be outdated right?

If H&K is too pushy there are other weapon manufacturers, the FN FAL served half the world quite well, and SCAR does exist. Someone mentioned that Stoner have designed short stroke piston weapons too. I might be wrong but a weapon that needs a built in cleaning device (aka forward assist) is not 100% reliable. Even in the America's Army FPS after loading the clip into the M4 you saw 'your hand' tossing twice the assist lever. If another weapon fires the same amount of rounds with comparable accuracy one should have not doubt which gun is better.

[120mm]

So, how is the H&K's or FN's 110 year old concept better than the Stoner's 40 year old concept? (Actually, the Stoner "concept" dates back to the Ljungman system dated somewhere around WWII).

The fact is, small arms technology is peaked out. Money spent in "improving" rifles is, in general, wasted toward more and more smaller increments of "improvements". And there are plenty of gun companies out there with their hands out trying to get some of that "Uncle Sugar" money.

And as far as the forward assist is concerned, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is not a cleaning device. The forward assist just addresses the military's insecurity vis-a-vis the lack of a fixed bolt handle. All the other world's assault rifles have a forward assist, too. It's called a bolt handle!

And the "tap" that you give the forward assist is a training issue only. In general, it is completely unnecessary.

[MattC86]

I am realizing I don't know the first thing about firearms, but we were talking about 7.62 v 5.56 rounds a few pages earlier, and someone mentioned the difference in the number of rounds an individual can carry.

Is there that pronounced a difference in the number of rounds/belts/mags a soldier would carry in a basic combat load between a 5.56-chambered weapon or a 7.62? What about machine guns (i.e., how many rounds does a SAW gunner carry as opposed to a M240B gunner?)?

I know small sums of weight add up when you're talking about hundreds of rounds (and obviously an individual feels every ounce he's gotta carry on his back), but is the difference that large?

Matt

[Ken White]

about 240 - 270 5.56mm rds in 30 rd rifle or carbine magazines in lieu of about 180 7.62mm in 20 rd mags at about the same weight.

Obviously that translates into more ammunition per pound for resupply as well -- or fewer resupply runs for the same number of cartridges.

400 rds for the M249 weigh slightly more than 200 7.62 for the M240.

I saw the exact figure on a web site a few months ago but can't find it now. If I run across it, I'll post a link.

Rounds carried depend on a lot of things, situation dependent and individual preference defined. In Viet Nam, a three man M60 (240 predecessor) team typically carried 8-1,200 rds with more spread about the Platoon supported. There was no SAW equivalent. In the early days in Afghanistan, my son's SAW gunners carried 300 rounds, his 240 gunners carried 200; in both cases with other folks carrying more rounds. It can vary a lot.

[jcustis]

Weights at the end of the lines are in lbs.

200-round plastic box 5.56mm (M249 LMG) 6.92
100-round cloth/cardboard bandolier 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 6.60
100-round plastic assault pack 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 6.70
200-round metal can 7.62mm (M60/M240B MMG) 18.75

I think there are standard answers to your questions Matt, but they would be completely wrong if you tried to apply them to the true nature of combat. One gunner may be able to carry more 7.62 that a gunner could ever carry in terms of 5.56, if you're thinking in terms of a corn-bred fed mofo.

The other issue at work is how one carries all of this ammo. It's never been easy to carry more than a basic fighting load that is easily accessible, with the rest stowed elsewhere.

[Rob Thornton]

Matt,
Generally in a US Army the basic structure for a rifle platoon you will have three rifle squads each consisting of 2 x 4 mans fire teams (1 automatic rifleman, 1x grenadier, 1 rifleman (who is often now a SDM) and a team leader) with a senior e-5 SGT or e-6 SSG squad leader in charge of the 2 teams. Also with the platoon is a platoon HQs (usually the PL, the PSG, a medic- attached, a FO - attached, and an RTO or 2), and a weapons squad - generally consisting of 7 - 9 guys - which might be laid out as 2 x three man MG teams, a couple of anti armor guys, and a senior squad leader. The 3 man MG teams are usually - the gunner, the assistant gunner and the ammo bearer. The weapon and its equipment are heavy, the rounds themselves are heavy and bulky and it takes all three to carry the load - generally the AB and AG will also carry their own M-4s

The rifle platoon is a very flexible organization and its soldiers are very adaptable to the needs of the mission. So what goes out on a patrol will often look different then what you see on the pages of the FM 7-8 - the Army's Field Manual on the Rifle Platoon (you can Google and Download it). Also the organization I just laid out is very general -as you go to certain types of units it may look different - and if memory serves the Marines have 3 fire teams in the rifle squads.

The soldiers and marines that compose these small unit organizations are among the most versatile, innovative, adaptive and intelligent folks in uniform - and we never cease to be amazed at what they are able to accomplish.

Best Regards, Rob

[UrsaMaior]

So, how is the H&K's or FN's 110 year old concept better than the Stoner's 40 year old concept? (Actually, the Stoner "concept" dates back to the Ljungman system dated somewhere around WWII).

I didn't meant that all solutions 'age out' with time (see diesel and otto motors), only that in 40 yrs better solutions may appear with the technical advance.

The fact is, small arms technology is peaked out. Money spent in "improving" rifles is, in general, wasted toward more and more smaller increments of "improvements".

More or less agreed. We should be using railguns/fletchettes or other infantry weapons instead gunpowder ones by now given the advance in other fields of technology.

And there are plenty of gun companies out there with their hands out trying to get some of that "Uncle Sugar" money.

Like Colt? ;) Come on. Under the current tech level IMHO (given most assault weapons use it for a reason) short stroke piston provides the best value for money. Give Colt or Springfield, Bushmaster whoever 6 months and I have no doubt they can come up with a good weapon. Sticking heads in the sand does not usually solve the problem.

And as far as the forward assist is concerned, it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is not a cleaning device. The forward assist just addresses the military's insecurity vis-a-vis the lack of a fixed bolt handle. All the other world's assault rifles have a forward assist, too. It's called a bolt handle!

And the "tap" that you give the forward assist is a training issue only. In general, it is completely unnecessary.

Dunno. Like ol' Murphy used to say $hit happens. And and if it does it is good to have a handy tool to fix it. I mean in the case of a highly unlikely jam it is better to have something which helps to solve it with two moves instead of having to disassemble you weapon in the midst of a firefight. No wonder why Delta went with the SCAR.

Juts my civilian $0,02.

[Ken White]

the most likely thing to initiate its use is a fouled or obstructed chamber and / or a dirty cartidge -- that is the worst possible time to use it. It was and is an unnecessary addition to the design. Better and safer to have left it off and forced the shooter to look in the breech and clear the problem.

[SethB]

As a civilian, I haven't been exposed to military doctrine on malfunction clearance, but I have trained under a number of excellent instructors with ewxcellent credentials.

For clearing a Type 1 malfunction, which is your basic click when you want a bang, you push the mag in and pull on it slightly to ensure it is properly seated, then roll the weapon on it's side, ejection port down, and rack it once.

This doesn't require removing the right hand from the weapon, or touching the forward assist.

If that doesn't work you lock the action open and remove the mag, insert fingers to clear obstructions, rack it three times to clear the chamber, load and reasess/reengage as necessary.

Another point. Few would disagree that heat is the enemy. There are a number of ways to deal with it. New propellants may run 10% cooler. Free float rails are both cheaper and more conductive, allowing the weapon to cool down faster after firing, as compared to RAS/RIS. Those that feature a barrel nut made of aluminum are best for this.

Lastly, a man named K.L. Davis pointed out that the most irksome design feature of the M4 and especiallt the MK18 is that it has no initial extraction. Unlike HKs or FALs, the bolt twists 22.5 degrees before extracting, yet in the shorter guns it still does so while the case is obturating.

With that in mind, the softer cycling and softer extracting mid length gas systems are a good solution for longer carbines.

I can't provide a link, but I recall reading a comment by Vickers to the effect that the HK416 was really only useful in short barrels, meaning under 14.5 inches.

Ref:

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=94

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=3807

[jcustis]

If that doesn't work you lock the action open and remove the mag, insert fingers to clear obstructions, rack it three times to clear the chamber, load and reasess/reengage as necessary.

Neither of these require removing the right hand from the weapon

How is that possible?

[RTK]

How is that possible?

He's talking about SPORTS if you're a right handed firer.

[SethB]

Edited. My apologies for the confusion.

[120mm]

I didn't meant that all solutions 'age out' with time (see diesel and otto motors), only that in 40 yrs better solutions may appear with the technical advance.

And "what" technical advance are you talking about? Gas pistons are a step backwards, imo.

Like Colt? ;) Come on. Under the current tech level IMHO (given most assault weapons use it for a reason) short stroke piston provides the best value for money. Give Colt or Springfield, Bushmaster whoever 6 months and I have no doubt they can come up with a good weapon. Sticking heads in the sand does not usually solve the problem.

Why don't you come on? We already OWN the Colts. Buying new, incredibly overpriced rifles is much more expensive than running what we have. And Colt doesn't have a history of losing weapons competitions and then trying to subvert the process afterwords. And tell me how, in your extensive "air soft" experience, you can say that "we" are "sticking our heads in the sand".

Dunno. Like ol' Murphy used to say $hit happens. And and if it does it is good to have a handy tool to fix it. I mean in the case of a highly unlikely jam it is better to have something which helps to solve it with two moves instead of having to disassemble you weapon in the midst of a firefight. No wonder why Delta went with the SCAR.

"two moves?" What the hell are you talking about?

Juts my civilian $0,02.

Okay, you posted a question, and once someone with some experience followed it up with your "expert" completely uninformed opinion. In my opinion, your post doesn't make you "up to par" for SWC posting standards. If I were you, I'd stick to HALO and airsoft boards.

[Uboat509]

Okay, you posted a question, and once someone with some experience followed it up with your "expert" completely uninformed opinion. In my opinion, your post doesn't make you "up to par" for SWC posting standards. If I were you, I'd stick to HALO and airsoft boards.

Ouch.

SFC W

[selil]

Something earlier in the thread piqued my interest. The intersection between caseless ammo and troops weapons having hit their peak. I think (solid no-nothing opinion) that there would be no substantial weigh savings in a caseless ammo. I've seen personally some silly attempts at cellulose cartridges and wondered why? I think their is a place for a better caseless cartridge simply based on the cost of creating the cartridges. A armorer friend reminded me that we have excellent examples of caseless cartridges in all of those new black powder rifles for hunting. His thoughts at the time were maybe the model of cartridge is wrong. Perhaps what is needed is a shift in thinking and putting the charge and round together as part of the cocking mechanism of the rifle. The reason being that you might lighten weight. I objected saying that you might end up two logistics trains and the possibility of either bullets or charge, but not both. The final thought being is the current explosive charge the best method or would a gas/chemical charge with an electronic ignition be better to keep cyclic rates high? We came up with the idea of a hair-spray charged potato gun with barbecue igniter being the model for a new infantry weapon where propellant would be much lighter, bullets would be separate, and cyclic rates would be substantially higher. Just some ideas about how to leap frog the technology with no clue of applicability.

[UrsaMaior]

Well you are home here and I am a noob, so I apologize if I insulted you with my dissenting opinion.

[SethB]

I think (solid no-nothing opinion) that there would be no substantial weigh savings in a caseless ammo.

LSAT Project. (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/spiegel.pdf)

In specific, look at page 23.

[selil]

LSAT Project. (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/spiegel.pdf)

In specific, look at page 23.

They don't look like they're truly caseless ammo. And where are they getting fifty percent weight savings? minus the bullet you still need a charge and media to keep it all together is the weight of the casing that much?

[SethB]

Yes. The casing on a conventional cartridge is made of brass. In the case of 5.56, where the bullet weighs 62 grains, the powder around half of that, the case itself weighs 92-105 grains. As bullets get heavier, the attempts to reduce cartridge weight center around the case, using caseless technologies, smaller cases and polymer cases.

[jcustis]

He's talking about SPORTS if you're a right handed firer.

Roger, but I'm still not tracking. Wouldn't one have to use the left hand toengage the bolt catch while the right hand retracts the charging handle?

[RTK]

Roger, but I'm still not tracking. Wouldn't one have to use the left hand toengage the bolt catch while the right hand retracts the charging handle?

Theoretically you can nail the little sucker with your right thumb if you have big hands.

I'm tracking like an aborted TOW....:confused::confused:

[SethB]

I've edited my original post to make more sense, but I'm not sure I'm following now.

Neither malfunction clearance requires a forward assist or any observation.

[RTK]

Neither malfunction clearance requires a forward assist or any observation.

Now I get it.

Here's the deal. There's a right way to clear a weapon malfunction and then there are a ton of shortcuts.

Outside a paintball range, shortcuts get people killed.

In our line of work, on the two-way live-fire range, good training, done the correct way without shortcuts, means the difference between Joe coming home with his unit and Joe coming home in a box to be met by an escort in Dover, Deleware.

Failing to observe the chamber during a misfire could precipitate a rather nasty and catastrophic weapon malfunction.

There are reasons misfire procedures are specific and written in doctrine, most importantly in field manuals and technical manuals.

The $hithouse armorer crap, much like barracks law practices, needs to stop. I'm afraid it's going to give someone the wrong idea at the wrong time.

[selil]

I've seen a 45acp cook off on extraction (the shooter thought it was a squib). He should have followed procedure. It was nasty but not fatal or even that injurious. My Gold Cup had a problem after I got it back from being tuned and it was pulling the back of the casing off. Two trips to an armorer much better than me and it was shooting tight groups again and functioning. Rule 1... High performance weapons are for movies and competition, not combat. From a law enforcement officer aspect we had a rule about no major customizations to a weapon. If you couldn't do it with a cleaning kit you couldn't do it. Both departments I worked at had this rule as they didn't want to have to explain why the weapon wasn't stock. Half way through my tenure our range rules changed. When I started out if you had a malfunction you raised you free hand and waited for a line coach. They changed that to having the officer clear the jam and continue because supposedly "during a fire fight some officer raised his hand instead of clearing the jam". Clearance procedure depended on the weapon, we had Sig's, S&W's, Rugers, and some Barettas. When I switched from wheels to slides I practiced day and night swapping mags and clearing jams for that stupid dud round in the magazine they did for certification.

[Norfolk]

DeWalt's version of the M-4 Carbine avoids some of the more spectacular stoppages/misfires/run-away-gun/cook-offs, etc. The IA for stoppages with this fine tool of the trade typically amounts to a battery change.

I don't think you'll find H&K is up to this fine level of workmanship.

[SethB]

Selil, what procedure are you referring to? I've been at ranges where you are required to wait 30 seconds if you have a misfire (hangfire?) before removing the round, although I admit to never having observed that rule.

A while back I bought a handful of orange dummy rounds and when I go to the range I load them up and mix my magazines around.

I understand that this is a necropost, to some degree, but I am wondering what procedures other people use.

[Mark O'Neill]

A while back I bought a handful of orange dummy rounds and when I go to the range I load them up and mix my magazines around.




Ok, I will bite, why the hell would you do that?

[selil]

Ok, I will bite, why the hell would you do that?

Because contrary to popular belief not all bullets go bang. Especially when you work for a law enforcement agency that has you dutifully unload your street loads, and then use training ammunition that is much cheaper. So you might be carrying rounds that have been on your hip for decades. In the weather, oiled, and horribly mistreated. I see all the hackles on military guys necks rising, and the LE trainers going "now wait a second" yeah it sucks, yeah it is wrong, and yet it still happens enough to be an issue. Then there is the training ammunition hand loaded using the cheapest materials on the planet.

Clearance procedures changed almost monthly the last time I was training. I was caught in the era of bigger/better/more as we transitioned from wheels to slides. Our first method of clearing was to hit the back of the slide (big mistake). Then rack the round out after a cooling period. Following that advice I saw a round cook off on extraction which is a bad day. Then they had us start dropping the magazine as we saw double feeds. Finally with my weapon (P85 Ruger) it was "click, slap, rack" when you hit nothing it was slap the back of the slide, (fire or click) then rack it back and load another (fire or click). Squibs and torn cartridges were do not fire again situations and transition to shotgun.

Any fuzziness on technique can be blamed on a decade and half of distance between now and then.

[Mark O'Neill]

Not convinced. In our Army mixing