PDA

View Full Version : Better than M4, but you can’t have it



tequila
02-21-2007, 11:35 AM
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
02-21-2007, 12:30 PM
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
02-21-2007, 02:00 PM
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
02-21-2007, 02:37 PM
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
02-21-2007, 03:22 PM
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
02-21-2007, 03:28 PM
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
02-21-2007, 04:07 PM
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
02-21-2007, 04:17 PM
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
02-21-2007, 04:24 PM
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
02-21-2007, 04:37 PM
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
02-21-2007, 04:53 PM
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
02-21-2007, 05:26 PM
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
02-21-2007, 05:53 PM
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
02-21-2007, 06:29 PM
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
02-21-2007, 07:03 PM
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
02-21-2007, 07:23 PM
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
02-21-2007, 07:53 PM
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
02-22-2007, 12:52 AM
Well, have any of you older hands ever shot an Ingram M10?

selil
02-22-2007, 01:30 AM
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
02-22-2007, 01:32 AM
Impressions? Or is it safe to say that the hands are still sore?

selil
02-22-2007, 04:51 AM
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
02-22-2007, 07:22 AM
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
02-22-2007, 12:55 PM
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
02-22-2007, 04:49 PM
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
02-22-2007, 06:17 PM
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
02-25-2007, 03:42 AM
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
02-25-2007, 03:48 AM
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
02-25-2007, 07:23 AM
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
02-25-2007, 07:27 AM
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
02-25-2007, 02:47 PM
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
02-25-2007, 04:57 PM
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
02-26-2007, 12:39 AM
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
02-26-2007, 01:29 AM
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
02-26-2007, 02:10 AM
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
02-26-2007, 02:20 AM
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
02-26-2007, 08:05 AM
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
02-26-2007, 03:09 PM
And would said notebook happen to be in, say, .pdf format?:D

120mm
02-26-2007, 06:40 PM
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
02-26-2007, 07:11 PM
I had no idea it was an actual book with a darn ISBN...It's at the base library, fortunately.

slapout9
02-26-2007, 07:25 PM
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
02-26-2007, 08:04 PM
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
02-26-2007, 08:15 PM
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
02-26-2007, 10:33 PM
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
02-26-2007, 11:55 PM
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 ####less 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
02-27-2007, 12:49 AM
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
02-27-2007, 07:26 AM
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
02-27-2007, 10:17 PM
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
04-01-2007, 06:06 AM
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
06-13-2007, 08:34 PM
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
06-13-2007, 10:01 PM
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
06-25-2007, 03:47 AM
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
06-25-2007, 03:54 AM
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
06-25-2007, 03:58 AM
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
06-25-2007, 05:35 AM
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
06-25-2007, 08:15 AM
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
06-25-2007, 02:31 PM
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
06-25-2007, 04:07 PM
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
06-25-2007, 05:00 PM
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
06-25-2007, 05:11 PM
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
07-01-2007, 11:07 AM
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
07-02-2007, 05:17 AM
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
07-02-2007, 08:37 PM
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
07-05-2007, 03:19 AM
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
07-09-2007, 07:37 PM
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
07-24-2007, 05:40 PM
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
07-26-2007, 06:05 PM
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
07-28-2007, 02:33 PM
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
08-09-2007, 06:18 PM
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
08-09-2007, 07:26 PM
...
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
08-10-2007, 08:19 PM
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
08-10-2007, 10:01 PM
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
08-10-2007, 10:31 PM
“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.
08-13-2007, 05:51 AM
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
08-13-2007, 10:56 AM
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
08-15-2007, 05:51 PM
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
08-15-2007, 07:55 PM
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
08-15-2007, 08:09 PM
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
08-15-2007, 11:52 PM
I was tracking on pretty much the same thing Cavguy.

selil
08-16-2007, 12:54 AM
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
08-17-2007, 07:13 PM
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
08-17-2007, 07:38 PM
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
08-17-2007, 10:55 PM
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
08-17-2007, 11:48 PM
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
08-18-2007, 07:04 PM
.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
08-19-2007, 07:58 PM
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
08-20-2007, 05:11 AM
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
08-21-2007, 03:40 PM
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
08-31-2007, 02:21 AM
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
08-31-2007, 02:26 AM
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
09-04-2007, 04:49 AM
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
09-04-2007, 12:28 PM
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
09-05-2007, 05:31 AM
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
09-13-2007, 08:36 AM
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
09-13-2007, 07:31 PM
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
09-13-2007, 09:15 PM
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
09-13-2007, 09:54 PM
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
09-13-2007, 10:20 PM
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
09-13-2007, 10:58 PM
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
09-14-2007, 08:34 AM
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
09-14-2007, 01:21 PM
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
09-15-2007, 03:41 AM
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
09-15-2007, 06:47 AM
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
09-15-2007, 11:21 AM
How is that possible?

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

SethB
09-15-2007, 04:46 PM
Edited. My apologies for the confusion.

120mm
09-15-2007, 08:24 PM
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
09-16-2007, 05:22 PM
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
09-16-2007, 08:10 PM
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
09-16-2007, 08:13 PM
Well you are home here and I am a noob, so I apologize if I insulted you with my dissenting opinion.

SethB
09-16-2007, 08:33 PM
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
09-16-2007, 10:17 PM
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
09-16-2007, 11:08 PM
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
09-16-2007, 11:10 PM
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
09-16-2007, 11:23 PM
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
09-16-2007, 11:51 PM
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
09-17-2007, 12:29 AM
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
09-17-2007, 03:02 AM
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
10-18-2007, 02:43 AM
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
10-18-2007, 06:07 AM
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
10-18-2007, 10:46 AM
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
10-18-2007, 01:40 PM
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
10-19-2007, 12:08 PM
Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

Mark

Stan
10-19-2007, 12:43 PM
Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

Mark

Why would one mix dummy ammo with live to practice for a failure instead of practicing training and sound doctrine that was intended to preclude failure ?

Best listen to a Soldier named RTK:


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.

This is not a sporting event we're discussing and second prize is Dover via C141

selil
10-19-2007, 01:15 PM
Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

Mark

I hear what you're saying but it may be a case of different rules for different situations (and missions). Regardless it is not "dummy" ammunition. It is still a live fire situation, on the range, and handled as live fire. If you don't do this how are you going to teach real world clearance procedures during a course of fire without warning?

Mark O'Neill
10-19-2007, 01:24 PM
I hear what you're saying but it may be a case of different rules for different situations (and missions). Regardless it is not "dummy" ammunition. It is still a live fire situation, on the range, and handled as live fire. If you don't do this how are you going to teach real world clearance procedures during a course of fire without warning?

Two points:

1. If you train correctly, the distinction between 'live' and 'not' is moot. We treat the thing the same - leads to instinctive behaviour and safe practices whilst ensuring the soldier has every confidence in his or her ability to apply lethal effect as required.

2. If you want to 'jazz' up your live fire, fill yoru mags with random numbers of rounds and then mix them up. This way you do not know when you will get a stoppage and will have to react accordingly. Take it a step further and engage in applied rather than deliberate shoots, which places pressure on to do the IA and rectify the stoppage in order to complete the serial or exposure. Jazz it up even further by pretending it is two way and adopting cover to conduct your drill... there are literally a lot of things you can do.

Cheers

Mark

Norfolk
10-19-2007, 01:55 PM
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.

Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?

RTK
10-19-2007, 02:01 PM
2. If you want to 'jazz' up your live fire, fill yoru mags with random numbers of rounds and then mix them up. This way you do not know when you will get a stoppage and will have to react accordingly. Take it a step further and engage in applied rather than deliberate shoots, which places pressure on to do the IA and rectify the stoppage in order to complete the serial or exposure. Jazz it up even further by pretending it is two way and adopting cover to conduct your drill... there are literally a lot of things you can do.

Cheers

Mark

I wrote about this same and much safer TTP on page 68 in this publication (http://www.ausa.org/pdfdocs/ARMYMag/CompanyCmd.pdf) in May 2005.

selil
10-19-2007, 03:57 PM
Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?

I want to make sure EVERYBODY understands I am in no way saying I'm currently an expert. In the original post I tried to make sure I said this is 15 years old and how I was trained.

If you really want to change my mind invite me to your training sometime. :D

Sgt R, and Cpl. M I'm sure had some standards to follow but I distinctly remember them pulling our magazines and inserting "dud" ammunition when we transitioned from wheels to slides for the "tire house" or "Hogans Alley" type training. Don't know if it makes any difference but this was not during the marksmanship courses of fire.

I'm still not sure what the exact problem in simulating/forcing a malfunction during a real course of fire is for combat training? I "googled" the terms to see what others are doing and even the Army is using dummy cartridges (http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/EIB/Task_Summary/load-an-m60-machine-gun.shtml) in a belt of live ammunition for machine guns to simulate something called a gas stoppage.

Like I've told my sons standing in the local sportsman club shooting in lanes is not combat shooting. IPSC and better IDPA are better venues but unfortunately more competition than training for civilians.

There appears to be a Washington State firearms training organization now WSLEFIA.COM, but I'm not sure if they're a community or standards body.

Ken White
10-19-2007, 05:15 PM
Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?

States and departments. The basic answer is that most States in the US have adopted standards, mostly based on those of the FBI and generally enshrined in the statutes. Many Departments have even tougher standards than the State requires.

A lot of the professional magazines -- the true item, not the news stand variety -- have lengthy discussions and interchanges on standards and techniques.

Selil is right on training versus duty Ammo -- though many departments are moving into not using handloads or even lower quality training ammo and are thus getting a forced rotation of stock. Most also rigidly define what ammo is acceptable as a duty load. Some are designed for maximum stopping power; others for lowest possible incidental damage (mostly depending on how many lawsuits the Department has had filed over shootings). :o

jcustis
10-19-2007, 05:25 PM
It's actually a common practice among non-military trainers to advocate mixing live and "dummy" (or snap cap) ammunition to simulate failures to fire and failures to feed at random times, to train in instinctive reaction with the appropriate clearance drill.

I've had it done to me on in a combat pistol course, and have used the technique as well. Having said that, I would not do the same on a range involving a rifle...just because.

Schmedlap
10-22-2007, 09:20 AM
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?

In three tours to Iraq, I've never come across anyone who complained about the performance or reliability of their M4.

Fix it until it's broke.

Erick
10-24-2007, 01:21 AM
I'll concur with jcustis.

While loading magazines to different levels works, it only gives you an empty weapon. Loading with dummy rounds, in my opinion & experience, is not a safety issue. It also gives the shooter the opportunity to actual clear a malfunction with a "loaded" weapon. It is just another another rung on the training ladder.

As a side note, I spent two weeks back in May running a KD range for a deploying Bn. Nearly all had new M4s. Lubrication (or lack of emphasis on it) was an issue. We were doing both 100-300M and short range work.

One thing I noted that was of interest was a significant number of what is being called a Type Ate (as in Ate The ---- Up) malfunctions. I was seeing at least two of these a day and I was getting 40-60 shooters per day. [Single round between the bolt lugs & the inside of the charging handle. Tugging back on the charging handle will not clear it]

I don't recall having any Soldiers who had seen this before or knew how to clear it. The only reason I did was due to training I'd sought out on my own. When it occurred, we shut down the line, brought those present in and conducted training on how to clear, taking the Soldier through it.

jcustis
10-24-2007, 02:15 AM
I'll concur with jcustis.

While loading magazines to different levels works, it only gives you an empty weapon. Loading with dummy rounds, in my opinion & experience, is not a safety issue. It also gives the shooter the opportunity to actual clear a malfunction with a "loaded" weapon. It is just another another rung on the training ladder.

As a side note, I spent two weeks back in May running a KD range for a deploying Bn. Nearly all had new M4s. Lubrication (or lack of emphasis on it) was an issue. We were doing both 100-300M and short range work.

One thing I noted that was of interest was a significant number of what is being called a Type Ate (as in Ate The ---- Up) malfunctions. I was seeing at least two of these a day and I was getting 40-60 shooters per day. [Single round between the bolt lugs & the inside of the charging handle. Tugging back on the charging handle will not clear it]

I don't recall having any Soldiers who had seen this before or knew how to clear it. The only reason I did was due to training I'd sought out on my own. When it occurred, we shut down the line, brought those present in and conducted training on how to clear, taking the Soldier through it.

I don't know if can be attributed to a lack of lubrication, but I have seen a good number of the same stoppages with our new M16A4s and M4s (within 18 months old). I support a Reserve unit, so high round counts these weapons do not have, except for the scouts. Same scenario, but in ours a fresh round is getting up over the bolt lugs when the owner is in the middle of turning a simple stoppage and morphing it into a double-feed by doing things like riding the charging handle. I think the tight tolerances of these new weapons mean that the Type Ate malfunction comes often because the weapon isn't as forgiving as a rifle with a lot of slop in the takedown pins.

The lubrication issue seems to come from the fact that the new metal is so porous and hasn't been "slicked up" from the friction you get over time.

On a side note, I am disappointed almost every time we run a live-fire by the number of Marines who can't tell (just from the feel and sound) that they actually chambered a round. You always have to do the brass check to be sure, but too many of these guys get the loud click, give the magazine a weak slap, and then run the bolt back and forth 2-3 times over an improperly seated magazine. They are inducing some of the bad stoppages, but I think I recall that last year the Ate Up stoppage occured and the Marine hadn't caused it through improper immediate/remedial action.

BTW, I'm all ears as to the training you gave your guys to resolve this type of stoppage. We've had ones where the armorer had to take off the buttstock just to releive the tension on the charging handle and free the round. *And good point about stopping the line and walking the shooter through it. Too often the position safety officers tend to grab the weapon and resolve it for the sake of getting back to the drills.

120mm
11-17-2007, 09:44 AM
Now HERE's something that actually "might" be an improvement over the current M16/M4 "system".

http://www.fnhusa.com/downloads/FNH_SCAR_Brochure.pdf

In lieu of going to a single, larger round for both individual and crew-served weapons, this system has the possibility of providing individual weapons in 5.56 AND 7.62 NATO. This would do a lot to help increase individual weapon lethality against barrier material and longer than 200 meter shots, without having to rely on the crew-serveds.

Rather than rework the entire logistics system to accept a compromise round, like the 6.8 SPC, this seems to be a possible solution.

Rifleman
11-17-2007, 02:00 PM
I just finished the Colt armorer's course yesterday (a worthwhile course by the way, Mike Heath is a great instructor). It reaffirmed my view that the AR-15/M16 in it's many variants does the job well enough that it's not worth changing for something incrementally better. Not for SCARs, H&Ks, etc.

The same for the .223/5.56. Yes, I think there could be some advantage to a 6.5 Grendal or the 6.8 SPC. It's likely not going to be such a big improvement that it's worth the changeover.

Abandon the product upgrade approach and focus efforts on something revolutionary: fielding a reliable caseless ammo.

Having said all that.....I bet I'd like the SCAR and I hope it's a success for SOCOM.

120mm
11-18-2007, 07:54 AM
I tend to agree with you, Rifleman. I'm more interested in something modern to replace the M14, however. The M14 was never a really good solution, and it's nice to have a 7.62 rifle, sometimes.

Plus, I like toys. And guns.

Ender
11-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Abandon the product upgrade approach and focus efforts on something revolutionary: fielding a reliable caseless ammo. Having said all that.....I bet I'd like the SCAR and I hope it's a success for SOCOM.

Agreed. Caseless ammo, how huge would that be? Or something else that has that special American spark? I think the mental energy we expend micromentally improving our lot (digging ourselves in intellectually and institutionally) could be better served by using those same calories to come up with completely innovative ways to ride a new groove. We are the best in the game when it comes to innovation but aren't we also the best in the game at mass producing that same innovation in 31 different varieties and flavors to saturate the market and then riding that horse until it is good and dead?

I agree with Rifleman. What we have works just fine. I would love new kit but if we are going to talk massive overhaul let's do it do it right and really add something to the equation and not just find the newest and best way to do the same old thing. Our thinking should not just push the margins, it should blow the envelope away. The M-4, M-16 family is by no means perfect but if you do what you are told every time it will do what it is told every time. I am not sure the DoD wants to hump a combat load of 6.8, 7.62 etc.. or any "caliber that starts in 4" all day long. (Some guys have a hard enough time with 5.56)To me it is not so much about the size of the little bullet that's out there so much as the number of little bullets that are out there and how many are going which way... the (500) 5.56 rounds going outbound could care less that the (20) 7.62 rounds coming inbound have a 2.06mm "bigger package" than they do.

jcustis
11-19-2007, 12:09 AM
Last weekend, the unit I support sent over 66K rounds downrange across four days of learning the art of gunfighting. I make the distinction between gunfighting and shooting because the skills that were being imparted to those Marines were geared towards resolving an unfriendly contact in their favor, even though the qualification program this all fell under is termed “combat marksmanship.”

Assisting as primary instructors were three Marines from the training cell at 2/LAR, and they brought with them considerable teaching skill earned as trainers for a number of other packages with both 2/LAR and earlier incarnations of the Anti-Terrorism Battalion. The instruction was very deliberate, concise, and all about explaining the “why” part of the way we run our weapons.

As with most quality instruction, there was some variation in terminology between what is in vogue today and what older hands like myself came up learning. We were introduced to three “indicators” of our weapon’s current condition, running in order #1 to #3, which we were expected to assess by physically rotating the rifle about 5-10 deg and observing the ejection port area for bolt positioning . This was the first time I had the utility of inspecting the location of the bolt explained to me. After I stopped to think about it for a couple of minutes, it is so simple and almost effortless to do that it could be viewed as important as a brass check. After dispensing any number of rounds and putting the weapon on safe, you could be headed to the next engagement with a weapon that has experienced a nasty stoppage and won’t fire or ran dry, thus the case for inspecting it each time. The instructors even discussed checking the bolt at night with one’s fingers, and since I’m fortunate to have a long index finger, I incorporated a sweep of it into my normal routine of closing the ejection port cover. Now before I come from the ready to any other carry, I tilt the rifle, visually and physically inspect the bol/ejection port area, close the cover, then place it on safe.

Indicator 1 is when the weapon has basically failed to fire or feed and the bolt remains forward and seated. Putting the weapon back into action from this condition was the basic “TAP-RACK-BANG” series of movements. The important emphasis the instructors added was to avoid striking the magazine with an extreme amount of force (more on this a bit later).

Indicator 2 is when the weapon has run dry and the bolt has locked to the rear, prompting you to conduct a reload with a fresh magazine. Our instructors chided against inserting that magazine with extreme force. While it may look like you’ve got intensity on your side, slamming a magazine home could actually unseat the top round, causing it to tip up and out of alignment with the chamber. When the bolt runs forward, you’ve got the beginning of a nastier stoppage if you don’t have the presence of mind to sense the bolt didn’t lock and you then attempt TAP-RACK-BANG or SPORTS. I actually watched two stoppages made worse when the Marine got as far as the step of tapping the forward assist – a round actually became wedged above the bolt locking lugs and the gas tube. I learned that as a rule of thumb, all you have to do is seat the magazine with a firm PUSH, then confirm it is seated with a PULL. I knew this, but watching over 100 gunfighters do it either well or poorly convinced me that the PUSH is a safe bet.



On a side note, I am disappointed almost every time we run a live-fire by the number of Marines who can't tell (just from the feel and sound) that they actually chambered a round. You always have to do the brass check to be sure, but too many of these guys get the loud click, give the magazine a weak slap I have changed my tune with this, and then run the bolt back and forth 2-3 times over an improperly seated magazine. They are inducing some of the bad stoppages, but I think I recall that last year the Ate Up stoppage occured and the Marine hadn't caused it through improper immediate/remedial action.

jcustis
11-19-2007, 12:11 AM
I’ve become fortunate enough to develop the ability to recognize several aspects of bolt movement (e.g. when it locks back, when it locks home, etc.) by sound alone, but for some gunfighters, observing the chamber area when depressing the bolt catch during a reload may answer the mail.

Indicator 3 is the notorious double-feed, requiring you to lock the bolt to the rear in order to relieve tension on the magazine, rip that magazine out, and work the bolt to the rear three times to clear the bolt/chamber of rounds inducing the stoppage, and then either load a fresh magazine or fix the rounds in the original magazine if necessary and re-insert (not preferred).

The last aspect of gunfighting that I resolved in my head that weekend was the debatable issue of reload terminology. For a long time, I have read the many pages of text devoted to the semantics of tactical and speed reloads, reloads with retention, etc. Many writers will reference some legendary gunwriter or instructor, such a Col Jeff Cooper, when making their point. Even still, where you stand is where you sit, and the dynamics of a speed reload could vary widely depending on who you are talking to. The training I came up through taught me that a speed reload was when you’d run completely dry, resulting in either bolt or slidelock (pistol). You did not retain the magazine, but rather released it to fall freely and fed a fresh one in as soon as possible. Semantics can get folks killed sometimes if the result is poor tactics, and if I ever get back into the private training game again, I think I’m going to describe reloads to students in the following manner:

Condition 1 reload with or without retention: I see this best described as the venerable “tactical reload”, where you’ve got a break in the battle and exchange a magazine of unknown rounds for a full one (or at least one with more rounds then the current one in the weapon). Because your tactical situation could change during the conduct of the reload, what you do with the first magazine is up to you. If a threat suddenly presents itself, you may very well have to consciously break your stride as you try to stow it in a dump pouch and get back on the gun immediately.

Condition 4 reload with or without retention: Although the weapon won’t truly be in Condition 4 but rather locked to the rear on an empty magazine, its close enough to that weapon condition that I just call it such. Whether the magazine is retained (e.g. dump pouch, cargo pocket, or in the weak hand in fact) is the gunfighter’s choice, and should be based again on a narrow set of factors. First, has the threat been neutralized? Second, how close is the next threat? Are you behind cover or caught in the open or in a structure’s hallway?

I’m beginning to change my mind to when it comes to “doctrinal” weapons-handling techniques, and am more inclined to force the individual to make a decision as to what to do while running the gun. Some critics may say that the loss of gross motor skills, tunnel vision, etc., will conspire to get you killed, but there just isn’t enough evidence in my mind to support making all of our techniques “the only way to do it.” Take for example the “speed reload.” If we fought until we ran dry and dumped the magazine on the deck every time, we could find a snail trail of magazines as we moved through a contact down a city street. The opposite situation is when you’re attempting to put someone down at 5-25m and run dry and have no means of moving to cover. The gunfighter needs to make that conscious decision regarding where the spent magazine goes…it should be generally the case that it gets dumped to the deck, but what if it is pitch black outside and the battle has just begun? I’m actually beginning to think that exchanging magazines in the same manner as a Condition 1 reload with retention is a better tactical choice; all one needs to do is skip the step of stowing the magazine and keep it keep it tucked between his fingers while he finishes putting down the immediate threat, then finds the dump pouch.

The final point I re-learned is that most Marines simply do not have the muscle memory to run a gun without looking at it or at their gear. Try as we might to keep them focused downrange on the threat area, they simply cannot do it without actually taking longer to resolve a problem or reload. When bullets are in short supply, nothing works better then a few hours of dry-fire reload and weapons-clearance drills.


For our friends across the pond or up north, what type of wpns-handling mantras do you guys learn in the formal schoolhouse? What do you learn/teach for use on the real range, if the schoolhouse stuff is lacking?

selil
11-19-2007, 12:34 AM
Jcustis,

Dang I wish I could train with you all. Sounds like training is taking on a more practical approach. I imagine these were M16's? Curiosity but are the Marines training with shotguns anymore?

jcustis
11-19-2007, 12:40 AM
Yes, we still have shotguns, but they are pretty much limited to military police, certain security forces, and at the Regimental armory level, IIRC.

I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.

selil
11-19-2007, 12:48 AM
I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.

I was trained on the Mossberg 500 and I still have my issue weapon (personal purchase program).

Norfolk
11-19-2007, 01:18 AM
JC, I'm a little surprised by what I seem to be reading from two of your posts. Now, I have to admit that I haven't taken a look at MCRP 3-01A (though I have it and a mound of other stuff that I've either neglected or haven't gone back to it in a while - in some cases, a long while), but I thought that the IA's for stoppages that you described sounded, well, odd - the whole TAP-RACK-BANG thing. So I was a little surprised when you described what sounded like Commonwealth-type IA's as being something new to you guys. I may be confused here, and you can sort it out after me describing what we do.

First off, in Commonwealth Armies, we have the same 3 basic IA's for the Service Rifle:

1. a.) Weapon fires, weapon fires, weapon STOPS! - Cant weapon slightly to left, check bolt position - Bolt fully forward - Seat magazine properly (Push magazine in, then pull to check) - Re-cock weapon - Rounds downrange

b.) - 1. a.) Weapon still does not fire - Broken firing pin - Return to CQ (in a firefight?:confused:)

2. Weapon fires, weapon fires, weapon STOPS! - Cant weapon slightly to the left, check bolt position - Bolt partially forward - Misfeed - Safe - Unload - Lock bolt to rear ONCE (NEVER more than once - probably just wedge things tighter if you do) - Check inside receiver - If round still inside, remove (very hot!) - Unlock bolt and let go fully forward - Check lips of magazine and gently tap back of magazine in palm of hand to seat rounds - If magazine lips damaged, replace with new magazine - Insert magazine - Re-cock the weapon - Rounds downrange.

3. Weapon fires, weapon fires, weapon STOPS! - Cant weapon slightly to the left, check bolt position - Bolt fully to the rear - Empty magazine - Unload, new mag, check lips of magazine and gently tap back of magazine in palm of hand to seat rounds - Insert magazine - Re-cock the weapon - Rounds downrange.

Off the range and in the field, you might dispense with the palm-tapping. We NEVER slapped a magazine, either to seat the magazine in the weapon or to seat the rounds in the magazine - if you were caught doing so, unpleasant disciplinary/remedial measures were taken. I though that TAP-RACK-BANG was history (at least in the USMC) but maybe still used in the US Army. If I've read you right jcustis, and you're describing IA's for Stoppages, then I'm surprised:eek:; if you're describing something else, then I'm just plain confused.:confused:

As to speed reloading; yeah, often there's no choice but to drop the mag and throw in a fresh one - it's all about who's the quickest on the draw in this case. Sometimes, like you JC, I just kept the empty mag in my left hand and carried on without dropping it. But otherwise, if I'd had the time, I'd just drop the used mag inside my shirt or coat down the front of the neck or just stuff it wherever it in my belt so I could reload it later. Mind you, we also had plastic speed loaders that we just threw on top of the mag so we could feed those 10-round plastic strips macht schnell into the mags from the 30-round boxes in our bandoliers when we had time - or the mags just plain ran out.

As for tactical reload, we always changed mags that had been fired for mags that hadn't whenever there was a break - especially in CQB (obviously). Always carry a full mag - and always change to a full one when you get the chance.

We did hours and hours of dry-training in a classroom using aiming boxes, rifles, pieces of paper, a pencil, and that funny-looking piece of metal (I forget its name) with the tiny hole for an NCO or buddy to plot your aim on the paper tacked up on the bottom of the wall. This was how we learned breath control and the principles of marksmanship, laying on the cold floor and practicing our aim, weeks before we ever went out on the range for the first time. You didn't get to fire live rounds until you had passed weeks of dry-training - the NCOs made sure of that.

Uboat509
11-19-2007, 02:06 AM
Yes, we still have shotguns, but they are pretty much limited to military police, certain security forces, and at the Regimental armory level, IIRC.

I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.

Are they still using them as offensive weapons? We still use them but prior to Iraq they had been pretty much relegated to use as a breaching tool. As far as I know, big Army still uses them exclusively for that purpose. Some of the guys I worked with over there like to use them in the turrets of their hummers. They make a nice attention getting bang and you can put buck shot into someone's trunk without worrying about overpenetration but you still have a lethal weapon in your hand for that jackass that wants to toss a grenade at your vehicle.

SFC W

jcustis
11-19-2007, 02:27 AM
Norfolk,

Agreed that my posts may seem confusing when trying to sort out what I learned (or re-learned) as opposed to the original baseline of skills I previosly held.

I've always been pissed when sitting through rifle re-qualification pre-fire training because the terms and techniques seem to change every year, and the folks (coaches) doing the teaching can be the furthest thing from a gunfighter that there is.

With that rant out of the way :wry:, as late as 2003, we were teaching Marines that there were basically two responses to a weapon that had stopped firing. The first was immediate action, or the TAP-RACK-BANG of tapping the bottom of the magazine to ensure it was seated, cycling the charging handle, aiming in and then attempting to fire again. This covered failures to fire (primer related or broken pin - very rare) and failures to feed.

The next response was referred to as remedial action, and depending on who taught it, it could involve all sorts of movements. I suppose the general assumption was that after immediate action didn't get the weapon back up, one would observe the chamber and deduce that he either needed conduct a reload or move to the more complex stage of LOCK (the bolt to the rear) - RIP (magazine out) - WORK (cycle the bolt to clear obstruction) and then insert a fresh magazine, rack the charging handle, and attempt to fire.

I think TRB was maintained as the immediate response because it would resolve just about all of your problems (90% being improperly seated magazines?). The light bulb came on last weekend because TRB works best when you've incorporated the business of canting the weapon to check the bolt after finishing the firing sequence and know you don't have a misfeed, or experience the "weapon STOPS" moment and have perfomed the cant movement.

I have looked at the 2001 Rifle Marksmanship MCRP in more detail pp. 3-7 to 3-8, and everything transitioned to inspecting the chamber first, and then either going to TRB, reloading, or performing some variation of Lock Rip Work. In the MCRP, all three actions are referred to as remedial actions, so what I learned so long ago and retained is basically wrong, doctrinally speaking. Move forward to just a couple years ago and the marksmanship instructors were teaching the ditty SPORTS (SEEK cover, PULL charging handle to the rear, OBSERVE the chamber area to look for extraction and ejection, RELEASE the charging handle, TAP the forward assist, SIGHT IN and attempt to fire). It can be a bit boggling to keep up with it all, so perhaps my failings lie in the fact that I didn't keep up with technique. The publication doesn't square with the fact, however, that what I learned last weekend rolled all of the techniques up in an orderly fashion that allows them to complement each other. The book doesn't do a comparable job.

My habits for running a gun were admittedly, dated and inefficient. A lot of us were stuck on TRB because we thought doing anything else would waste time. I realize now that resorting to TRB (and striking the magazine with the degree of force instructors sometimes used) when you have a misfeed can actually make it much worse, so it's better to take that second to cant and look, and resolve the indicator problem from there. Observing the bolt position is the way to go in my mind now, and during periods of limited visibility, do it with fingers.

Norfolk
11-19-2007, 03:33 AM
I have looked at the 2001 Rifle Marksmanship MCRP in more detail pp. 3-7 to 3-8, and everything transitioned to inspecting the chamber first, and then either going to TRB, reloading, or performing some variation of Lock Rip Work. In the MCRP, all three actions are referred to as remedial actions, so what I learned so long ago and retained is basically wrong, doctrinally speaking. Move forward to just a couple years ago and the marksmanship instructors were teaching the ditty SPORTS (SEEK cover, PULL charging handle to the rear, OBSERVE the chamber area to look for extraction and ejection, RELEASE the charging handle, TAP the forward assist, SIGHT IN and attempt to fire). It can be a bit boggling to keep up with it all, so perhaps my failings lie in the fact that I didn't keep up with technique. The publication doesn't square with the fact, however, that what I learned last weekend rolled all of the techniques up in an orderly fashion that allows them to complement each other. The book doesn't do a comparable job.

I realize now that resorting to TRB (and striking the magazine with the degree of force instructors sometimes used) when you have a misfeed can actually make it much worse, so it's better to take that second to cant and look, and resolve the indicator problem from there. Observing the bolt position is the way to go in my mind now, and during periods of limited visibility, do it with fingers.

Now I can see not only why I'm confused, but so is a good deal of the USMC it would seem.:( Yeah, canting the weapon slightly to the left to check the bolt position is practically always the right way to go (although as soon as I felt the bolt slam back - it sure wasn't the M-16's recoil that I was feeling;) - it was time to reload. If you've got a real problem, you know so you can fix it right away. We'd have been made to suffer if we'd used TRB in the RCR - even slapping the mag once it had been firmly inserted into the weapon was cause for disciplinary action. Huh, it's kind of funny the things that you can take for granted about another military service.

Ender
11-22-2007, 04:30 AM
The final point I re-learned is that most Marines simply do not have the muscle memory to run a gun without looking at it or at their gear. Try as we might to keep them focused downrange on the threat area, they simply cannot do it without actually taking longer to resolve a problem or reload. When bullets are in short supply, nothing works better then a few hours of dry-fire reload and weapons-clearance drills. It really does boil down to this and if we can instill that muscle memory the time/effort saved will be worth the monotony. Great post and great tips.

120mm
12-01-2007, 12:56 PM
I had the opportunity, Thursday, to represent my unit at a German shooting range (aka Schuetzenschnur qualification).

It is relevant to the current discussion as a cautionary note. When the Army finally killed the XM-8 modular rifle, the US Army "dodged the bullet", big time.

The HK36, which the XM-8 was modelled after, is NOT a competent combat rifle. The action works fine, but the ergonomics and sighting system is trash. The CQB reflex sight is ridiculously small, has horrible eye relief of about 1.5 inches and you can not get a sight picture, and a cheek weld at the same time, unless you have a looong face. The total height of the rifle, with 30 round magazine inserted is insane, and while the low-mounted barrel reduces felt recoil (As if 5.56 rounds have much recoil at all) You must expose a large part of your anatomy to fire this turkey from behind cover.

"Mickey Mouse Piece of ####" is the highest praise I can find for this abomination. It is obvious that the German Army has no plans, whatsoever to fire this rifle in combat.

On the other hand, the P8 9mm pistol only has one, significant fault, that I could see from my somewhat limited shooting experience: The range meister wanted it back, after I had fired it. I thought he was being unreasonable and even the persuasive and logically consistent "finders, keepers" argument did not work on him. The range was bermed in, so I couldn't just try to run off with it, either.

So, in summary, HK G36/M-8 = BAD, HK P8 = GOOD.

Norfolk
12-01-2007, 07:14 PM
120mm, the Germans seem to be pulling some strange moves with some of their small arms lately, and especially since the G36 appears to be less than a worthwhile weapon as you found it to be. First off, I am not someone who is content with the 5.56 anyway, and the Germans replacing the G3 and especially the MG3 with 5.56 weapons unsettles me some. Replacing the MG3 with the 5.56 MG4 (even with replacing the single MG3 in each Group with a pair of MG4s) does not sit well with me at all. I am very biased in favour of the 7.62 over the 5.56 when it comes to machine guns. And since the new Puma IFV that is replacing the Marder has an MG4 instead of an MG3 as its coax gun, I tend to strongly suspect that errors are being made.


I just finished the Colt armorer's course yesterday (a worthwhile course by the way, Mike Heath is a great instructor). It reaffirmed my view that the AR-15/M16 in it's many variants does the job well enough that it's not worth changing for something incrementally better. Not for SCARs, H&Ks, etc.

The same for the .223/5.56. Yes, I think there could be some advantage to a 6.5 Grendal or the 6.8 SPC. It's likely not going to be such a big improvement that it's worth the changeover.

Abandon the product upgrade approach and focus efforts on something revolutionary: fielding a reliable caseless ammo.

Having said all that.....I bet I'd like the SCAR and I hope it's a success for SOCOM.

Rifleman, I more or less agree on waiting for some really dramatically improved in performance to replace the existing 5.56 round and the M-16/M-4. That said, replacement programs have been coming and going for 20 years now, and much of the existing stocks of M-16s and M-4s are either old or getting worn out in the field. Given that, if a really revolutionary replacement is not at hand in the near future, perhaps it would be better to develop a new line of carbines, rifles, and light machine guns based on something like the 6.5 Grendel.

I have some doubts that a military Grendel round would quite match the published performance specs of the civvie rounds, but I still suspect that performance of such a round would be worthwhile for a new family of small arms if something with much more dramatically improved performance isn't well underway within acouple years from now. It's time to do one or the other, not keep dragging the replacement process out for small arms that are going to have to be replaced sooner rather than later anyway.

And as far as the weight of the 6.5 ammo goes, just carry the same number of rounds as you would with the 5.56; if you have to make weight reductions somewhere, make them after you've made sure you've got the beans n' bullets you need to have first.

jcustis
12-02-2007, 12:04 AM
New offerings like the FN-SCAR worry me because the modulatiry does not allow (from what I can see) for the upper receiver to tilt up the same way that an M-16/M4 would for either field expedient cleaning or assistance with clearing out a problem. Link here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=r_V2wvk2F6A

I like the Magpul Masada, if for no other reason than the fact that it seems to have been well-though out in the ambidextrous controls. I especially like the ability to lock the bolt to the rear without needing to change hands as we do with the current Colt weapons, as well as the positioning of the charging handle. Link here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UaYOI1waCYI

I could care less for the removable barrel aspect, but to each their own.

FL-CRACKER
12-31-2007, 07:58 PM
I’m beginning to change my mind to when it comes to “doctrinal” weapons-handling techniques, and am more inclined to force the individual to make a decision as to what to do while running the gun. Some critics may say that the loss of gross motor skills, tunnel vision, etc., will conspire to get you killed, but there just isn’t enough evidence in my mind to support making all of our techniques “the only way to do it.” Take for example the “speed reload.” If we fought until we ran dry and dumped the magazine on the deck every time, we could find a snail trail of magazines as we moved through a contact down a city street. The opposite situation is when you’re attempting to put someone down at 5-25m and run dry and have no means of moving to cover. The gunfighter needs to make that conscious decision regarding where the spent magazine goes…it should be generally the case that it gets dumped to the deck, but what if it is pitch black outside and the battle has just begun? I’m actually beginning to think that exchanging magazines in the same manner as a Condition 1 reload with retention is a better tactical choice; all one needs to do is skip the step of stowing the magazine and keep it keep it tucked between his fingers while he finishes putting down the immediate threat, then finds the dump pouch.


jcustis,

Interesting points as to what to do with spent mags and tac-loads/reloads... This happened to me in training a while back but was just sub-consciously done.

We were doing tandem surpentine drills in a training class, and I had a stoppage/malfunction, so I transitioned to my secondary to cover myself, moved to cover, tap-rack-bang & I was back in the fight in a few seconds and covering my partner as he was reloading, I covered him with several shots, he got back in the fight, so I did a tac-load before I moved again (since I was down to about 10 rounds), but somehow in the interest of saving time, covering my partner, and being focused on maneuvering around certain obstacles, shooting on the move, and communicating with him, and having cleared a stoppage, I didn't even notice that I never dropped my other mag and still had it in my front hand until I went to reload again. In the heat of the moment, all I wanted to do was get my rifle back in the fight to cover my buddy and not waste the few rounds by dropping the mag on the deck (or the wasting the time to think about it for that matter). I didn't even think it was a big deal, but both of the instructors that were supervising the drill, and have been on the two way range more often that I, made a huge deal out of it. I understand the point of not taking the time to drop it in a dump pouch in the heat of a fight, but I think since there are no extra movements, keeping it tucked in your front hand is not such a bad call since there are no extra movements and you can still support the rifle fine.

jcustis
01-01-2008, 07:26 PM
but somehow in the interest of saving time, covering my partner, and being focused on maneuvering around certain obstacles, shooting on the move, and communicating with him, and having cleared a stoppage, I didn't even notice that I never dropped my other mag and still had it in my front hand until I went to reload again. In the heat of the moment, all I wanted to do was get my rifle back in the fight to cover my buddy and not waste the few rounds by dropping the mag on the deck (or the wasting the time to think about it for that matter). I didn't even think it was a big deal, but both of the instructors that were supervising the drill, and have been on the two way range more often that I, made a huge deal out of it. I understand the point of not taking the time to drop it in a dump pouch in the heat of a fight, but I think since there are no extra movements, keeping it tucked in your front hand is not such a bad call since there are no extra movements and you can still support the rifle fine.


That's an interesting observation in itself. So it wasn't until the next reload came that you realized it was there. I suppose with 10 rounds left, it could have gone back into the mag well at that reload...

Your post brought me back to the thoughts I had after posting #138 above, and my thinking is a bit influenced now by the "what would Lance Corporal Binotz do?" I'm no gunfighting guru, but I do feel that I have a solid enough head on my shoulders to be able to think through a tactical problem while chewing gum. Some of the Binotz's I've observed through my travels cannot do the same, and despite all the rote training we try to put them through, they will never be able to achieve that "thinking man's game" level of consciousness. Soooo...perhaps it is better to maintain simple rules in terms of dropping/retaining magazines through drill-intensive training, and make them hard and fast so that the lowest common denominator doesn't have to think.

Perhaps that's some of the driving force behind gunfighting theory (if there is any out there). Set up simple rules that allow the individual to survive first contact and then hopefully the remainder of the team/squad can bring fires to bear to resolve the situation. Once the immediate situation is resolved, it's time to police up your mags and frags and move to the next fight. There's a certain degree of fault with this though, and I've seen it rear its ugly head in the realm of tactical training. Much of it is law enforcement two-man team (responding officer and backup) and SWAT-intensive, but still gets carried over to the new-fangled technique du jour that eventually filters down to the grunt who should probably be focused on other skills, like Drake Shooting. heck, I read SWAT magazine and follow the TTPs put out there, and many of our top trainers get to go to the better tactical schools. The influence is unmistakeable.

Somehow the Marine Corps decided that there was a deficit in the gunfighting ability of Marines at conversational distances, so the enhanced marksmanship program was born. This morphed into the Combat Marksmanship Program and TECOM actually applied additional ammunition against the training requirement. It's a good thing, but I'm still hung up on some of the little things, like the fact that it's a square range with E-silhouettes that don't move, don't react, and are basically squared off to the shooter. There's no prone shooting, no shooting from behind cover, etc., that will probably be more reflective of a combat situation. As a result, I am starting to see 2nd-line pouch setups and manipulation techniques that work fine for the standing fight that the CMP replicates, but are poor for the fire and maneuver fight that the grunt must prepare for as well.

I've been out of the active duty operating forces for some time (but hopefully headed back within the next 6 months), so I can't say for sure that it isn't being taught by the crafty small-unit leaders, but simple things like engaging targets from behind (deep cover), around, or over cover are not taught in the new CMP. I'm talking very basic techniques, like those espoused by the former Col Cooper in Art of the Rifle. Qualifying on Table 1 and 2 of the CMP is the baseline requirement now, but I'm just no so sure that those are the appropriate gunfighting skills we need to train and sustain on. The more I think of it, tremendous quantities of ammunition are expended to prepare our Marines for the possibility that they are going to face an enemy in a close quarters gunfight, where that enemy popped out from a door into the hallway at 5-25m, or dropped his hands after being detained and went for a concealed weapon, or refused to comply during a cordon and search and began to raise a weapon. We have less time now to reinforce those good habits of maneuvering as a team, subordinate to a squad and squad leader, while watching the 300mil safety fan, redistributing ammo during the attack or upon consolidation, and making that snap shot under limited exposure times.

William F. Owen
01-02-2008, 01:57 AM
Well I don't like to get into the this gun, that gun arguments. I come from the "it's a rifle, use it school" and I grew up in the whole SA-80 fiasco, so I've carried the worst. Plus as part of the job, all the small arms companies wine and dine me, let me play with their toys and tell me lies...

Anyhoo

@ G-36. It's a bit big, as 120mm points out, but it is scary reliable, and with the Mil-St 1913 rail and a CCO, instead of the factory sight and carrying handle, I wouldn't quibble over having to use it. Plus the plastic mags take way more abuse than metal ones. - and it's a true ambidex rifle. I'm not sure what the barrel line, sight line difference is, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 30mm greater than an M16A4 with factory sights

@ HK-416/417 - Well there's nothing new here. Gas piston in ARs. Colt has had the same thing for some years, but no one has asked them to build it. You do get HK quality ...and weight.

@ MG-4 - Heavy! - I mean embarrassing heavy for what it is. The AMELI 5.56mm LMG was a huge missed opportunity

@ FN-SCAR. I have had some long talks with FN on this. I'll be honest. I don't get it. It's a modular rifle, built to woo the SF community. ..and it comes in different colours! So you have some rifles for desert and another fo jungle and yet another for arctic? HK is already there. FN Manufacturing keeps doing SF stuff, while Herstal takes the same material and turns out regular Army equipment, like the 7.62mm Minimi instead of the Mk48 Mod 0.

At the end of the day, it's VERY easy to make a light and reliable 5.56mm IW - look at the AR-18!! Still never beaten, and would work just fine today, given a bit of a make over.

The biggest design drivers in IWs are fashion and cost/profit. Nothing to do with what soldiers need.

jcustis
01-02-2008, 02:20 AM
I have had some long talks with FN on this.

PM sent.

Stupendous Man
01-02-2008, 03:47 AM
I had the opportunity, Thursday, to represent my unit at a German shooting range (aka Schuetzenschnur qualification).

It is relevant to the current discussion as a cautionary note. When the Army finally killed the XM-8 modular rifle, the US Army "dodged the bullet", big time.

The HK36, which the XM-8 was modelled after, is NOT a competent combat rifle. The action works fine, but the ergonomics and sighting system is trash. The CQB reflex sight is ridiculously small, has horrible eye relief of about 1.5 inches and you can not get a sight picture, and a cheek weld at the same time, unless you have a looong face. The total height of the rifle, with 30 round magazine inserted is insane, and while the low-mounted barrel reduces felt recoil (As if 5.56 rounds have much recoil at all) You must expose a large part of your anatomy to fire this turkey from behind cover.

"Mickey Mouse Piece of ####" is the highest praise I can find for this abomination. It is obvious that the German Army has no plans, whatsoever to fire this rifle in combat.

On the other hand, the P8 9mm pistol only has one, significant fault, that I could see from my somewhat limited shooting experience: The range meister wanted it back, after I had fired it. I thought he was being unreasonable and even the persuasive and logically consistent "finders, keepers" argument did not work on him. The range was bermed in, so I couldn't just try to run off with it, either.

So, in summary, HK G36/M-8 = BAD, HK P8 = GOOD.
As far as the optics in the G36 are concerned, I have to largely agree with your assessment. Classical example of "designed by committee", one might say and especially perplexing considering what was already available on the civilian market at the time. One point that perhaps should be additionally mentioned is that the reflex sight is very susceptible to adverse conditions and easily fogs up. Those German units who have a say concerning their armament like KS-Kp, FJ-Recce etc. almost uniformly utilize EOTechs or Aimpoints instead.
However, proper cheek weld or rather the absence of it seems to be an aspect of lesser importance to me with regards to the short distances the reflex sight is ought to be employed within. Similarly high riding setups like eg. a piggyback ELCAN(ACOG...)/Docter sight are as far as I know very popular with competitive shooters. The rifle itself sporadically exhibits POI shifts (in the MOA range) during extreme temperature changes which has rendered it unpopular with civilian shooters here. Of course, this will not be an overwhelming concern in military applications. In addition, the magazine lips apparently wear out after a decade or so and seem to cause FTFs. Apart from that the G36 has been received fairly well in the Bundeswehr, barring the ubiqutious .308/.223 argument from many that have grown accustomed to the G3. All that said, I do not particularly like the rifle in its present, issued shape, and prefer AR 15-style ergonomics, but it still has quite endearing qualities, such as its extremely high reliability and ease of maintenance.
On a sidenote, the ergonomics of the XM-8 (mag release) are somewhat different from the G 36 which you can see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63cxeEq5gUk
Oh, and I really dislike the P8, but that is another story.
Cheers,
Richard

kaur
01-03-2008, 12:50 PM
Nice reading about dust test.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2008/01/extreme-dust-test-m4-and-others.html

FL-CRACKER
01-03-2008, 03:27 PM
Have any of you gents ran one of the new .458's that Rock River Arms is putting out (upper receiver for the M4)? I saw a write up about them in "Leatherneck" last month. Seems like a solid round.

RJ
02-07-2008, 02:24 PM
Great discussion Gentlemen! Here is a little historical house keeping.

Moros in the PI's did take drugs, but also bound up their testes with wet lether and as it shrank it numbed their pain receptors to the point that they didn't feel hits by the small calaber pistols in use by the US Army. The .45 long revolver was available in the early 1900's but was huge and olny held 6 rounds. The 1911 .45 auto was more compact and held 8 rounds. It would knock down a charging Moro with a machete with one shot to the body center and if you hit him in the shoulder or hip it would deflect his charge away from you and give you an opportunity to shoot him again.

Capt. Bruce Fairbain was a police officer in Shanghi in the 1930's when he developed his fighting knife and published a manual for its use. I remember buying one when I was in Hong Kong in 1959. The original Fairbain Fighting Knives has a brass handle. The handle is topped with a round ball securing the heavy handle to the tang. It could be used to side slam an opponent in the temple if you were wrapped up too close and couldn't get the angle or space needed to use the blade. The WWII British versions were made with lead handles.

On a personal note the M3A3 was my T/O weapon when I was in the 2nd Recon Bn, 2ndMarDiv. back in the day before The DAY. :)

Recon were the only Marines who wore Cammy's then. And they were Battalion Issue and when you left the unit they had to be turned into the BN Supply Sgt. They were the Tan/Lt. Green and Brown WWII pattern. Very old and very "Salty" in their day.

Sec Def Mac Namara trooped the line of the 6th Marine Regt. one fine sunny day in Camp LeJune and my platoon was drawn up on the far right of the that regimental formation. Mac Namara was trooping the line in a jeep modified for that purpose when he spotted the small cammy clad bunch of us with our grease guns.

He stopped and inspected our exoitic group and when he came up to me he asked if I new who manufactured my sub machine gun. I brought it up to port arms and flipped the cover open and said in a load and proud voice "The Acme Toy Coumpany in Newark, NJ, SIR!/". And pointed to the Acme Logo on the inside of the ejection port cover.

So much for my 1 second of fame. :rolleyes:

AdamG
02-07-2008, 04:27 PM
Not mentioned in this thread yet is the 7.62x39 Stoner SR-47
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=229

and some background on the SCARS
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1281576.html?page=5

jcustis
05-31-2008, 02:10 AM
I am currently out at the Marine Corps' OIF train-up at Exercise Mojave Viper, and I'm not impressed by the current state of affairs with weapons-handling among the masses (which I am about to return to shortly).

I guess the advent of optics for every Marine's rifle now means that you can wear the rifle like a purse on the end of some $5 jacked up PX sling, with little or no regard to how the weapon dangles and bangs around your body. Heaven forbid that we should all pretend to care for our new PEQ-15 aiming devices too.

And don't get me started on the employment of clearing barrels in front of the chow hall, exchange, gym, etc. I have not observed one NCO, SNCO, or officer doing their job, which should be enforcing proper supervision of two-man clearing procedures. It's almost an afterthought by most troops to dip the barrel in, pull back the charging handle, and peek inside the chamber. For some of these cats, they haven't been around ammunition for days, so the practical task of dropping a magazine, extracting a round, etc., is totally lost. It's no wonder that negligent discharges still take lives overseas, because we are not doing the basics very well...and not many people seem to be keying in on the failure. Don't get me wrong though, folks know who's not wearing their glo-belt when not in full unifrom or PT gear. And heaven forbid you should be caught without a water source.:wry:

Ken, you'd probably have blown a blood vessel by now. The basics aren't happening right now, and I've come close myself.

selil
05-31-2008, 03:18 AM
Having been the "victim" of an AD I kind of get pissed around sloppy weapons handling. Maybe why I avoid it like the plague. In my case the person involved stuck the barrel haphazardly into the and can and pulled the trigger before clearing it. The round went around the can, came out in pieces, came across the range in a spray, and took a bite of my right cheek (as in below my eye ball). Another officer got the very tip of his nose hit. Pulling the fragment out of their had to hurt like a ..... Mine fell out.

I'm kind of sensitive about weapons handling ever since.

How do you get them to understand without shooting them all in the foot?

Sometime I'll tell you the story over a beer about the lead ball ammo and the new curved base metal targets.

Tom Odom
05-31-2008, 01:25 PM
I am currently out at the Marine Corps' OIF train-up at Exercise Mojave Viper, and I'm not impressed by the current state of affairs with weapons-handling among the masses (which I am about to return to shortly).

I guess the advent of optics for every Marine's rifle now means that you can wear the rifle like a purse on the end of some $5 jacked up PX sling, with little or no regard to how the weapon dangles and bangs around your body. Heaven forbid that we should all pretend to care for our new PEQ-15 aiming devices too.

And don't get me started on the employment of clearing barrels in front of the chow hall, exchange, gym, etc. I have not observed one NCO, SNCO, or officer doing their job, which should be enforcing proper supervision of two-man clearing procedures. It's almost an afterthought by most troops to dip the barrel in, pull back the charging handle, and peek inside the chamber. For some of these cats, they haven't been around ammunition for days, so the practical task of dropping a magazine, extracting a round, etc., is totally lost. It's no wonder that negligent discharges still take lives overseas, because we are not doing the basics very well...and not many people seem to be keying in on the failure. Don't get me wrong though, folks know who's not wearing their glo-belt when not in full unifrom or PT gear. And heaven forbid you should be caught without a water source.:wry:

Ken, you'd probably have blown a blood vessel by now. The basics aren't happening right now, and I've come close myself.

We did a pretty good study of NDs here over the course of a year. Interesting and in some cases surpsing results. You can find it in the CTC Bulletins on the CALL web site. Look in 2007 editions.

Tom

Norfolk
05-31-2008, 05:33 PM
Having been the "victim" of an AD I kind of get pissed around sloppy weapons handling. Maybe why I avoid it like the plague. In my case the person involved stuck the barrel haphazardly into the and can and pulled the trigger before clearing it. The round went around the can, came out in pieces, came across the range in a spray, and took a bite of my right cheek (as in below my eye ball). Another officer got the very tip of his nose hit. Pulling the fragment out of their had to hurt like a ..... Mine fell out.

I'm kind of sensitive about weapons handling ever since.

How do you get them to understand without shooting them all in the foot?

There was a day when soldiers feared - and I mean to use that very word - what would happen to them if they mishandled their weapon, let alone the consequences of having an AD/ND. This isn't just about training basics, or the lack thereof, it's about discipline too, of course.

Part of that has to do with being in an essentially peace-time force, even though it spends up to half its time in a nominal war-zone - part of the difference between fighting a counter-insurgency on the one hand, or a full-fledged conventional war on the other, perhaps. A counterinsurgency war is just "low-intensity" enough for most troops to avoid major combat operations day-in and day-out and so to kind of cut corners, but 'high-intensity" enough to require those very high standards of training and discipline when MCOs do take place. Can encourage spottiness in-theatre, and just plain sloughing-off once back home for a stretch.

It doesn't help any that quite a few NCOs are fairly young, still less when junior officers are by definition usually fairly young themselves. A degree of self-discipline and maturity - and of course experience - tends to be lacking as a result. It is not impossible for a Corporal to still be in his teens, or a Sergeant to be in his early twenties. In a major concentional war, that isn't as much of a problem after the first little while, because those who are left often turn into training and discipline fanatics in order to survive. In an unconventional war, the same sort of "cull" doesn't quite take place the same and is rather more limited, so bad habits are not as likely to meet with their ultimate sanction, unless of course one finds oneself in extended MCOs such as in the Battles of Fallujah and other places in the Sunni Triangle. Those who make it through those battles and campaigns have a lot less tolerance than many of their peers who do not endure such experiences in the same theatre of operations.

NCOs in Commonwealth Armies normally have a fair bit of experience, and are significantly older too, during peacetime or LIC, and it helps, plus officers tend to be as well. Majors command Companies, and specialist Platoons (Recce, Pioneer, AT, Mortar, Machine-Gun, etc.) are commanded by Captains. A Corporal (or in Canada, a Master-Corporal, the rank of Corporal nowadays being just the old rank of Lance-Corporal, which was formally abolished in the late 1960's) normally has 6 years or more of service before receiving rank, and is at least 22 or 23, though more usually in his mid-twenties. A Sergeant normally has at least 9 years' service before reaching his rank (there are few regular Sergeants who are not at least in their late 20's), and most Sergeants are in their thirties. In peacetime or LIC, that can make a big difference in the ability to enforce discipline. In major conventional war it doesn't make as much of a difference, since most of those experienced NCO's (and officers) are amongst the first to die anyway, and you're left with the more motivated junior survivors to handle things.

Wagram
07-30-2008, 03:15 PM
Has shown by this picture

http://raids.histoireetcollections.com/publication-2129-raids-n-266-juillet-2008.html

the french army SF DA unit (1er RPIMa) has received its first HK 416; HK 417 should soon follow. They will replace FAMAS and limited standard Colt 723/733 and SIG 551 used by this unit

120mm
07-31-2008, 06:50 AM
It should be interesting to note that EOTech sights (as pictured on top of that Hk 416) are having all sorts of reliability/QC/standing up under hard use problems.

I know that the Polish troopers who come through JMRC are equipped, by and large with folding stock Tantal AKs and an EOTech over the gas tube. I haven't heard anything bad from them, btw.

But according to Pat Rogers, a rather learned man in the tactical rifle field, the premature failure rate of EOTech 55X series sights are approaching 100% in anything near to field use, according to his extensive and personal observation. (I'm looking for a link that isn't behind a sign-in on this)

The currently US-issued CCO, though, is as close to "bulletproof" as one can find in an electronic sight.

120mm
07-31-2008, 07:02 AM
I think this might do the trick. The US gov't has had it with L3 EOTech's crap, evidently:

Decision

Matter of: L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc.

File: B-311453; B-311453.2

Date: July 14, 2008

<I snipped a bunch of people's names to make it fit>

DIGEST

Protester’s challenge to the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range based on the failure of its bid sample during testing to satisfy an “essential criteria” is denied, where the solicitation advised offerors that the failure to satisfy an “essential criteria” would result in elimination of the proposal from the competition, the agency’s testing method was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation instructions, and the protester’s complaint about the test failure was related to its inadequately written proposal.

DECISION


L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-07-R-0428, issued by the U.S. Army Materiel Command for “Close Combat Optics” to be used with M16A2 rifles. L-3 asserts that the agency performed flawed testing on its proposed sight and mount and improperly rejected its proposal.


We deny the protest.


The RFP sought “Close Combat Optics,” that is, optical sights with mounts, to be used as fire control devices on M16A2 rifles, M16A4 rifles, and M4 carbines. RFP sect. C.2. These systems were to be procured through award of a fixed-price indefinite‑delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a 5-year base period with two 1-year option periods. Id. sect. B. The RFP instructed each offeror to submit a written proposal, as well as a bid sample that would be tested against numerous criteria described in the solicitation.


The solicitation provided for award on a “best value” basis, considering the evaluation factors of bid sample, quality system, equipment/production, price, performance risk, and small disadvantaged business participation. With regard to the bid sample factor, which was the most important factor, offerors were advised that the bid samples first would be tested against 15 “essential criteria,” each of which would be rated on a “pass/fail” basis, and only samples that passed all of the “essential criteria” would be tested against 7 additional “rated criteria.” Id. sect. M para. B. In this regard, section M of the RFP stated in three places language essentially identical to the following:

A failure in any one or more of the essential criteria as stated shall be cause for elimination from further consideration for award and [the] offeror[’]s submission will not be further evaluated.
Id. sect. M paras. A, C.1.0, C.1.1.


At issue in this protest is the evaluation of optical sights for the M16A2 rifles. In response to the solicitation, seven proposals and bid samples from four offerors were submitted for the M16A2 rifles. With the bid samples, offerors were required to submit commercial off-the-shelf manuals, each of which included mounting instructions. RFP sect. L; Mounting Instructions. Six of the samples, including L-3’s, failed the “endurance-live fire” test, which was one of the “essential criteria.”[1] This test required that bid samples be mounted on the M16A2 rifle, withstand a 6,000 round endurance firing with no physical damage, and maintain a “zero within 1 Gunner’s mil upon completion of [the] endurance test.” Id. sect. M para. C.1.1.10. Based on this failure, the agency determined that L-3’s sample was unacceptable and eliminated L‑3’s proposal from the competition. This protest followed.


L-3 contends that the agency’s endurance-live fire test was flawed. In this regard, the protester asserts that the only reason its optical sight sample failed the endurance-live fire test was because the agency failed to properly secure the locking nut that tightens the mount to the weapon. L-3 contends that the agency improperly hand‑tightened the nut when it should have used a tool, such as a hex key, to secure the locking nut before conducting the test. L-3 asserts that it should have been “obvious” to the agency that a tool was required from the locking nut’s design and that it is “common knowledge” in the industry that a tool is required for these types of locking nuts. Protest at 7-8.


Our Office will review an allegedly improper technical evaluation of product samples to determine whether the evaluation was fair, reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. We will not make an independent determination of the merits of an offeror’s proposal; rather, we will review the evaluation record to ensure that the agency’s technical judgment has a rational basis and is consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Optical Sys. Tech., Inc., B-296516.2, B-296516.3, Mar. 17, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 63 at 5; Sun Chem. Corp., B-288466 et al., Oct. 17, 2001, 2001 CPD para.185 at 7.


Here, the agency explains that the design of the locking nut (with “knurled” ridges) on the submitted bid sample suggested to it that hand-tightening was the appropriate tightening method,[2] and the agency further explains that its own experience has shown that over‑tightening the locking nut with a tool can damage the optic or optic mount.[3] The agency also notes that each of the other offerors submitted mounting instructions that identified when hand-tightening was appropriate, when tools were required, what tool was to be used, and how to use the tool to tighten the particular nut, screw, or bolt. For example, when tools were required, offerors included specific instructions for what component the tool should be used with and, where appropriate, described the number of turns or amount of force to be applied.[4] Agency Report at 9, 11-12; Mounting Instructions. However, with respect to the optical sight for the M16A2 rifle, L-3’s proposal failed to include any instruction that a tool was required; the proposal merely stated, “Secure the locking nut.” Id. at 7-8; Mounting Instructions at 25. Without such an instruction, the agency or user could reasonably conclude that hand-tightening L‑3’s knurled ridge locking nut was the appropriate method to secure the sight mount.[5]

As we have often stated, an offeror must submit an adequately written proposal or it runs the risk of having its proposal rejected as unacceptable. Dynamic Mktg. Servs., Inc., B-279697, July 13, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 84 at 6. Here, the complaint raised by L-3 concerning the endurance-live fire test was the result of its failure to identify how its locking nut was to be tightened, and not because of agency error. Under these circumstances, we cannot find the agency’s testing approach unreasonable. [6]


L-3 nevertheless asserts that its test failure was not design related, but was the result only of a “minor informational deficiency” that could have been corrected easily by asking L-3 whether a tool was required to properly tighten the nut. L-3 contends that given this minor issue and the fact that this was the only one of the “essential criteria” that its sample failed to satisfy, the agency should allow L‑3 to correct the informational deficiency and repeat the pass/fail test, especially because the failure to do so resulted in the establishment of a competitive range of one. Supp. Protest and Comments at 9.


Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) permits an agency to limit the competitive range to only the “most highly rated proposals” and does not require that discussions be held with offerors that are not included in the competitive range.[7] FAR sections 15.306(c)(1), (d)(1). We have held that there is nothing inherently improper in a competitive range of one where the agency has a reasonable basis for its competitive range determination. M&M Investigations, Inc., B‑299369.2, B-299369.3, Oct. 24, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 200 at 3. As indicated above, this RFP clearly established the ground rules for testing the samples as well as the consequences--“elimination from further consideration for award”--for offerors whose proposed bid sample failed any one of the 15 “essential criteria.” Given these ground rules, we cannot find unreasonable the agency’s decision to exclude L-3’s proposal and bid sample from the competitive range where, as here, the proposal failed an “essential criteria” test and the only complaint about this failure is related to L-3’s inadequately drafted proposal, and not because of agency error or flawed testing.[8] See California Microwave, Inc., B-229489, Feb. 24, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 189 at 6.


L-3 also asks us to consider that the optical sight of the only offeror in the competitive range (Aimpoint) experienced test failures, which require design changes that L‑3 asserts are more significant than the informational deficiency that caused L-3’s test failure. However, the test failures experienced by the Aimpoint bid sample occurred with the “rated criteria,” which, as defined by the RFP, were only evaluated after the bid sample passed all of the “essential criteria”; Aimpont’s bid sample passed all of the “essential criteria.” In contrast, L-3’s failure occurred under the “essential criteria” and required no further evaluation. The agency has persuasively explained why the Aimpoint test failures were easily correctible without a need to retest the optical sight under these “essential criteria,” and, since the RFP allowed for discussions to occur on “rated criteria” failures, we find no error in the agency’s actions here.


In sum, we find that L-3’s proposal was properly eliminated from the competitive range in accordance with the unambiguous ground rules of the RFP.


The protest is denied.


Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel

SethB
07-31-2008, 09:30 AM
Pat on the EOTech.

1 (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=386932&page=2)

2 (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=387710)

William F. Owen
07-31-2008, 09:35 AM
The currently US-issued CCO, though, is as close to "bulletproof" as one can find in an electronic sight.

You may want to look at the Elbit Falcon. It's on about 50% of the M-16 Carbines and Galils over here, and I've also seen it on the weapons carried by the current combat units. Most have been hammered and have all the blacking knocked off them, but they still work. Been around for more than 12 years, IRRC.

The Tavors all seem to have Meprolight (http://www.meprolight.com/) sights on them - but not really played with them, so not sure how robust they are.

SethB
07-31-2008, 10:13 AM
A quick search of the internet revealed that the Elbit Falcon is a ~20 year old design that is being phased out of service. Although it is in fact known for durability.

The Aimpoint T1 Micro is lighter, smaller and the battery life is 200 times longer.

Compact ACOGs are pretty nice for those who don't like batteries.

gute
07-04-2009, 05:27 AM
With the talk of the soldier's load and the need for a more effective combat round then the 5.56 it seems obvious a new assault rifle or a modified M16/M4 is needed.

You all are probably familiar with the FN P90 and maybe the new Magpul PDR. How about blending the two - keeping the FN mag and feed & ejection system and the Magpul's pistol grip and modular lower receiver? The P90 fires 5.7x28 which is not an effective all purpose combat round, but how about cased 6.8 SPC? Add two inches to the barrel making it 12.4 an infantryman would have a compact, bigger caliber, light weight assault rifle - thoughts?

Now, I know there is no bayonet and no front and rear sights - I'm sure something could be figured out. From what I know about the FN 90 and what I have read about the cased ammunition by AAI and the LSAT program, I think 50 rds of cased 6.8 SPC would be about a pound or a little over. Put that in this rifle (or sub-gun) I think you have a weapon that can effectively engage out to 300+ and most definately do more damage in the CQB enviroment. I have never fired 6.8 SPC so I do not know if it would be controllable in such a small weapon, but I like my idea, which I'm sure someone else thought of.

We use Rock River AR's for entry work - I really like the weapon, but there is too much barrel (16 inch) for CQB. The Rock Rivers are really handy for outdoor marijuana grow enforcement operations, but I would like to have the P90 or Magpul PDR for the in house stuff.

William F. Owen
07-04-2009, 08:29 AM
With the talk of the soldier's load and the need for a more effective combat round then the 5.56 it seems obvious a new assault rifle or a modified M16/M4 is needed.


It may seem obvious, but I don't see it. 5.56mm may have short-comings compared to other rounds, but so what? Unless infantry operations are actually impeded or less effective, because of the weapon they use, then this argument becomes academic.

Yes, you are exactly right better use needs to be made of the carried load, but that line of reasoning could actually point towards more FN P-90 and MP-7A1, than a better M4, with a bigger round.
I believe that the correct use and application of the MIL-STD-1913 rails system can have far greater effect than mucking about with new rounds.

Ken White
07-04-2009, 02:55 PM
...I believe that the correct use and application of the MIL-STD-1913 rails system can have far greater effect than mucking about with new rounds.I'd go the other way -- you can dispense with the rail and tech solutions and save money and training time by simply and cheaply getting a round with greater effective impact. Terminal ballistics count and the laws of physics (and physiology...) can't be beaten by better shot placement.

Shot lodgement is affected by too many variables outside the control of the shooter in anything less than ideal circumstances... ;)

Sheesh: Now that's one where some hard data is needed.

You are NOT getting a date with me, hard or otherwise. :D

William F. Owen
07-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I'd go the other way -- you can dispense with the rail and tech solutions and save money and training time by simply and cheaply getting a round with greater effective impact. Terminal ballistics count and the laws of physics (and physiology...) can't be beaten by better shot placement.


Well I merely going to suggest,


Bi-pod plus optic sight or TI Sight.
40mm launcher, drop on, drop off.
Laser pointer, to use with NVGs

Now all those would work just as good on a 7.62mm rifle as a 5.56mm rifle, but again, weight becomes an issue.

Ken White
07-04-2009, 04:28 PM
but I also think they could be built in with little effort and some weight saving. A top rail for an optic that could be changed plus take an add-on NVG /TWS or such would be okay.

Sigh. Everything has to be a compromise... :wry:

jcustis
07-04-2009, 10:04 PM
Well I merely going to suggest,

Bi-pod plus optic sight or TI Sight. I agree with the optic, not so much with the bipod
40mm launcher, drop on, drop off. we can barely train our tm ldrs to stadard due to a lack of ammunition, so this is most likely a non-player in the Marine Corps
Laser pointer, to use with NVGs Every M4/M16 with a rail (and that's all infantry for us) has a PEQ-15 already
Now all those would work just as good on a 7.62mm rifle as a 5.56mm rifle, but again, weight becomes an issue.

One thing I think we definitely need to take a long, harder look at, is the use of rifle grenades, if for just the mere fact that regardless of whether a bullet-trap or blank-fired design is used, making an inert trainer can't be all that difficult, and incredibly more cost-effective than training with 40mm HEDP or TP rounds.

If we want projected HE capability that any shooter can employ, while not burdening the TL or grenadier down with the sole responsibility, how awesome it would be to issue every rifleman an inert RG, then send them out to a hasty range with a few blanks, at least once a quarter. We conduct similar training with pnuematic mortar systems, and it can't be any harder retrieving the device than it is looking for golfballs...even easier in a cleared-out area.

Hmm, I'm starting to sound like Sparks.

Schmedlap
07-04-2009, 10:21 PM
No need for a new weapon. Just feed it the existing weapon the right ammunition. When we started issuing the 5.56MM 77 Grain LR, the results were day and night. Instead of blood trails, we had dead bodies. Soldiers were confident in their weapons, more effective at killing people who needed to die, and tended to fire less because they knew that the round had one-shot stopping power. The only problem was that we simply didn't get enough of the ammo. It was designed (or at least intended) for the "squad designated marksmen." It should have been standard issue for everyone. Not sure how it would work if linked and fired from the SAW.

jcustis
07-04-2009, 10:48 PM
Was that 77 grain the open-tipped round that I had a magazine (and only one magazine) of?

Schmedlap
07-04-2009, 11:08 PM
Was that 77 grain the open-tipped round that I had a magazine (and only one magazine) of?
That's the one. I was only able to obtain about one magazine per rifleman at the team/squad level. Everyone else with an M4 (E-6 & up) got none. It was pretty scarce.

jcustis
07-04-2009, 11:17 PM
That's interesting, because it for sure isn't A059, but that is all that we ever train with. If 55 gr. isn't the most efficient round to be had, I'm a little disappointed that the discussion of using 77 gr. isn't something I hear every small unit leader discussing when it comes to talk of combat marksmanship. I imagine it's because most of us don't know the bit of difference between the two.

Thanks for re-energizing me over that bit of info schmedlap.

Schmedlap
07-05-2009, 12:08 AM
I submitted AARs on the use of the 77 grain round that went all the way to some CW5 in charge of ammo at some echelon above reality. That was in 2005. Apparently he put it in his "to do later" stack and then ETS'd. When I say that the AAR went "all the way to some CW5" I mean that my S-4 forwarded me the lengthy e-mail chain, showing that my AAR went from him, up the S-4/G-4 channels, into some puzzle palace abyss, and ultimately to some guy who had "Ammo Honcho" or something like that in his official title. Everytime that it was forwarded, the forwarder included a comment along the lines of "feedback from our boys downrange" or "good info regarding 77 grain," etc. It was encouraging, but ultimately accomplished nothing, apparently. I even did it in spiffy memo format IAW AR 25-50, to include the neato DoD logo in the upper left corner.

I did the same thing - and got similar results - with AARs on the use of M84 Stun Hand Grenades and 5.56mm 4x1 linked (4 armor piercing: 1 tracer). The consensus among the desk-bound people at every echelon seemed to be "great feedback!" but that was it. No action.

Ken White
07-05-2009, 01:08 AM
and draws objection -- as Churchill said, we usually do the right thing but only after we've tried all other options... :mad:

Check the slide: LINK (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf). Just go for Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier, MK 318 MOD 0 -- DODIC: AB49 NSN: 1305-01-573-2229 :D (If you can get past the SOCOM lock on it...)

Also see this LINK (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42923). That's part of the conflict about which round(s) to buy, how many and for who -- plus the bureaucracy chugs along on slow and keeps buying plain M855. Shouldn't be that hard but it always is.

They do pay attention to things from the field, just takes far longer than it should to get it done and the system isn't primed (as it should be) to come back down and tell you what happened to your idea...

gute
07-05-2009, 01:58 AM
I'm glad someone mentioned the 77 grain 5.56. I work with a guy who fought in Fallujah with the Marine Corps and I asked how the issuse 5.56 performed -he did not like it, said it went through the bad guys instead of smashing bone, etc. He said the 7.62x51 was devestating, but that's no suprise. I later mentioned the 77 grain and he smiled. Seems many of them brought there own and it was much more effective. Why it is not being mass produced and issued is beyond me. The 77 grain may be the reason the 6.8 did not go further with the SF community (besides politics). Any word on the performance of the HK416 and SCAR in combat? How about the new AAI LSAT rifle (not LMG) that is being developed?

Oh, Mr. Owen great book. Please do another.

Schmedlap
07-05-2009, 05:05 AM
That's part of the conflict about which round(s) to buy, how many and for who -- plus the bureaucracy chugs along on slow and keeps buying plain M855. Shouldn't be that hard but it always is.

Understood, but the answer to "which round" and "for who" have already been answered. As for "how many"... MORE. It's been 4 years. That's slow even by Army standards. It seems like they're reinventing a very high performance wheel and planning to mount it after the race is over.


Check the slide: LINK (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf). Just go for Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier, MK 318 MOD 0 -- DODIC: AB49 NSN: 1305-01-573-2229 :D (If you can get past the SOCOM lock on it...)

Case in point: that is not the round that we used. That is something new. Why are they bothering with this? The stuff they issued us (in small quantities) in 2005 worked great. It was accurate, so far as we could tell (almost all engagements were 25 meters or less) and it knocked people down with one shot. Why do they need to fix what isn't broken? Just give us more... oh, wait, I forgot. It's the Army. Just like the Marine camouflage. Rather than just taking that idea and running with it, we waste time and R&D producing a similar, yet inferior Army version. This ammo snafu is bad even for the Army - we already have the fricken round. Buy more and issue it! WTF???:confused:

Ken White
07-05-2009, 05:25 AM
The round you used and commented on was the Mk262 -- it's being used by SOCOM and the Marines. The Army has too much old stuff in the pipeline. That and as you pointed out, the 'not invented here' syndrome. Yes, it is stupid. Parochialism is just dumb. :(

That new one, the Mk318 was developed specifically for SOCOM and the SCAR in CQB model (the 10" Barrel), they'll use the Mk 262 Mod 1 for everything else. In the mean time, SOCOM and the Marines will get ripped off and trade with the Army so a few Soldiers will have green tip rounds. ;)

And everyone including SOCOM and the Marines plus friends, allies, romans and countrymen will have to help fire off the gazillions of M855 we bought and are buying LINK (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/atk-receives-42-million-in-military-small-caliber-ammunition-orders). No quantities but you can pretty well bet the 5.56 will be 855 or relatives 'cause Black Hills has the Mk 262 contract...:wry:

Until we get the new lead - free really GREEN rounds... :rolleyes:

William F. Owen
07-05-2009, 05:29 AM
Oh, Mr. Owen great book. Please do another.
Many thanks for that. I think I might try.

Schmedlap
07-05-2009, 05:32 AM
And everyone including SOCOM and the Marines plus friends, allies, romans and countrymen will have to help fire off the gazillions of M855 we bought and are buying LINK (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/atk-receives-42-million-in-military-small-caliber-ammunition-orders). No quantities but you can pretty well bet the 5.56 will be 855 or relatives 'cause Black Hills has the Mk 262 contract...:wry:
Well, I did my part. Just before I PCS'd from that battalion in 2006, one of my last official acts as acting S-3 was to successfully push through an ammo request for (literally) over 1 million rounds of 5.56mm for small arms gunnery. There were lots of flabbergasted folks who demanded lots of paperwork and justifications, but I produced it and my retiring BN Cdr was happy to back me up. They made it sound like there was an Army-wide shortage of 5.56. I hope they were right, so that we can finally get rid of this crap and replace with something that has some stopping power.

Surferbeetle
07-05-2009, 05:45 AM
And everyone including SOCOM and the Marines plus friends, allies, romans and countrymen will have to help fire off the gazillions of M855 we bought and are buying LINK (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/atk-receives-42-million-in-military-small-caliber-ammunition-orders). No quantities but you can pretty well bet the 5.56 will be 855 or relatives 'cause Black Hills has the Mk 262 contract...:wry:

Until we get the new lead - free really GREEN rounds... :rolleyes:

I was involved in an indoor range clean up (lead levels through the roof...surprise, surprise) and an outdoor range cleanup (mining the backstop berms so that the high water table at the site would no longer be impacted) perhaps ten years ago. Anyway, the new GREEN rounds at that time, if I remember correctly, were also bad news...I wanna say cadmium, but I am not 100% on that. Maybe we need to go to those much talked about ice rounds...alright back to listening mode. Happy 4th everybody.

William F. Owen
07-05-2009, 07:42 AM
They made it sound like there was an Army-wide shortage of 5.56. I hope they were right, so that we can finally get rid of this crap and replace with something that has some stopping power.

I have heard, though not seen the data, the US Army used more 5.56mm in one year in Irag, than all the all the 30-06, they fired in the Pacific Campaign from 1943-45.

Considering there are well recorded cases of troops carrying as little as 50-rounds on Oki and Iwo, that may not be that far fetched.

Uboat509
07-05-2009, 09:58 PM
I was involved in an indoor range clean up (lead levels through the roof...surprise, surprise) and an outdoor range cleanup (mining the backstop berms so that the high water table at the site would no longer be impacted) perhaps ten years ago. Anyway, the new GREEN rounds at that time, if I remember correctly, were also bad news...I wanna say cadmium, but I am not 100% on that. Maybe we need to go to those much talked about ice rounds...alright back to listening mode. Happy 4th everybody.

I could be wrong but I think that we had the green rounds for a while and they were for training only. That's fine with me. We can save the good stuff (my lungs and the 5.56LR rounds) for war. The difference in ballistics won't make much difference at CQC range (3-10 Meters). Of course, when training at longer ranges where differences in ballistic characteristics matters you have to use the good stuff.

There was another 5.56 round that we used in Germany for a while. It was all the rage with the guys who had used it down range in OIF but it was eventually discovered that in cold weather the brass had a nasty habit of rupturing in the chamber. I may have that backwards, I never actually got to use them, but the point is that these rounds were great in one environment and prone to catastrophic failure in the other.

SFC W

Schmedlap
07-05-2009, 11:13 PM
I could be wrong but I think that we had the green rounds for a while and they were for training only.
That is my understanding, too. When I did EIB testing as a 2LT in 1999 (remember that quaint old badge?), we qualified with tungsten, Earth-friendly ammunition. So, even if you didn't get your EIB, you could still feel good about having not harmed Mother Earth. It was quite a contrast to earning our CIB's a few years later, using very Earth-unfriendly depleted uranium 25mm. But it could have been worse - we didn't kill any desert tortoises or disturb any red-cocaded woodpecker nests.

Surferbeetle
07-06-2009, 12:37 AM
That is my understanding, too. When I did EIB testing as a 2LT in 1999 (remember that quaint old badge?), we qualified with tungsten, Earth-friendly ammunition. So, even if you didn't get your EIB, you could still feel good about having not harmed Mother Earth. It was quite a contrast to earning our CIB's a few years later, using very Earth-unfriendly depleted uranium 25mm. But it could have been worse - we didn't kill any desert tortoises or disturb any red-cocaded woodpecker nests.

1989 was the magic year. After three years I switched gears, became a tech, and spent ten years sampling, conducting chemical analysis, planning abatement's, doing spill response, cost estimating, and scheduling for toxic and hazardous substance projects (half-face, full-face, papr, scba, tyvek, saranex, and butyl rubber) which left some muscle memory for this non-EIB, five jump chump, who picked up a CAB the hard way (didn't get hurt though). I have been dabbling as an engineer in Hydraulics & Hydrology and Geotech (design, cost estimating, scheduling, project management) for the last 7, it's a lot easier on the old system than the industrial environmental stuff.

Lead has been around for a long, long time and I see no reason for changing things for this particular application...apply 'appropriate engineering controls transparent to the user' for the ranges and life goes on.


I could be wrong but I think that we had the green rounds for a while and they were for training only. That's fine with me. We can save the good stuff (my lungs and the 5.56LR rounds) for war. The difference in ballistics won't make much difference at CQC range (3-10 Meters). Of course, when training at longer ranges where differences in ballistic characteristics matters you have to use the good stuff.

There was another 5.56 round that we used in Germany for a while. It was all the rage with the guys who had used it down range in OIF but it was eventually discovered that in cold weather the brass had a nasty habit of rupturing in the chamber. I may have that backwards, I never actually got to use them, but the point is that these rounds were great in one environment and prone to catastrophic failure in the other.

SFC W

It looks so deceptively simple, it's just metal and its tougher than duct tape. But then, as you correctly note, temperature, time, pressure, pH and gas compositions in the chamber/barrel and other items that I am not aware of all have their say. We goofed around with steel and aluminum in some of my classes in order to pick up on some of the common topics in materials: stress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_stress#Stress_in_one-dimensional_bodies), strain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)), modulus of elasticity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulus_of_elasticity), poisson's ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_ratio), hooke's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law), etc., etc. It helps me look at carbon fiber arrows, motorcycle frames, engines, helicopters, and of course weapons in a new light... :wry: ...so many interesting things so little time.

kaur
07-09-2009, 06:38 PM
I found this video from Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=519FXM1B1as&feature=related

Rest of the parts are on the right hand.

Brandon Friedman
07-09-2009, 09:23 PM
Wish I'd gotten in on this conversation a few days ago. Anyway, I never got to use the 77 gr. ammo for the M4 since I was out before they started issuing it. But as an XO, I had to turn down requests from SLs who wanted permission to patrol with a couple of AKs. Personally, I would've preferred to carry one myself.

If you'll pardon the gratuitous "look-what-we-did" photo, here's an example of why:

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa82/angryrakkasan/iraq199-Copy-2.jpg

This fleeing car containing four gunmen probably took 60-70 5.56 hits to the back windshield from a SAW and a couple of M4s. (Rounds were fired from rear to front.) The result? A single enemy KIA (headshot) and three wounded gunmen who were healthy enough to answer questions during their surgery back at the TOC.

If someone who didn't know anything about the standard 5.56 rounds had surveyed the carnage after the shooting, there's no way the person would believe that three out of four occupants in the car had survived just fine. The moral of this story (and I guess I'm preaching to the choir here) is that you can basically pack a small car full of people, light it up with machine gun fire for 10 or 20 seconds at close range, and still not kill 75 percent of the people in the car.

Your tax dollars at work. Hopefully things have improved significantly since fall 2003.

Umar Al-Mokhtār
07-09-2009, 09:37 PM
Perhaps their survival was the result of the superior efficacy of German (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0WfnhVs2s&feature=channel)engineering... :D

Rex Brynen
07-09-2009, 09:46 PM
Perhaps their survival was the result of the superior efficacy of German (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0WfnhVs2s&feature=channel)engineering... :D

Yes indeed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arfNofxBtfY&feature=related).

(And no, its not a real VW ad (http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/vwpolo.asp).)

Brandon Friedman
07-09-2009, 10:15 PM
Yes indeed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arfNofxBtfY&feature=related).

(And no, its not a real VW ad (http://www.snopes.com/photos/advertisements/vwpolo.asp).)

Umar, Rex, well played. And to think, for nearly six years I've been wrongly cursing those poor 5.56 rounds.

Schmedlap
07-10-2009, 01:12 AM
This fleeing car containing four gunmen probably took 60-70 5.56 hits to the back windshield from a SAW and a couple of M4s. (Rounds were fired from rear to front.) The result? A single enemy KIA (headshot) and three wounded gunmen who were healthy enough to answer questions during their surgery back at the TOC.

If someone who didn't know anything about the standard 5.56 rounds had surveyed the carnage after the shooting, there's no way the person would believe that three out of four occupants in the car had survived just fine. The moral of this story (and I guess I'm preaching to the choir here) is that you can basically pack a small car full of people, light it up with machine gun fire for 10 or 20 seconds at close range, and still not kill 75 percent of the people in the car.

To be fair, I could say the same about a vehicle that we pumped full of 25mm HE in 2005. I'll be damned if I can figure out how the three occupants not only survived, but were healthy enough to try to run away. The car looked like it was drug from the ashes of a bonfire. I think the real moral is that, in war, weird things that defy explanation often occur.

Side note - we found that 5.56 AP rounds were more effective at stopping cars because they tended to maintain their trajectory after piercing the windshield, rather than being deflected, like 5.56 ball. Some of our Ranger Alumni insisted that we put a ceramic round through the glass first. Yeah, I'm sure those will be coming down the supply chain anytime now.:rolleyes: We also made sure that each SAW gunner had a pouch of 5.56 AP (4x1 mix, with tracer). That was good for firing into the engine blocks. Unfortunately, just as with most of the good stuff, it was only authorized for SF at the time, so our BN Ammo NCO had to work some dope deals to obtain it for us.

Uboat509
07-10-2009, 01:36 AM
That's one of the reasons that after we managed to get our hands on 5.56LR that we mixed green tip and LR in our mags. I personally usually loaded two green-tip for every one LR. I would have preferred one to one but we had a lot more green tip than LR.

SFC W

Brandon Friedman
07-10-2009, 05:58 AM
I think the real moral is that, in war, weird things that defy explanation often occur.

I have no idea why that is, but it's so true. So I'll expound on the story above a bit: We pulled one guy out of the front passenger seat after the shooting. A 5.56 round had grazed the left side of his head, but otherwise, he was fine. I mean he was talking, wearing his new zip-ties, etc. So I walked over to the car and looked inside. The seat from which I'd just watched my guys pull him was absolutely peppered with bullet holes. Like maybe a dozen. The stuffing was coming out. Like it had been used for target practice. I looked back at him, then back at the seat, then back at him again, and then back at the seat. How is it possible that he come out of it with no holes and relatively unscathed? No idea. It's one of those things that you're talking about. You just acknowledge, accept, and move on.

Oh, and another time in Afghanistan an F-16 dropped a 2,000-lb. JDAM on my platoon and it didn't detonate. That was weird.

I could tell stories all night, but I need to get some sleep.

William F. Owen
07-10-2009, 06:08 AM
If someone who didn't know anything about the standard 5.56 rounds had surveyed the carnage after the shooting, there's no way the person would believe that three out of four occupants in the car had survived just fine. The moral of this story (and I guess I'm preaching to the choir here) is that you can basically pack a small car full of people, light it up with machine gun fire for 10 or 20 seconds at close range, and still not kill 75 percent of the people in the car.


Actually I see nothing that surprising here. All bar the driver, probably dropped down behind the bodywork, and were relatively safe.

5.56mm always has had real problems with cover. When SA-80 was issued, some UK Patrols in South Armagh retained GPMGs just to stop cars. If you look at the Loughall Ambush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_IRA_East_Tyrone_Brigade), 90% of the killing was done by GPMG, because the SAS's HK-53s simply were not going to stop any vehicles.

Schmedlap
07-10-2009, 10:07 PM
Actually I see nothing that surprising here. All bar the driver, probably dropped down behind the bodywork, and were relatively safe.

Looking at the photo, that was my hunch, too. I was always taught that the first thing you do in an egress from an unarmored vehicle is to duck beneath the windows because most people shoot at the windows, not the metal. That alone increases your odds of survival dramatically. The driver seems the least likely to duck down, since he needs to see where he's driving (though Iraqis aren't exactly well known for safe driving).

Schmedlap
07-10-2009, 10:15 PM
Oh, and another time in Afghanistan an F-16 dropped a 2,000-lb. JDAM on my platoon and it didn't detonate. That was weird.
I have called in or been in close proximity to 2 airstrikes by a British Tornado and 3 Hellfire launches by Apache's. Both Tornado's dropped duds and 2 out of the 3 Hellfires were duds. Also was with a group of Soldiers, smoking cigarettes in our patrol base, surrounded by cement walls at least 10 feet high, and an RPG round landed right in the middle of us - don't even know what direction it came from - it just smacked into the ground in front of us all. Dud.

The duds from the Tornado's and Apaches were directed at the enemy - no real danger to us. That RPG round - we just kind of stared it for a minute and then slowly inched away. One of the few benefits of living on MREs is that you're usually too backed up to mess your pants in a situation like that.

Brandon Friedman
07-12-2009, 05:37 PM
I have called in or been in close proximity to 2 airstrikes by a British Tornado and 3 Hellfire launches by Apache's. Both Tornado's dropped duds and 2 out of the 3 Hellfires were duds. Also was with a group of Soldiers, smoking cigarettes in our patrol base, surrounded by cement walls at least 10 feet high, and an RPG round landed right in the middle of us - don't even know what direction it came from - it just smacked into the ground in front of us all. Dud.

The duds from the Tornado's and Apaches were directed at the enemy - no real danger to us. That RPG round - we just kind of stared it for a minute and then slowly inched away. One of the few benefits of living on MREs is that you're usually too backed up to mess your pants in a situation like that.

Good stuff.

jcustis
07-13-2009, 04:48 AM
If someone who didn't know anything about the standard 5.56 rounds had surveyed the carnage after the shooting, there's no way the person would believe that three out of four occupants in the car had survived just fine. The moral of this story (and I guess I'm preaching to the choir here) is that you can basically pack a small car full of people, light it up with machine gun fire for 10 or 20 seconds at close range, and still not kill 75 percent of the people in the car.

It's interesting that you bring that up. Different weapon, but I witnessed a demo where the instructors at Bill Scott Raceway fire broadside into a Caprice with various pistols. 9mm proved to penetrate the best among .22LR, 10mm, 9mm, .38 Spl, .357, and .45 ACP.

I think it's pretty easy to tell which rifle round penetrates cover better. There are studies all over the place that detail data...and it makes me sit back and think that if we can reasonably assume that our threat isn't going to stand out in the open awaiting the fusilade, but rather take cover, then why don't we employ the best round to defeat barriers?

We don't have coaxial or pintle-mounted 5.56mm weapons on our armor, even though the maximum effective ranges are comparable. I'm sorta leaning back across the fence that maybe development of a MODERATELY CONTROLLABLE 7.62mm wpn might be the right thing to pursue.

jcustis
09-07-2009, 06:08 PM
I like this concept weapon, especially considering what I currently do in light armor.

http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/PDRtech_PR.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLcHkCcz_c

Ken White
09-07-2009, 06:15 PM
for use by vehicle crews or those not normally engaged in direct ground combat is what do those folks do if circumstances change and they are suddenly engaged in direct ground combat... :eek:

That said, that one makes more sense than do the ones with the weird little cartridges. :cool:

jcustis
09-07-2009, 06:47 PM
or use by vehicle crews or those not normally engaged in direct ground combat is what do those folks do if circumstances change and they are suddenly engaged in direct ground combat...

I'd have to see a comparative breakdown of the terminal ballistics. The barrel length is 10.5 inches, and although there is definitely a loss of performance against a 14.5 in M4, I don't know how significant the difference is.

And yeah, I like how it doesn't require exotic (as Magpul calls it) cartridges.

Those guys at Magpul are doing a lot of things right, and they are really tied into what operators use, abuse, and need. I deployed last time with several replacement magazine followers made by them, and they worked like a charm. Now I have completely replaced my issued mags with thier P-MAG, which is of very good quality and capability.

Schmedlap
09-07-2009, 10:24 PM
... then why don't we employ the best round to defeat barriers?
5.56mm AP worked pretty well. But, like everything else worth a damn, it was only authorized for SOF. What little that we obtained was via dope deals arranged by our Battalion Ammo NCO.

William F. Owen
09-08-2009, 06:41 AM
I'd have to see a comparative breakdown of the terminal ballistics. The barrel length is 10.5 inches, and although there is definitely a loss of performance against a 14.5 in M4, I don't know how significant the difference is.

I think you'll find it significant, in terms of trajectory at 250-300, for engaging torso sized targets. The lack of energy means the round begins it drop pretty early. - If I remember the figures correctly.

Kiwigrunt
09-09-2009, 12:27 AM
And with regards to fragmentation of non exotic 5.56, this from the ammo-oracle (http://ammo.ar15.com/project/AmmoOracle_061808.pdf) (a 1 Gb download pdf)


Temperature, altitude and humidity are other factors. As temperature or altitude increases, air becomes less dense and bullets travel faster. Contrary to common conceptions, as humidity increases air also becomes less dense and helps bullets retain velocity.
It is important, then, to keep in mind that any statistics given can only be approximate and can be affected by a wide range of factors. But as a baseline, these numbers are what you could expect for 75° F, 25% humidity, at sea level, from various barrel lengths:

Distance to 2700 fps for M193
20" Barrel 190-200m
16" Barrel 140-150m
14.5" Barrel 95-100m
11.5" Barrel 40-45m

Distance to 2700 fps for M855:
20" Barrel 140-150m
16" Barrel 90-95m
14.5" Barrel 45-50m
11.5" Barrel 12-15m


And:


Interesting, few of these reports [stopping power] seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

Firn
09-15-2009, 09:00 AM
Wish I'd gotten in on this conversation a few days ago. Anyway, I never got to use the 77 gr. ammo for the M4 since I was out before they started issuing it. But as an XO, I had to turn down requests from SLs who wanted permission to patrol with a couple of AKs. Personally, I would've preferred to carry one myself.

If you'll pardon the gratuitous "look-what-we-did" photo, here's an example of why:

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa82/angryrakkasan/iraq199-Copy-2.jpg

This fleeing car containing four gunmen probably took 60-70 5.56 hits to the back windshield from a SAW and a couple of M4s. (Rounds were fired from rear to front.) The result? A single enemy KIA (headshot) and three wounded gunmen who were healthy enough to answer questions during their surgery back at the TOC.

If someone who didn't know anything about the standard 5.56 rounds had surveyed the carnage after the shooting, there's no way the person would believe that three out of four occupants in the car had survived just fine. The moral of this story (and I guess I'm preaching to the choir here) is that you can basically pack a small car full of people, light it up with machine gun fire for 10 or 20 seconds at close range, and still not kill 75 percent of the people in the car.

Your tax dollars at work. Hopefully things have improved significantly since fall 2003.

Fragmentation seems to be the key problem here. A very fast and rather light round which is prone to disintegrate rapidly is terrible at penetrating several spaced layers of even very light cover. In this case physics and the experience in the field make a perfect match.

A heavier bullet in the same caliber with a very similar construction keeps the velocity down and increases the momentum. A lower velocity can greatly reduce the stress on the bullet when it hits something, lowering the probability of fragmentation. The higher momentum and sectional density increase the amount of relative soft material the bullet can penetrate.

A good solution seems to me to make different, well designed rounds to match a specific purpose available to all soldiers/NCOs.

davidbfpo
09-15-2009, 12:37 PM
Firn,

Please add a few introductory lines on this thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441&page=55

SWC members appreciate this, within anonymity if required and OPSEC if relevant. It is not a requirement, but the context of new writers is sought.

Welcome aboard,

davidbfpo

Stan
09-15-2009, 05:30 PM
Looking at the photo, that was my hunch, too. I was always taught that the first thing you do in an egress from an unarmored vehicle is to duck beneath the windows because most people shoot at the windows, not the metal. That alone increases your odds of survival dramatically. The driver seems the least likely to duck down, since he needs to see where he's driving (though Iraqis aren't exactly well known for safe driving).

Way back when Bragg was doing our anti-terrorist course prior to deployment to Sub-Sahara, we were taught to shoot the Sierra outta the radiator and tires. The pic looks like all the wheels/tires are intact and the plastic grill ditto. Firing at glass with a 35 degree angle is best achieved with larger and less ballistic projectiles like manhole covers, bricks and cinder blocks (OK, 120mm rounds too) :)

We were also dealt a treat with an M2 and half fuel tank of gas. Notta friggin thing happened as all the fuel poured out all over the ground and vehicle looked liked Swiss cheese... Great for movies though.

Stan
09-15-2009, 06:22 PM
... Also was with a group of Soldiers, smoking cigarettes in our patrol base, surrounded by cement walls at least 10 feet high, and an RPG round landed right in the middle of us - don't even know what direction it came from - it just smacked into the ground in front of us all. Dud.

... But not a dud.

Early 2003 we were called in for "explosion in a residential area". At the scene a 60-plus year-old lady answers the door.

She explains, "This morning some Russians were here asking to rent our basement and I knew they wanted to set up some kind of bordell in our neighborhood, but I refused. Later this evening while watching TV I heard my window break and a loud bang."

The Russians had come back and thrown an F-1 hand grenade (http://www.inert-ord.net/russ02i/f1_ww2/index.html) into the living room where the old women sat watching TV. Less than 75 centimeters from her on the couch, the WWII-era F-1 went high order. The walls covered in fragments and the TV destroyed. Oddly enough, other than some hearing problems the old bird had not a single scratch. The only possible scenario was the grenade's fuze cavity was pointed in her direction, or, as the link suggests, poor casting quality :D

davidbfpo
09-15-2009, 08:23 PM
I recall two South African Police officers remarking that a Ford Sierra saloon (or Taurus) had driven through a roadblock on the highway into Soweto; the SAP then used 7.62mm FN SLRs and fired 120 rounds. The car did stop and incredibly three of the four aboard didn't have a scratch.

The ability of house bricks to hinder vision through a windscreen is known here, lighter objects like a wooden truncheon and Maglite torches did not work.

Both tales from the "good / bad old days in the 80's".

davidbfpo

Schmedlap
09-16-2009, 02:58 AM
Oddly enough, other than some hearing problems the old bird had not a single scratch. The only possible scenario was the grenade's fuze cavity was pointed in her direction, or, as the link suggests, poor casting quality :D
I saw something similar. I saw a 60mm mortar impact about 10 feet from an Iraqi Soldier. He got one piece of shrapnel in his leg and he crapped in his pants. That's it.

gute
10-15-2009, 04:14 AM
I read somewhere on the net that in a U.S. Army investigative report of the Battle of Wanat that a couple of guys said their M4s malfunctioned. I believe one said he burned through 12 mags in about 1/2 hour before his weapon would nolonger load. They also said a M249 malfunctioned. I am familiar with M16 and its variants. Personally I find it to be easy to shoot, accurate, and light(er). I have never fired 12 mags through one in 1/2 hour so I do not know if his malfunction was one to be expected or one more example of why the rifle should be replaced. I read it's good, I read it's bad. I read the troops are happy with it. I read they are not happy with it. WTF!

Personally, I think all M16 and M4 uppers should be replaced with the 416. Also, bring back the the fully auto capability - it's all about training. The USMC is lookin at the IAR which I think is a good idea, but why do it if everyone has the capability to go full auto. If the weapon needs a heavy barrel then so be it. Add a HK417 to each squad - DM.

I've read similar complaints about the 249 and surveys conducted by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. I understand why the M240 is not at the squad level due to its weight, but what about the MG4? Or is this weapon basically a 249? I know they look alike.

I have gone off subject, but I think a Marine platoon with two rifle squads each with a MG4, 11 fully auto HK416s and a HK417, and a third squad with 2 M240s, 416s and a SMAW would give our guys more maneuverability, fire power and most importantly realiable weapons.

Stan
10-15-2009, 11:51 AM
I read somewhere on the net that in a U.S. Army investigative report of the Battle of Wanat that a couple of guys said their M4s malfunctioned.

I think you'll be surprised by the results of Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03, Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Army's Combat Development Small Arms Division screened more than 1,000 troops from various units and found that 89 percent were most satisfied with the M4 (compared to 60 percent with the M16A2 and A4).

The report also concluded:
94 percent satisfaction with accuracy
92% with range and
93% with rate of fire.


Also, bring back the the fully auto capability - it's all about training.


Actually, the M4A1 primarily used by SOF is a full-auto version of the M4.

Ken White
10-15-2009, 02:27 PM
The report also concluded:
94 percent satisfaction with accuracy
92% with range and
93% with rate of fire.experience with any other weapons and he knows the M4 is lighter than the M16... :D

The M16 is okay, the M4 a little less so but the Army has too much money invested to undertake a big change for small gain.

Schmedlap
10-15-2009, 09:33 PM
I read somewhere on the net that in a U.S. Army investigative report of the Battle of Wanat that a couple of guys said their M4s malfunctioned. I believe one said he burned through 12 mags in about 1/2 hour before his weapon would nolonger load.
Any reason given for the malfunction? Here is why I ask...

When I was an XO, I made sure that all HMMWVs had several extra magazines of 5.56 at the ready, in addition to the basic loads carried on each individual's vest. I also made sure those magazines were rotated. My Soldiers inevitably btched about the "hassle" of rotating mags, so I showed them why I insisted upon this. I took a magazine that had been loaded with 28 rounds and left untouched for months. I handed it to my driver and told him to lock, load, and fire it. He did so. After one round, it malfunctioned. Why? Because the spring was toast from being compressed for months. I can imagine a similar scenario if that Soldier at Wanat fired off all of the magazines on his person and then grabbed a few magazines from a pile that had sat at-the-ready, but untouched for months.

Was it the weapon or the magazine? Or was it the ammo? In the heat of battle, did the Soldier insert a magazine that was half ammo and half sand? Was the weapon damaged during the fight?


They also said a M249 malfunctioned.
No kidding, 17 out of 18 of our SAWs were too unreliable to even consider using in OIF I. I had them all refurbished by the -40 level civilian contractors when we redeployed. When we went back on our next deployment, we used the same SAWs. No issues at all. Many units are carrying SAWs that are well past their wear. They have been beaten to hell over years of training, fired tens - perhaps hundreds - of thousands of blank and live rounds fired in all types of weather, beaten against the ground, jostled in vehicles, jarred while mounted on a pintle of a vehicle crossing rough terrain, etc, etc. At some point, even the glorified, indestructible AK needs some maintenance. Show me an AK that has fired even 1/4 of the number of rounds of a SAW or M4 that has been on the property book of a US Army Infantry Company for 5 years.

gute
10-16-2009, 04:23 AM
The article did not mention anything about bad mags, etc. Like I said in my first post I like the M16 system. I use a Rock River for work and have not had any problems, but I NEVER have I had to burn through 12 mags in 1/2 hour. Maybe next time I go to the range I will do it and see what happens. What I wonder is if the M16/M4 blow back system and 12 mags is the cause. From what I have read the short stroke system on the 416 keeps the chamber "cleaner". I have also read that the original feed tray on the 249 was the cause of most of the malfunctions and some have been replaced with steel trays and that malfunction nolonger exists.

I do not see the U.S. going to a new rifle anytime soon and quite frankly I do not think it is necessary except for dropping 416 uppers onto m16/m4 lowers. Basically the same weapon - muscle memory is the same.

I appreciate the responses, but I still would like to know why our guys do not have fully auto capable rifles. I understand fire discipline and conserving ammo, but I believe training would for the most part make this a moot point. I believe the use of telescoped ammunition and the introduction of the AAI LSAT LMG is a more attainable goal then getting a new assault rifle that is a generation jump over the legacy rifle - at least at this time. Use some of this damn stimulus money to make sure our guys have the best. For what it's worth.

Stan
10-16-2009, 07:10 AM
Was it the weapon or the magazine? Or was it the ammo? In the heat of battle, did the Soldier insert a magazine that was half ammo and half sand? Was the weapon damaged during the fight?

An interesting coincidence having just read an article about Colt Defense providing 6 or 7 new mags with each M4 (up to 800 shipped each month). I think that article referred to damaged mags not being discarded (read not rotated frequently).



... but the Army has too much money invested to undertake a big change for small gain.

Concur. The Army (and Marines a year or so more) were into the M4 and its development since 85 or 86. But then, Colt's current contract ends this year ;)

Schmedlap
10-16-2009, 01:59 PM
I appreciate the responses, but I still would like to know why our guys do not have fully auto capable rifles. I understand fire discipline and conserving ammo, but I believe training would for the most part make this a moot point.

I can only speak for myself, but I cannot recall a single situation when it would have made any difference for any of my Soldiers carrying an M4 to fire on full auto. Each fire team had a SAW, which was always sufficient.

On the other hand, I can't recall a single occasion when one my Soldiers fired on burst. It might have occurred a few times, but I don't recall it. And if it did happen, I can't imagine it was all that necessary.

Uboat509
10-18-2009, 01:30 AM
I have never fired my weapon on full auto in combat and did not feel like I needed to. In training the only two drills that I can recall using full auto for were vehicle drills where the vehicle was driving at us and we needed to try to get as many rounds into the block as possible and near ambush drills where we were trying to use overwhelming fire to overcome having been caught in a near ambush.

SFC W

davidbfpo
11-21-2009, 01:38 PM
This thread is very much a "boots on the ground" collection and as an outsider can I ask whether the calibre (IIRC 2.23mm) of the US rifle suffers the same problems as the UK SA80 (5.56mm) as outlined:
In October 2009, we saw a survey of more than 50 servicemen who had fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. It concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers "tailed off" after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.

From:http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2009/11/then-as-now.html

jcustis
11-21-2009, 03:56 PM
While similar, .223 Remington and 5.56mm rounds are not identical. Govt.-issued weapons are chambered in 5.56mm though.

The interesting thing about this snippet:


yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.

is that the basic weapon du jour of the threat over there is an AK-47 or variant in the family of similar weapons. Since that assault rifle has a max effective range of roughly 300-400m, which would compare with the gripes about the 5.56mm rounds, then at 400m and beyond it becomes a machine gun fight...so fight with machine guns! ;)

Frankly, "tailed off" means so many things and also so little, that I think the complainants in that article need to slow their rates of fire, sight in better, and deliver more precise fires. Not surprisingly, one isn't going to enjoy effective fires against an enemy threat 300-500m away on a hillside by returning fire wildly, but we still see video of troops doing exactly that, and running out of ammunition in the process.

Firn
11-21-2009, 06:28 PM
Frankly, "tailed off" means so many things and also so little, that I think the complainants in that article need to slow their rates of fire, sight in better, and deliver more precise fires. Not surprisingly, one isn't going to enjoy effective fires against an enemy threat 300-500m away on a hillside by returning fire wildly, but we still see video of troops doing exactly that, and running out of ammunition in the process.

I think the key problem is usually finding the enemy which tries to suppress you. It is hard to quickly take aimed shot at longer distances at fleeting targets while you are under fire and it is even harder to do so if you can not see them.

In such instances it would be ideal to have some unseen set of eyes with good optics and decent rifles. The advantages of a supporting sniper team/marksmen team are just that. But why don't we let squads use periscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:British_trench_periscope_Cape_Helles_1915.jpg ) or spotting scopes (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0oeiIjod6kI/SlJIW_cKn5I/AAAAAAAAAPo/LGdBhsXqihY/s400/digiscoping+setup+blog.jpg) which enable more or less overt observation from a covert position? Attach a digital camera an you can record what you are observing from behind cover (the attachement point of the spotting scope can be rotated). Good modern spotting scope have an amazing optical reach due to amazing optical qualities even at a magnification of 60. The information and the digital files can be easily shared with your mates and used to facilitate the use and direction of indirect fire.


Not the same as an UAV in the sky but a cheap and easily implemented solution with staying power. The power of digiscoping (http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/) :)

Fi

Kiwigrunt
11-21-2009, 11:59 PM
The interesting thing about this snippet:

'yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres'

is that the basic weapon du jour of the threat over there is an AK-47 or variant in the family of similar weapons. Since that assault rifle has a max effective range of roughly 300-400m, which would compare with the gripes about the 5.56mm rounds, then at 400m and beyond it becomes a machine gun fight...so fight with machine guns! ;)


Totally agree. And that would of course be real MGs, the gimpy in 7.62
The SA80 series (both IW and LSW) have both got good length barrels and are inherently claimed to be very accurate so, wind and other external factors permitting, should be able to outreach any AK by a reasonable margin. That short-barreled Minimi on the other hand……

The article is not very specific but I wonder to what extent the ‘tailing off’ refers more to the Minimi than to the SA80. That said, and as discussed at length earlier, there are better 5.56 projectiles available than SS109 that should be able to turn almost any SA80 into a near-DMR.

Also from the article:


We were told that the British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him." The study thus claimed that, for want of a rifle with a longer range, Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, were often fired at lone gunmen.

Now that seems a bit silly. That would suggest that UK small-units have more Javelins at hand than GPMGs and sniper rifles. That should be an easy fix, cost wise and weight wise. In fact, I’m hard pushed to see any justification for a smallish patrol in Taliban country to even be carrying Javelins.

jumpinjarhead
11-22-2009, 04:29 AM
I can only speak for myself, but I cannot recall a single situation when it would have made any difference for any of my Soldiers carrying an M4 to fire on full auto. Each fire team had a SAW, which was always sufficient.

On the other hand, I can't recall a single occasion when one my Soldiers fired on burst. It might have occurred a few times, but I don't recall it. And if it did happen, I can't imagine it was all that necessary.


I generally agree with Schmedlap...In Vietnam, my Marines were "encouraged" to use single well-aimed shots and only used auto for fire suppression to exit ambush kill zones etc. Once they realized that they were actually killing people quite effectively with single shots, it became a matter of scorn and derision (as Marines are wont to do) if some Marine "inadvertently" went to auto, followed by a good ass-chewing by my gunny.:)

Uboat509
11-23-2009, 07:38 PM
In the last few years the only two situations where our SOP called for full auto were near ambush and vehicle drills, where the vehicle is driving at me and I dump a mag into the windshield because the windshield can make accuracy iffy at best.

SFC W

Schmedlap
11-23-2009, 08:20 PM
Come to think of it, if our M4s had a full auto selection, I can recall one occasion when we would have run out of ammo and things would have gotten real ugly. Our patrol base came under a pretty intense, complex attack. Everybody responded as we rehearsed, in that they went to the positions that they were supposed to go to and took up sectors of fire that they were supposed to take up. But 18-year-olds, adrenaline, and a big gunfight sometimes don't mix well. I spent more time than was acceptable just grabbing team and squad leaders and telling them to get control of their men and start taking well-aimed shots so that we wouldn't run out of ammo. It was one of the few days when I wondered how everyone could simultaneously forget every bit of training they'd received.

SethB
11-23-2009, 09:21 PM
That said, and as discussed at length earlier, there are better 5.56 projectiles available than SS109 that should be able to turn almost any SA80 into a near-DMR.


SS109 is almost a catch all for the various NATO rounds, all with a common weight and construction.

American made M855 is within that specification, but the M4 allows higher pressures than the British use. Radway Green is loaded much lighter and so even with a longer barrel the velocity difference isn't that great.

And if you want better performance, get any of the heavier bullets.

Most Soldiers would never be able to use the advantages of better rifles or ammunition. Basic Training Soldiers aren't even trained in the basics of trajectory. Just where to hold to pass the qualification. Under those circumstances you can't expect them to hit a target at more than 300M with any regularity, although the rifle is more than capable of it.

William F. Owen
11-24-2009, 08:39 AM
This thread is very much a "boots on the ground" collection and as an outsider can I ask whether the calibre (IIRC 2.23mm) of the US rifle suffers the same problems as the UK SA80 (5.56mm) as outlined:

From:http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2009/11/then-as-now.html

Really? How can anyone with a serious infantry background state something so blindingly obvious. 5.56mm does not work well over 300m? OK, what effect was sought? Why are you trying? So what?

The platoon should have a good weapons mix that includes 7.62mm GPMG, 8.59mm and various forms of projected HE.

Schmedlap
11-24-2009, 06:40 PM
The platoon should have a good weapons mix that includes 7.62mm GPMG, 8.59mm and various forms of projected HE.
And bayonets (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19millett.html).

SethB
11-25-2009, 02:12 AM
Wilf, I continue to wonder why you advocate the .338 for the PLT level. It is a 1500M cartridge when used properly, but has disadvantages. It is expensive to purchase and more expensive to use.

What kind of training (initial and sustainment) would you advocate and how would the weapon be employed?

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, but it is fairly unconventional.

reed11b
11-25-2009, 02:33 AM
And bayonets (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19millett.html).
talk about unneeded wieght.
Reed

William F. Owen
11-25-2009, 06:55 AM
Wilf, I continue to wonder why you advocate the .338 for the PLT level. It is a 1500M cartridge when used properly, but has disadvantages. It is expensive to purchase and more expensive to use.

What kind of training (initial and sustainment) would you advocate and how would the weapon be employed?

I'm not saying that it is a bad idea, but it is fairly unconventional.

Yes, it's expensive, but that is mostly a function of procurement issues. Buy more and it will cost less. The UK now has the L115A3 in Battalions.
The trajectory is very flat compared to 7.62mm, and it's good in high winds, so it's easier to hit stuff at 1000m because range estimation is less of an issue. Plus it's big bullet able to deal with light cover. I wouldn't bother training folks for over 1,000m, so I like 8.59mm cos it makes the snipers job easier! - that's it.

....and yes, a 7.62mm bolt action is probably more than adequate for more situations.

Rex Brynen
12-16-2009, 02:56 AM
It seems to me that the thread has thus far ignored one of the key requirements for any assault rifle, namely the ability to shoot hostile laptops.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D151209/laptop.jpg



Haaretz - 21:40 15/12/2009

Police shoot U.S. student's laptop upon entry to Israel (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135243.html)

By Bar Ben Ari and Or Hirshauga


Israel Border Police officers shot at an American student's laptop as she entered Israel via Taba, Egypt, two weeks ago.

Lily Sussman, 21, wrote on her blog (http://lilysussman.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/im-sorry-but-we-blew-up-your-laptop-welcome-to-israel/) that border police subjected her to two hours of questioning and searches prior to shooting her Apple Macbook three times.

"They had pressed every sock and scarf with a security device, ripped open soap and had me strip extra layers. They asked me tons of questions?where are you going?" Sussman wrote, describing the experience.

"Who do you know? Do you have a boyfriend? Is he Arab, Egyptian, Palestinian? Why do you live in Egypt? Why not Israel? What do you know about the 'conflict' here? What do you think? They quizzed me on Judaism, which I know nothing about," she continued.

Sussman said that she then heard an announcement on the loudspeaker. "It was something along the lines of, 'Do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passenger luggage,'" she wrote on her blog.

Moments later a man came to her and introduced himself as the manager on duty. "I'm sorry but we had to blow up your laptop," Sussman said he told her.

"The security officers did not ask about my laptop prior to shooting it," Sussman told Daily News Egypt. "They used the word 'blew up' when they told me they destroyed my laptop. I don't know why they shot it."

Schmedlap
12-16-2009, 05:02 AM
It seems to me that the thread has thus far ignored one of the key requirements for any assault rifle, namely the ability to shoot hostile laptops.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasite/images/iht_daily/D151209/laptop.jpg

That is a staff officer's wet dream.

Firn
12-16-2009, 12:35 PM
Note the careful selection of weapon, caliber and bullet to deliver the desired effect upon the enemy with quick and accurate semi-automatic fire.


Firn

Kiwigrunt
12-17-2009, 08:07 AM
Here (http://gaspiston.com/video/osprey-defense-5-minute-installation-video/) is another drop-in gas system for the M16 series.

SethB
12-18-2009, 01:17 AM
Here (http://gaspiston.com/video/osprey-defense-5-minute-installation-video/) is another drop-in gas system for the M16 series.

Why? It introduces many new variables to fail. Carrier tilt, premature bolt wear, piston breakage and the like.

If you want something with a piston and a rotary bolt then get an AR18 based design. The carrier rides on rails so it can't tilt and won't wear the upper prematurely.

Similarly, if you want the most reliable system regardless of weight use a tilting bolt system like the BAR, 240 or FAL.


Yes, it's expensive, but that is mostly a function of procurement issues. Buy more and it will cost less. The UK now has the L115A3 in Battalions.

If you buy the L115A3 then the most logical thing would be to allow the barrel to be replaced at the Bn level. It is extremely expensive, it will never be cheap, but most weapons aren't, and the capabilities are fairly awesome. The trick is just making sure that the guy behind it can use it.



The trajectory is very flat compared to 7.62mm, and it's good in high winds, so it's easier to hit stuff at 1000m because range estimation is less of an issue. Plus it's big bullet able to deal with light cover. I wouldn't bother training folks for over 1,000m, so I like 8.59mm cos it makes the snipers job easier! - that's it.

I like that. I would argue that a smaller cartridge (as small as 6MM) makes sense because it can be made to fly as flat, but if you want to get through foliage or autobodies then you'll need something bigger.

I'm currently corresponding with a Soldier who uses a Mk 12 to shoot 5.56 out to 900M with good effect on the enemy. It flies flatter than his team mates M110 in 7.62. Go figure...

Schmedlap
07-07-2010, 02:29 PM
I've got one question for you. What's up now, haters? (http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/examining-the-complaints-about-american-rifle-reliability/)

Kiwigrunt
07-08-2010, 10:44 AM
It appears the 5.56 SCAR is still in the running (http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=640) for SOCOM.